Talk:Kevin Folta

USRTK

USRTK is an organic industry front group. From [1]:

Major Donors

Organic Consumers Association: $194,500

Just that, no other donors listed. We don't need to WP:ATT this to Forbes, since they are completely open about it. USRTK exists solely to pursue political actions at arms length, and there is no significant source of funding other than OCA/OCF, whose own funding is obscure but whose foundation was fully funded by the industry.

This is not controversial, as far as I can see, they don't do anything to deny it or even try to hide it. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

dude, you've just pissed all over the 1 revert discretionary sanction to make this point, how about discussing your eidts before swinging your dick in future? Semitransgenic _talk. 17:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I totally missed the discussion on this page about this particular thing. Oh, wait, there isn't any, because people were too busy "pissing all over 1RR". Now let's all behave like grown-ups shall we? Guy (Help!) 17:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, we shall, let me just bend over here so you can spank me with those ever so manly hands of yours. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

May want to remind yourself of what you just said there too. Irony is one thing, but if you want to take it to WP:AE, we can discuss your violation as well. This was discussed with arbs a bit where gaming of 1RR by doing things like continuously readding similar content even after it was initially reverted is a problem. Proper protocol would have been for you to come to the talk page after Guy's first edit when it was clear your edit didn't have support rather than try to edit war similar things in.

Focusing on actual content, if it's described by Forbes in this manner, we have a reliable enough source to not need attribution. We generally reserve attribution for weaker sources that aren't as reliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

yes sir, thank you sir. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Controversy in intro

@Tryptofish: regarding [2], is the controversy in the sources cited "over his rebuttals to critics" or because he accepted tens of thousands of dollars of industry payments which were not disclosed until his emails were FOIAed?[3] ("his university now intends to donate the Monsanto grant money to a food pantry."[4]) EllenCT (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The language that I changed it from said "His work in promoting GMO food...". So I was thinking in terms of his public statements rather than in terms of the money. And I think that "promoting" the food was a somewhat POV description of what he actually did. It was more like arguing that criticisms of the food are unscientific. It seems to me that the language I provided does make clear that the criticisms of Folta are based on what his critics call a financial COI, and I don't think that we need to provide details of the dollar amounts or the FOI request in the lead, because the page covers all that below. And what I wrote about the criticisms of the critics reflects the later paragraphs of that section, and I think it would be POV to leave that out. That was my reasoning, anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Do you think his acceptance of the $25,000 grant from Monsanto after and prior to subsequently claiming that he was an independent expert was ethical? Is there any evidence that any of the disputes over "his rebuttals to critics" rise to anywhere near the same level of controversy? Is the financial conflict of interest more accurately described as "alleged" or both proven and admitted? ("'I can understand that perception 100 percent,' he said, 'and it bothers me a lot.'"[5]) Where are the sources supporting your statement that his critics have been criticized for their claims? EllenCT (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I just went back and checked that NY Times source, and the full quote was: "Nobody tells me what to say, and nobody tells me what to think...Every point I make is based on evidence...I can understand that perception 100 percent, and it bothers me a lot." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, so you don't need to ping me (although I'm now about to log off for the day). It doesn't matter what I think is or isn't ethical. I don't see the rebuttals and the COI thing as being separate: the criticism is that those rebuttals were made because of a financial COI. As for "alleged", that word was there before my edit, but I would keep it in light of everything that is in the section about what happened, and per WP:BLP. I don't think that there is any doubt that the money changed hands, but there is clearly disagreement about whether or not that had any effect on what Folta has said about GMOs. We should be cautious about going beyond what the various sources say, and there were a lot of sources saying things like the FOA was a "hatchet job" and so forth; they are listed on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What you think is ethical most certainly does matter, since you are editing about an ethics controversy, and I would appreciate an answer on whether you think the self-characterization as an independent expert after having personally accepted the money was or was not ethical. I would also like to know the specific reasons you think "alleged" is more appropriate than proven and admitted, please. Then we can move on to whether the FOIA request is or is not legitimately described as a hatchet job by reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you are interrogating me to determine whether I am good or evil. I'm trying to edit for NPOV. I'd rather discuss specific proposals, so I will now turn to the proposal below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are trying to uphold NPOV, when is the last time you've included the views of those with whom you do not agree on the matter? If you thought it was ethical, you would have said so. If there was any evidence that the allegations are not proven and the conflict of interest is not admitted, you have had ample time to state it. That you want to cover the events up is not upholding NPOV at all. EllenCT (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose "There has been controversy over his rebuttals to critics of GMO food, who have alleged that he has financial conflicts of interest, and who have been criticized in turn for their claims," be changed to, "Folta gave a series of talks and podcasts promoting GMO food, including Monsanto products, while claiming to be an independent expert after having accepted a $25,000 grant from Monsanto for travel, food, and equipment in support of the talks. He did not disclose the payment until it was discovered by anti-GMO activists who obtained his emails through a Freedom of Information Act request. His university attempted to return the money but donated it to charity after Monsanto refused to take it back." EllenCT (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this proposal as an accurate summary of the reliable sources currently used in the article. EllenCT's wording is more straightforward and more accurate than the earlier version which is overly focused on rebuttals and not on the core of the controversy.Dialectric (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The proposed wording is accurate and appropriate. Jusdafax 05:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support (with slight change after seeing Brustopher's comment below) - More WP:NPOV than previous version. I haven't reviewed all the RS carefully, but from what I have reviewed, I think Brustopher's concern is valid, so maybe start instead with "Folta gave a series of talks and podcasts promoting GMO technologyincluding Monsanto products...". (or some of this language from the article "advocate for public perception and policy, which appeared favorable to the industry.") However, if the RS does say he promoted Monsanto products, then that should stay in. I believe he was assigned by the Monsanto PR person to make any GMO critics look bad per this email on Jimbo's talk page from Sachs, so if that is in the RS that may be appropriate as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing in the main body of the article talking about the promotion of Monsanto products. Which source talks about promoting Monstanto products. He's not exactly going around selling Roundup out of the back of a van. The whole "claiming to be an independent expert" phrasing also seems to be pushing a conclusion through phrasing. Would be willing to support a more neutrally phrased version of this though.Brustopher (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'm happy to work with alternative wording proposals, although I think that this proposal needs some work before it can be considered compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We need to move away from language that violates WP:CLAIM, for example, and we also need to appropriately reflect the last three paragraphs of the section about COI accusations. And, given that it's the lead section and subject to BLP, we also have to consider the length in terms of WP:DUE. I would go more along the lines of:

