Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Detection

I suggest that the emphasis on a single 5-year old primary article for this section is inappropriate. especially since Google Scholar shows it cited by only 25 articles, evidence that it has an insignificant effect on the scientific literature. Inspection of those articles citing it are almost exclusively limited to those discussing soybeans only. It's a suitable reference, but not for the long quote. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading presentation

The statement that GM foods on the market pose no risk is subtly different from the statement that GMOs carry no potential risk. In the lede, the cited sources do support the statement about foods "on the market" but they don't support the idea that there is no potential risk from GM foods. Yet the potential risks aren't even mentioned in the lede. Howunusual (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. This article is about actual, not theoretical, GM food. The article on GM controversies goes into the potential risks. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is about the broad topic of genetic modification of food, not just the GM food that is currently on the market. At least, that is a natural assumption for readers to make. So, there is a bit of sleight of hand, in making a statement--in the lede--about a broad scientific consensus that is, actually, only true of food currently on the market. Howunusual (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the article is currently about actual, not theoretical, GM food. we can of course discuss broadening the scope... Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Howunusual (talk): Thank you for your suggestion. You are correct. Jytdog says that "the article is currently about actual, not theoretical, GM food." Who decided that? I don't agree with that assumption, and it is not stated in the article. I agree with Howunusual (talk) that it is a "sleight of hand", and deliberately misleading. Can we agree to add the content Howunusual (talk) suggested? David Tornheim (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no sleight of hand.. the article is as clear as it could be.

The focus on actual food as opposed to theoretical food (?) or products in development, was decided back when the the articles were reorganized so they would each cover a distinct aspect - we have one on the basic science (Genetic engineering); one broadly covering the various kinds of organisms that have been modified, and why (Genetically modified organism) (which has many, many subarticles); one on the actual crops that have been modified, really focused on the crops themselves and how they are used in agriculture - which was completely lacking when we started - (Genetically modified crops) and one on the resulting food (this one). There are two articles on regulation (Regulation of genetically modified organisms focused on the basic science, and Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms which is focused more on commercialization - the actual release of them into the world). Finally, because the controversies cut across all of them, and had come to dominate all of them in a thicket-y, repetitious, and even self-contradictory way, we created a Genetically modified food controversies article that covered all of it in one place, and per WP:SUMMARY, included a summary of that article in each of the others. We did the same thing with the regulation-of-release article. You will find those two summary sections near the end of each of the articles above, and a set of links at the top orienting the reader where other related topics are. It has worked well to keep the content well-organized and non-overlapping for a few years now. We can discuss a re-organization, anytime you like. It should take the other, related articles into account.

I think it is really important that people have a place to go, to learn about what actual food out there is GM. That content didn't exist in WP before we built it. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is completely possible that some future GM food might be hazardous to humans. Genetics, while rapidly advancing, is still in its infancy. To assert that some speculated food will be harmful is not helpful. Better to talk about whatever flaws may exist in today's risk assessments and testing protocols. You can't prove that every GM food will be safe (or prove any other prediction.) You can assess the safety of today's products and discuss the risks of today's procedures producing some future harm. That's it. Lfstevens (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lfstevens (talk). This is one of the major criticisms by GMO critics--insufficient testing. The articles does not reflect that and is therefore lacks NPOV. Let's include information from critics in both the lede and the article about concerns of insufficient testing and showing the major differences between the U.S. and Europe and nations that have GMO bans. None of this is articulated in the article, but instead there is vague language with "big" words like "regulation" and "differences" but no details with useful information. Consumers need to know the difference in regulation between different countries, so they know what is possible, not just which things products are GMO--which incidentally they would know if the industry, AMA, etc. did not so vigorously oppose labelling.David Tornheim (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If we have WP:RS support for the "inadequate testing" claim, I'd say that goes in. I have seen a host of non-RS sources making the claim. As has been repeatedly covered, the issue is not the existence of a claim. It's about sources. Lfstevens (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

____________________
This article is about GMO food. The introduction needs to say there is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO food. While I can not speak to the accuracy of the carefully constructed claim that "that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food," it is clear that the phrasing of this statement gives the false impression that there is scientific consensus on the safety of GMO food, which is not true.

This is the conclusion of an open letter published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe and signed by more than 300 independent researchers. Furthermore, I would like to point out that their introduction begins by noting that there is "a concerted effort by genetically modified (GM) seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists to construct claims that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over.’"

