Talk:Jon Entine

Possibility Entine is tweaking this page himself

User Runjonrun has been suspected of being Mr. Entine himself. [1] User Fences&Windows wrote: "As you use the same username, Runjonrun, as Jon Entine uses on other internet sites, it appears that you at least have a close connection to the subject. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography for the guideline on someone writing about themselves."Vikingsfan8 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Runjonrun has indeed stated that he is Jon Entine, and disregarded advice by several different editors about editing articles where he has a conflict of interest. Many of his edits to this page appear to be highly problematic (e.g. unexplained deletions of sourced material, additions of promotional text). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting as this issue is quite rare. Editing your own article is generally discouraged, however it is permitted as long as one complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. So what I suggest we do is simply make sure the article stays neutral and revert any unbalanced edits, if they ever appear. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I went through all the bigger changes that user Runjunrun made on this article. Even if it is Jon Entine himself, I cant really see a reason to be concerned, since he mostly just rephrases stuff and content mostly as it is. On one occasion he deleted a part concerning allegations made by sourcewatch.com or the phrase "He is himself not a geneticist". I don't think that is problematic, although it would have been nicer to give a reason for these change (Sidenote: Sometimes he also deletes "Pro Jon Entine" stuff). Of course it's not optimal to tweak your own wikipedia-article, but I'd put an emphasize on the rather unproblematic nature of the changes that were made by User Runjonrun.

I looked at this list: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Runjonrun&page=Jon+Entine&max=500&server=enwiki

This is the mentioned allegation from sourcewatch: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project

This a reaction written by Jon Entine: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2021/06/15/anti-biotechnology-critics-say-the-genetic-literacy-project-is-a-monsanto-funded-corporate-front-its-not-true-here-is-the-documentation-and-a-review-of-the-bizar1/

May the reader decide, what to think. Bojack666 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources for "Background" section

Currently unsourced statements in this section:

• After graduation, he became the assistant director for the re-election campaign of Robert Drinan, a Democratic congressman from suburban Boston.
• Entine has won 19 journalism awards,
• including Emmy Awards for television specials on the reform movements in China and the Soviet Union
• and a National Press Club award in consumer journalism.
• He is also a public speaker on genetics and identity for the Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Federations of North America.

I wasn't able to find anything independent to substantiate these. Any suggestions? And if we can't find sources, are any of these uncontroversial enough to remain? Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I felt that it was appropriate to cut these claims at this point. If anyone can find independent WP:RS I would encourage them to reinstate the claims along with proper citations. Generalrelative (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In October 2021, editors removed Jon Entine from "Category:Jewish American journalists" and "Category:21st-century American Jews" but those categories should be restored to his entry. Here are some direct quotes from Entine:

"My visit to Israel was a deeply personal journey, spurred by the tragedy that DNA has visited upon my family. Although raised as a Reform Jew, dutifully bar mitzvahed and confirmed, and even though I had majored in religion and philosophy in college, I had long since lost my faith." - from Chapter 1 of Entine's book Abraham's Children (2007)

"...comments about Muslims and immigrants that don’t sit well with many Jews, including me." - from Entine's "Opinion: Event showed strength of U.S.-Israel bond" on March 28, 2016 at https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/03/28/opinion-event-showed-strength-us-israel-bond/82356378/

"Entine’s interest in his Jewish genes started in 2001 when his sister was diagnosed with breast cancer. Entine’s mother, aunt, and grandmother had all died from either breast or ovarian cancer. He found out that breast cancer amongst many Jewish women of Ashkenazi heritage was caused by the BRCA2 gene mutation, a mostly Jewish mutation that has been passed on to successive generations for 2000 years. He realized that Jews are Jews by their DNA" - from an article about Entine in Avotaynu's Winter 2007 issue

He was born into an Ashkenazic Jewish family. 2600:1000:B155:CF7D:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