Anti-GMO activists who obtained Folta's emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request found that Folta had given a series of talks and podcasts in favor of GMO food, after having accepted a $25,000 grant from Monsanto in support of the talks. The Union of Concerned Scientists responded that the FOIA request was "overly wide" and that it would create "chilling effects on researchers". Nature Biotechnology responded that Folta had been "targeted" for his views, creating a "hostile environment" for scientists, and that Folta's actions did not violate professional standards.

The cites for that are in that section of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I revised the last sentence, to be more directly about Folta, but I'm open to multiple possible ways of writing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel there's something innapropriate about citing Nature in defense of him, when Nature seem to have written the main article attacking his acceptance of the funding too. Brustopher (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. But I no longer support this approach anyway, please see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This phrasing gives lengthy extra weight to the accusation of financial COI without including the other points of view in the associated part of the article. As mentioned previously, it would be better to keep the information about this in the lead succinct and allow the interested reader to read it in the body instead, where the entire topic is discussed in context and extra care was taken to ensure neutrality for a WP:BLP. Additionally, the phrase "He did not disclose the payment until it was discovered by anti-GMO activists" is false, as the donation was given to the university and properly disclosed per university standards. It is also WP:OR as there is no reliable source on this page that is making the claim that the donation was undisclosed.  Adrian^[232] 12:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Folta claims the donation was disclosed properly. Sources suggest otherwise - the nytimes article implies that the payments were not fully disclosed, and http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-new-gmo-controversy-20150925-column.html states "The resulting reports implied that Folta in effect lobbied for Monsanto while accepting undisclosed payments from the company." and the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/dec/30/problem-with-science-journalism-2015-reality-kevin-folta) has "questionable choices Folta had made as part of this scientific outreach... included undisclosed ties to the biotech giant Monsanto, which were uncovered by a controversial FoI act request" Dialectric (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The LA Times article rightly attributes that claim to USRTK, and immediately afterwards mentions the flip side which is Folta's statement that the University of Florida—the one who received the donation, not Folta—disclosed the grant. Thus the article is neutral on that specific point, and the article ultimately appears to favor Folta. As for other sources, "undisclosed ties" does not mean "received an undisclosed donation". The entire matter of disclosure vs nondisclosure outside of the grant money becomes a matter of perspective on what information should be disclosed, especially given that multiple sources state that Folta has committed no scientific misconduct. Certainly anyone can make the claim that something previously unknown was "undisclosed", but if there is no standard to disclose that information then nondisclosure is within the bounds of completely normal behavior. The perspective of the supporters of Folta is that his activities were perfectly reasonable given his role as department chair of a land-grant university. I believe for these reasons it would be difficult to make a case to use the wording "undisclosed", without attribution, in any neutral capacity.  Adrian^[232] 14:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I just remembered that there has already been a marathon discussion about how to write this in the lead: pretty much all of Talk:Kevin Folta/Archive 2. I went back and reviewed that. And I came away thinking that we should (a) not try to reinvent the wheel, and (b) keep it short and simple, with details lower down on the page. Therefore, I would prefer to go back to:

Folta has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like the most reasonable approach. I haven't seen anything new in the above conversation that wasn't already covered in the archived discussion warranting a change. Plus, the proposed language in the above section can run into weight issues as we do need to be careful about overly legitimizing the claims that there was a conflict of interest. As before, the lede introduces the controversy, and weight is sussed out in the body.