Considering this, I think it is crucial that Wikipedia-- often the first search result for many subjects-- refrain from furthering the false claims of "scientific consensus." As it is, the exclusion in this article of a statement on the lack of overall consensus on the safety of GMO food is irresponsible and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.76.198 (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see there is a discussion on the "consensus" claim further below as well. This comment is more appropriate here, however, because it is about the introduction giving a misleading impression. The misleading statement that I commented on above should stay, if it's true. With the addition of noting that there is no scientific consensus on GMO food overall, that statement will no longer be misleading (pending the results of the ongoing discussion).

66.169.76.198 (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
_______________________

Definition of genetically modified food and the role of this article

I think that the debate on the relevance of potential risks has something to do with the definition of "genetically modified food" itself. We have an article on Genetically modified crops. Other genetically modified organisms may be used as foods. The definition used in the article is "foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering." As such, it sounds like the strain responsible for the Starlink corn recall is a genetically modified food, because it entered the food supply; but it is possible some here are thinking it's not a food, because it was not certified to be sold as food. This article currently mentions it in the See Also section only. I would think that GM crops that are not licensed for use as food, such as Starlink or pharming crops, would be generally regarded as not (necessarily or demonstrably) safe for human consumption. This would mean that any statement that GM foods are safe needs to be qualified (licensed GM foods, etc.). On the other hand, if people are suggesting that GM foods only includes those things that are sold legitimately as food, that needs to be explained up front in the definition. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It was developed for animal and human consumption, but not approved. I do not see that it is irrelevant to the article. TFD (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

WHO source

GrayDuck156, please explain your objection to the WHO source per your deletions here and here and here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I am a new editor, so I apologize in advance for any more awkwardness. As to the reason I removed that citation, the source does not support the claim. The link simply contains no support for the claim that "[t]here is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food."

In fact, the source contradicts the claim by saying "...it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Your response, that the sentence does not say "all GMO foods," is not convincing because a reader must assume that subject was implied or the sentence makes little sense. If only an unspecified subset of such foods is included then, logically, 99.9 percent of all GMO food could cause everyone to drop dead if they come within a mile of the stuff and the sentence would still make sense. How about a compromise--change "...food..." to "...an unspecified subset of food..."

I certainly hope that Wikipedia does not change from being a neutral source of information to being a propaganda vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayDuck156 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for talking! That is what we do here when we disagree. it is completely true that it would be idiocy to say that "all GM food is safe". No one here will argue with that. The statement in the article does not say anything about "all GM foods". It says "currently marketed". That is a very, very small subset of "all GM foods" that could ever exist. It is also a very clear subset. The mistake you have made here, is a common one. That is why I wrote in my edit note, "please also read the actual content - it doesn't say "all GM food""

Going further, The WHO source makes it clear that there are three main theoretical concerns. The WHO source also says (emphasis added) "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. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods." Do you see how this source exactly supports the content now? Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That string of citations in the lead makes it look like we are synthesizing, or at least heavily emphasizing, the point, "'broad scientific consensus,' here, look at it all." Probably just the AAAS citation would do (the rest could go where this reappears in the body text), as the AAAS source says: 'Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”' In this case, that should support "broad scientific consensus," additionally supported by the further citations later on. --Tsavage (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

there are so many citations because so many people hate GMOs and come here attacking the statement. It and its sourcing were upheld in an RfC - a link to that is in the FAQ at the top of the Genetically modified food controversies article. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Tsavage that his wording sticks closer to sources without using SYNTH. Justification of the use of SYNTH has no basis in WP policy. I disagree that all discussion should come to halt once a past RfC is referenced; this seems a tactic also not based in PAGs.

I first raised the issue of this "scientific consensus" string of refs at the March Against Monsanto article, where it was inserted early in the creation of the article, but without any reference to the March. It remains one of the most egregious violations of WP:SYNTH on WP that I have seen.

I notice that the "scientific consensus" is elaborated upon in the controversy section. This makes no sense unless it is being used as a rebuttal. Much like in the MAM article, this is a violation of WP:OR. Why should this be under "controversy" rather than in its own section:

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food. The starting point for assessing GM food safety is to evaluate its similarity to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity and allergenicity are satisfied.