"Our family tree disappears into the 19th century eastern European Diaspora," wrote Jon Entine on page 42 of the March/April 2008 issue of Ancestry magazine in his article titled "Is DNA Abolishing Differences or Embracing Them?". On page 44 he continues, "What are the ancestral origins of Ashkenazi Jews? Using a DNA testing service, I discovered that my own Y-chromosome, [...]" 2600:1000:B155:CF7D:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The part that Generalrelative deleted on 19 July 2020 that had read "He is also a public speaker on genetics and identity for the Jewish National Fund" had a source URL -- http://www.jnf.org/about-jnf/in-your-area/speakers/perspectives-on-israel/jon-entine.html -- that Jon himself had added in his 19 January 2012 edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Entine&diff=472096986&oldid=472095950 many years ago. He did not provide a source in that particular edit for his speaking on the same topics for Jewish Federations of North America. If we look further, we could perhaps find sources for more of what was deleted as unsupported.2600:1000:B155:CF7D:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors also requested a source for the sentence "He graduated from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1974 with a B.A. in philosophy.".

From Trinity Reporter December, 1974 page 6 under the section for the year "74":

"Having recovered from a rigorous four year haul through Trinity, the Class of '74 entered the ranks of [...] JON ENTINE has accepted a job as a writer with the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) in New York."

Archived at https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1989&context=reporter

But that doesn't specify that he graduated with a B.A. degree in Philosophy. The Philosophy part is stated at his own website at https://jonentine.com/biography/ as well as by NNDB at https://www.nndb.com/people/672/000266871/ but that has been deemed not to be a Reliable Source for Wikipedia purposes. 2600:1000:B155:CF7D:571:7E82:20D5:B83F (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we cut the GLP infobox?

Per Aircorn's suggestion here: [[2]] should we cut the GLP infobox? MOS:INFOBOXUSE makes clear that it's really up to editor judgment and consensus. I concur that this infobox doesn't supply much useful information and seems stylistically out of place. I'll also note that the current iteration of the GLP website doesn't make use of that logo: [[3]] Generalrelative (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox removed by another editor. Generalrelative (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Entine photo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Genetic Literacy Project Funding

@KoA: Sorry! I was not trying to edit war, but to gradually improve the article. However, in hindsight I agree that it would have been better to discuss this on the talk page. So here is my argument to include the information that the "Genetic Literacy Project" (GLP) received funding from Bayer (I am open to listing other sources of funding as well). Please note that, I do not consider this information good or bad in itself; just a part of full disclosure and I do not contest any claims made by the GLP.

First, the second paragraph of the section raises the concerns of influence from Monsanto. Without mentioning that the GLP has received funding from Bayer (which bought Monsanto), the section leaves readers with the impression that the GLP (still) has no conflict of interest.

Second, the same paragraph introduces US Right to Know (USRTK) as "an advocacy group funded in large part by the Organic Consumers Association". I consider this information important. To equally describe the funding of both involved parties, it is necessary to also mention that the GLP receives some of its funds from Bayer. (The New York Times article cited in the section even portrays this as a "G.M.O. Lobbying War" and that "both sides have aggressively recruited academic researchers"; however, without mentioning GLP)

In summary, the section leaves readers with the incorrect impression that only USRTK has a financial interest in the topic, while the GLP has not (which according to its own documents it does). To fairly represent the financial situation of both sides, I propose to name Bayer as a source of funding for the GLP. Nuretok (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally we try to avoid WP:GEVAL arguments, especially with what has come form the anti-GMO lobby in the past and in this topic. That often includes iterations of the Monsanto (now bought by Bayer) shill gambit. That's why groups like USRTK or other fringe outright industry lobby groups are always going to be treated a bit more harshly on Wikipedia. If you want to include specifics on funding for GLP with respect to your recent edit (remember GLP is also not the subject of this article), then we really need independent secondary sources spelling it out for us which ones to mention in terms of WP:DUE. It's not for us to look into a report and pick out one donor from one year out of just the two years reported in the most recent version as that gets into WP:RECENTISM.

In general though things like that would become more in DUE territory if GLP was actually shown as putting out misleading info or changing tack from pretty standard GMO education to say Bayer product promotion. If it's an established science advocacy group that has taken industry funding at times, hasn't really had reliability issues, and the only "detractors" are fringe groups just dangling the funding topic out there, then there's a lot of hoops for potential content on the subject to jump through. Independent sources will speak up if there's something noteworthy for us to include here on funding and make it easier for us too. KoA (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@KoA: Thank you for the detailed explanation (including links). I understand your point, learned something and agree that the content is fine as it is right now. Please excuse the time I have taken from you. Nuretok (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References