On a related note, this conversation reminded me that at one time I had been wanting to write an article on unrestricted grants (relevant here because they are not considered a financial COI the way they are used at universities because unrestricted means there cannot be strings attached). Especially given all the COI training and checks we need to go through at universities, there's information out there,[6] but the trick is finding good secondary sources on the subject. There may be some such content to integrate here in the future, but I'll leave that for another day when I get around to that larger project. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this wording. It is succinct and summarizes the points in which all of the sources about it agree, without giving favor to a particular point of view. The topic is quite nuanced and it would be difficult to condense the entire discussion into a sentence or two. A simple statement like this is sufficient to introduce the subject and allow any interested reader to navigate down to the section and read about it in its full context.  Adrian^[232] 12:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I oppose such short wording. Replacing the description of the events with "faced controversy" hides the fact that the money was not disclosed until the FOIA investigation occurred. Subsequent statements by Folta claiming that he denies he was in a relationship with Monsanto but would describe it as such if he had to do it over, and continued attempts to claim that the money was not for his personal expenses in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was, shows that this effort is plainly an attempt to cover up unethical behavior. That a number of bioscience editors continue to participate in the coverup is a clear conflict of interest at the same level of Folta's original conflict of interest. EllenCT (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

For me, the bottom line here is that this page is under Discretionary Sanctions, and is subject to the BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose an RFC to decide between the two proposals. EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is any new development to warrant an RfC after the content was pretty much settled in the archived discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CCC. EllenCT (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I could have cited CCC for more guidance on this. However, I already stated there hasn't been anything particularly new brought up in discussion that would warrant a change over what was already reached in the archived discussion, which effectively reiterates what CCC says about the situation anyways. To have an RfC, there would need to be a pretty major change at this point in discussions as opposed to everything above that's mostly just a rehash of the previous consensus discussion. That hasn't really been demonstrated yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Due to some topic bans, the population of editors taking part in this discussion going forward has changed somewhat. I wonder whether now there might be consensus to go with the sentence that I posted at the top of this sub-section? I would prefer it, and I think that it's probably better to include it than to omit it entirely from the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

“He has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections” Tryptofish thanks for this edit, I do like this new sentence much more than past revisions, I would however like to suggest one change. I would propose using the word claim instead of say. This isn't something that critics are just saying, they are making a claim (true or not) Unconventional2 (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm reluctant to make that change without some careful discussion first, due to WP:CLAIM. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin Folta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151220233020/http://www.talkingbiotech.com/instructor/ to http://www.talkingbiotech.com/instructor/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal on Miller quote

I've removed a quote that was attributed to Henry I. Miller from the COI section [7]. While it is true that there is an archive of the article used as a source, the problem is an unusual one - the reason why Forbes removed all of their articles by Miller (including this one) is that Miller was found to have published material written by Monsanto and publishing it under his own name [8]. This creates two problems - we need to question the reliability of Miller in regard to GMOs in general, but more importantly we need to be very cautions about using him in regards to accusations of conflicts of interest. - Bilby (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

While I understand the caution here, the article being used as a source is not the article under contention. Forbes seems to have removed it from their site simply because they've ended his column. The article is an important part of the sequence of events happening here. Interestingly, Miller seems to have fallen victim for the exact thing he was speaking against in this article, which is using subpoenaed emails in order to accuse scientists of conflicts of interest. Because USRTK and other organizations not involved in the scientific process can convince the NYT to write articles accusing folks of conflicts of interest does not mean we should also rule it a conflict of interest or otherwise unreliable. Removing Miller's criticism is more problematic than keeping it, as it introduces bias.  Adrian^[232] 12:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that it feels like a significant problem to use the opinion of a writer to defend someone against criticism that they had a conflict of interest with Monsanto, when that writer was then found to have a conflict of interest with Monsanto themselves. Their opinion is tainted. We don't need Miller, because we already have Nature Biotechnology speaking in defense of Folta, and Jack Payne, Gretchen Goldman, Nina Fedoroff, Peter Raven, Phillip Shar and Steven Novella to argue against the use of FOI in this manner (only Ralph Nadar is presented as argue in favour of its use). We don't really need Miller, and Miller isn't an appropriate choice for this issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

My take is that removing the quote is reasonable. Because we have multiple other quotes on the matter, we do not need the quote to establish WP:NPOV. The Forbes removal was approximately similar to a retraction, and I think that we have to be guided by that. If there is an alternative source that characterizes USRTK in that specific way, I'd probably support adding that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)