The second portion of this paragraph mentions the labeling aspect, but reads more like a PR statement for the FDA (which is currently run by a former VP and lobbyist for Monsanto):

Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries, the US does not require this. The FDA's policy is to require a label given significant differences in composition or health impacts. They have not identified such differences in any food currently approved for sale.

I'm seeing violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR as well as what seems like Advocacy. (Mentioning this should not be construed as "GMO hating".) petrarchan47คุก 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The WP community saw none of those things in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You're saying that 1/3 of the controversy section being used to reiterate consensus of safety (rather than to discuss controversy) was addressed in an RfC? Can you link to this discussion please? petrarchan47คุก 08:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

After 3 attempts to procure said discussion, I have gone ahead and removed the safety section from "Controversy", and to this section added the percentage of Americans who favor labeling (which is what makes it controversial) as well as the new USDA labeling program. petrarchan47คุก 04:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:"Do you see how this source exactly supports the content now?" I disagree with your logic. The WHO claiming that some GMO foods "have passed safety assessments" is not equivalent to the WHO pronouncing that broad scientific consensus exists that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food--especially considering that the WHO neglected to cite any independently-administered clinical trials. Moreover, The WHO claiming that some GMO foods are not likely to present risks for human health is not equivalent to the WHO pronouncing that those foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Skydiving is not likely to present risks for human health (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachuting#Safety), but that hardly means that skydiving poses no greater risk to human health than other forms of recreation like reading or walking.GrayDuck156 (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I hear you; that is your interpretation. If you read all the sources there, they add up to the same thing. There is no basis - no mechanism for toxicity - for questioning the safety of currently marketed GM food relative to conventional food. Which is not perfectly safe. The comparison with skydiving is not apt, at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: "If you read all the sources there, they add up to the same thing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I think this sentence is clear in saying that your defense is not valid. "There is no basis...for questioning the safety of currently marketed GM food relative to conventional food." This is your opinion, not a statement in the WHO web page. "Which is not perfectly safe." I do not see how this sentence relates to whether the WHO citation supports the claim in the article. "The comparison with skydiving is not apt, at all." Please explain.GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What we do here is read reliable sources and summarize them. Summarizing is not synthesis. really, you are beating a dead horse here. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The point is that the WHO article lends no support to the sentence the citation claims to support. None whatsoever. And, as I pointed out below, none of the commenters in that somewhat-related RfC argued in favor of keeping the WHO citation.GrayDuck156 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at this conversation where the consensus statement was recently discussed. There's more going on than just the WHO statement, but we've got adequate sourcing for the statement in general. Also, you might want to read WP:THREAD since you're new to the talk pages. If you indent your comments, we can know who you're replying to. Your last comment technically started a new thread in this section, but that's fine to break things up too for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Thanks for the tips. With regard to your substantive comment, my concern with the WHO citation is not that it is overkill, but that it simply does not lend support to the claim in the article. You and Jytdog have been specific about which sentence you believe lends credence to the sentence, but I have explained why I disagree. Thus, I think you and Jytdog need to explain your analysis in more detail to justify your position that the citation should remain in the article. Please note that I think some of the comments in this thread have become a little off topic. My concern, at least in this context, is only with the WHO citation and its failure to support the preceding sentence in the article.

And I don't agree. And neither does the community. Again, please read the RfC, and please read about RfCs (here WP:RFC) before you continue arguing. You cannot change things by pounding away on dead horses, that the community has already affirmed. Nothing has changed science-wise since the RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:The RfC addressed whether the sentence should remain, not whether the WHO citation should remain. Only one commenter addressed that citation; his assessment of it was entirely negative.GrayDuck156 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

not explicitly mentioning it, is just that. the statement and its sourcing were upheld. And the source does support the statement. I have no idea what is at stake for you here. You clearly misread the content when you started and you are just shifting ground here. I suggest you drop the stick. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Re: "I have no idea what is at stake for you here." What is at stake for you in preserving a citation that does not support the claim presented within the text?? Please read: WP:WHYCITE. GregKaye 15:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment placed out of chronological sequence

@Jytdog: With regard to the citation overkill, there is no need for it because "broad scientific consensus" (or some equivalent wording) appears to be supported in this case by the AAAS statement, for one. If each of those reports actually say there is general consensus (which they all do not), then they are redundant, especially in a lead where no citations are required if the material is a summary of body content. If those sources are simply individual examples of "no harm" findings, then this is some form of synthesis, where a conclusion is being drawn from a number of items - it is not a simple summary to add up a series of documents pronouncing on complex scientific issues to arrive at a brief original summary phrase (no matter how routinely that may be done by topic experts in their professional circles). My point, though, is that a line of citations does not give confidence to the reader.

The RfC on "broad scientific consensus" is not "the WP community" it is a dozen or so editors (WP:CONLIMITED), taking the "informal process for requesting outside input" of an WP:RFC on a daughter article Talk page, attempting to approve original research against core guidance, WP:RS/AC "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

This, like other similar arguments I have seen recently on various science and medicine pages, seem to be all about the editors and their opinions, often to the detriment of content accessibility, when our only good reason to be editing is to write a usable encyclopedia for general readers. My original comment here is about editorial presentation within all other content guidance, and the argument in reply is about other considerations that apparently override basic readability, meanwhile, hitting a wall of citations in a lead makes me wonder as reader what is going on, and begin to mistrust what I am reading. The reason for the multiple citations, as I interpret from the reply, is "citation overkill as a preemptive measure to satisfy the inevitable unreasonable anti-GMO editors who will routinely show up, this tactic in part based on an article-level RfC that attempts to override core guidance by legitimizing a piece of original research." That's a lot for an editor to contend with, and yet it is tossed off as routine. It's not a good state of things. --Tsavage (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "article level RfC". The RfC was on a specific statement, with its sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with nearly everything said by GrayDuck156, Tsavage and Petrarchan47 about the problems with the claimed "scientific consensus" statement and the use of the WHO statement and other sources in its defense and agree that the sentence is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN. The sources for that WP:OR originate from pro-GMO industry biased writers like Pamela Ronald and Jon Entine (and his Genetic Literacy Project). These problems exist regardless of conflicted commentary in the old RfC, which had numerous valid objections, was not even close to unanimous, which even the closer noted was less than conclusive about the use of the sources. The closer also noted concerns with bias and balance that were oft repeated in that RfC, before and after that RfC. Above GrayDuck156 said "Please note that I think some of the comments in this thread have become a little off topic." I do want to respect that concern; however, in talking about whether the WHO statement can be used to support the sentence comes in the context of the RfC, the other sources, the WP:OR issues and the problem with undue weight, etc., so it is hard for me to discuss without considering the entire context that sentence is found which makes it so problematic and biased. Please also note previous concerns I raised here and LesVegas raised here, and sources I provided here that challenge the bogus "scientific consensus" statement. I will likely create a new topic just about the "scientific consensus" as I did previously, or we can continue here. David Tornheim (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• As is discussed here, the evidence for the "broad scientific consensus" claim is very bad. The dateless authorless WHO FAQ especially so. GrayDuck is correct that this source makes direct statements against the claim at hand! As can be seen from the linked page, the WHO FAQ has been used to support the questionable "scientific consensus" claim for more than two years. These sources flagrantly violate the purported standards for reliable sources on medical issues (WP:MEDRS), while peer-reviewed literature reviews — e.g. (Redacted) — are disregarded. Yet Wikiproject Medicine, despite numerous red flags (ping User:Doc James ping User:SandyGeorgia) seems unwilling to act. The reluctance to change the "scientific consensus" statement undermines the credibility of WikiProject Medicine and of Wikipedia as a whole, and represents a serious ethical issue. groupuscule (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Groupuscule. Science-based editors follow the science. It is apparently time to affirm the RfC we already had. Anew for each generation (and remnants of the old who cannot drop the stick....) Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your RfC is unnecessarily confusing, and distracts from my main point here, and what seems to be one of the overall general points in this thread, which is the wall of citations. --Tsavage (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

So what are we expected to do here, just tell Jytdog how brilliant he is and how foolish we were to question the inclusion of the WHO citation? He has not made a serious attempt at discussing the issue with an open mind. He has not provided any quotation on that web page that is equivalent to the sentence it purports to substantiate, nor has he explained why he thinks the WHO FAQ lends support to the sentence (to say nothing about whether it does so without violating the synthesis rule). The onus is clearly on Jytdog to continue this discussion without insulting attempts at premature conclusion ("I suggest you drop the stick"). GrayDuck156 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors. You started a thread on a specific source; others took it to the broader discussion of the consensus statement as a whole. That happens here. Let's see where things stand on the bigger question and if you still believe you are right we can address that next. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No; we have obligation or reason to suspend this discussion until you have found somebody who will take your side. If you have no basis for your position--and it is becoming rather obvious that you do not--, we should proceed on that basis. GrayDuck156 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The FAQ WHO page never claims that there is a scientific consensus on whether GM foods are as safe as conventional foods and, considering their partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme on the contradictory International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, published in 2009, I doubt that is how the WHO meant for their page to be interpreted. The assessment reports that there are a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health related to GM food. It also notes that, of the limited numbers of studies published, some have found adverse effects. This partnership suggests that the WHO would not agree with your evaluation of their FAQ page and, even if that is what they meant to say, the UN assessment points out that such a conclusion of consensus is wrong. If you all have been so confused about how the WHO feels on this issue, why don't you just send them an email instead of applying your personal interpretations to their page? Their contact form is here: http://www.who.int/about/contact_form/en/ 66.169.76.198 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone requesting that the WHO take an official position on the sentence. While we wait for them to do so, however, the current citation needs to substantiate the statement. GrayDuck156 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

anything communicated privately from the WHO would not mean anything in WP. Perhaps they might update their website....Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we have achieved consensus that the WHO citation should be deleted. We all agree that the web page does not directly state that there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. We also know that Wikipedia policy forbids claims of academic consensus when no direct assertion exists in the purported sources and that "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus) Even pretending that the direct statement problem could be overcome, we all seem to agree that the WHO cite does not even contain the lesser claim that any subset of GMO foods pose "no greater risk to human health than conventional food." Thus, it adds no support for the sentence whatsoever. It might support other relevant assertions, like "GM foods currently available on the international market...are not likely to present risks for human health," but not the sentence it currently purports to support.

Jytdog has suggested that we should count the votes of the people who have tangentially supported the citation in the RfCs. Wikipedia policy is clear that they are not relevant to the discussion: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean...the result of a vote. ... In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." At no point has anyone in either this thread or either of the related RfCs presented any argument for how any statement in the WHO page supports the specific sentence at issue. The commenters in the new RfC are mainly engaging in a political debate about GMO foods, which is not relevant to this discussion.

If someone is worried that the article will not put GMO foods in an adequately positive light without the citation, surely you can find better ways of improving the article than insisting on keeping a bogus citation.

All that said, I think the time is coming soon to go ahead and remove the citation. If Jytdog insists on trying to block that move, I think we need to pursue higher-level dispute resolution. GrayDuck156 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the conversation that followed on your original post soon overtook your point and went to broader issues. That happens here. It would be a bad move to mess with the the sourcing of the statement under discussion in the RfC, while the RfC is underway - that would be disruptive. There is WP:NODEADLINE here. Let the RfC run its course. Oh - and please read WP:RFC - it is not a headcount. (this is what I mean - you hardly understand how things work here) Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please correct me if I am wrong in counting but so far editors within this discussion who are favour of the removal of the WHO citation are: GrayDuck156 Tsavage petrarchan47 Kingofaces43 David Tornheim GregKaye with the one editor so far against being: Jytdog,

Re Grayduck156's comment, "Jytdog has suggested that we should count the votes of the people who have tangentially supported the citation in the RfCs." I agree with the view that "Wikipedia policy is clear that they are not relevant to the discussion" However if any editor regards that a wider consensus is required then one way forward would be to ping all contributors of, for instance, the mentioned discussion.

Meanwhile I do not think that consensus here could be any more clear with WP:consensus being defined as, the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals. Correct me if there is any p&g that indicates otherwise but I think that the most appropriate way forward would be to make the change and give notification in the RfC of both the change and the presence of this discussion so as to open up to other views. We also, I think, would require a p&g based reason for the retention of the WHO citation should there be support for it to be kept. GregKaye 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Greg, look again at who is actually talking about the WHO source (you can use control F and look). You will see that only GrayDuck, me, and kingofaces directly discuss it; david tornheim and groupuscule mention it in the course of discussing their unhappiness with the consensus statement generally, and tsavage and petrarcan don't even mention it. the conversation broadened with tsavage's remark which came right after mine. everybody else talks about broader issues and that includes tornheim and groupuscule. and kingofaces does not say that he opposes use of the source. Per the WP:TPG please do not misrespresent what other people write. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

JytdogYou write things like, "do not misrespresent what other people write".

I said "Please correct me if I am wrong in counting" and openly pinged all editors for comment:

Tsavage said, "That string of citations in the lead makes it look like we are synthesizing, or at least heavily emphasizing, the point," and s/he seems to me to regard the whole thing as unjustified by its citations.

david tornheim said, "I agree with nearly everything said by GrayDuck156, Tsavage and Petrarchan47 about the problems with the claimed "scientific consensus" statement and the use of the WHO statement and other sources in its defense and agree that the sentence is little more than WP:OR and WP:SYN." and the same applies.

groupuscule said, the evidence for the "broad scientific consensus" claim is very bad. The dateless authorless WHO FAQ especially so. GrayDuck is correct that this source makes direct statements against the claim at hand!"

petrarchan47 said, "I'm seeing violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR as well as what seems like Advocacy." basically seeing the content as unsupported by citations inclusive of the one from WHO

Fair enough about kingofaces who has not stated a view one way or another and who was infact the initial editor to revert the initial citation removal which was then with comment "Restore unexplained removal of source". GregKaye 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

At an entomology meeting, so I won't be able to jump into this conversation for another day or two. I will toss my hat in for now to say the source should not be removed. Glancing over the conversation though, I have not seen any arguments that would result in consensus that the source should be removed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also Greg, please strike your characterization of me agreeing with removing the source. Nothing I've said or done here in terms of edits should have ever led someone to believe that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not support removal of the WHO source, but as Sarah SV notes, we aren't quoting them accurately. They say "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." I support adding this to the article. petrarchan47คุก 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned this elsewhere, but to keep things on topic here, we actually do accurately represent the source with the current content. That part omitted from that sentence you quoted is, "Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." The nuance in that is represented with the currently on the market statement of safety. It's basically the source saying the equivalent of WP:CRYSTAL for concrete statements of safety. We could start getting into risk assessment of GM techniques compared to normal breeding where the part you bolded isn't entirely true in reality, but that's a pony to break for a different day with everything else going on here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Voting is not consensus, but in the interest of a straw count, i add my voice to sharing the concerns of GrayDuck156. We need to hold dialog with logical integrity and answer questions genuinely, and work together to arrive at logical conclusions with good faith toward each other. I do sense an atmosphere of obstructionism here. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't get a straight answer, and, besides ownership issues, obstructionism does seem to rule this talk page. I'm trying, but if this fails, is anyone aware of what course of action would be best? petrarchan47คุก 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not let the currently-open RFC directly related to this topic run its course? Zad68 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Intentionally or not, the current RfC arose as a distraction from this thread, which is about sourcing and individual sources. The RfC seems hopelessly ill-formed: we can only arrive at consensus on a statement of "broad scientific consensus" based on sources, and with 18 or so sources cited, the RfC is attempting to discuss all 18, including lists of publication dates, excerpts from each, and so forth. If the "scienctific consensus" conclusion is not a synthesis of a number of those sources, then each and every source should be equal as far as supporting the statement, and vary only in quality of the source. So why not reduce the sources to the two or three most reliable and discuss the issue from there? The RfC as it is now does not seem to be workable, and I'm not clear on why it was called. --Tsavage (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

what is the source of this notion that "each and every source should be equal as far as supporting the statement"? Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong: the sources are supporting the "broad scientific consensus" statement, therefore (per WP:RS/AC), the sources should directly say that there is scientific consensus (in those or very close words, "general agreement among the large majority of scientists," or the like). If any one source does not itself say that directly, it does not support the statement, and there is no reason for it to be cited. The remaining sources can then be considered for reliability under WP:VERIFY and related guidance: is an AAAS BoD statement reliable for this purpose? is the opinion of an expert in the field who is an active public promoter of GM food reliable? and so forth. Is that not the process? --Tsavage (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this comment from the last RfC, which might answer your question. Analogous descriptions can be given for at least the first five sources. Sunrise (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: Please see this further consideration of the AAAS statement (beginning in the third comment down with the numbered points). --Tsavage (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no issue with the WHO source being used here, which is perfectly suitable for the purpose. Yobol (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"It would be a bad move to mess with the the sourcing of the statement under discussion in the RfC, while the RfC is underway - that would be disruptive." Removing the citation would not affect the sourcing of the statement under discussion in the RfC. The paragraph at issue in the RfC does not even exist in the article. GrayDuck156 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GrayDuck, part of the process of working toward consensus is adapting. You are waging a full-court press here, which is not helping you.Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)