Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about March Against Monsanto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

POV != COI

Maybe the arguments about COI editing have played down both here and on the drama boards. However, I would like to make one observation. There is a large difference between POV editing and COI editing, and some of the claims here may have missed that distinction. Editors always have POVs, and on controversial topics they typically have differing POVs, and achieving a neutral POV is difficult although necessary. While arguing on a talk page that an editor has a POV is focusing on the contributor rather than the content, but is likely to happen when the editing gets hot, and allegations of POV editing are best ignored or downplayed. Unless the allegations of POV editing become personal attacks ("you fascistic pusher of a fascist POV", for instance), they do not normally rise to the level of requiring warnings, let alone blocks. However, the allegation of COI is a sword that cuts both ways. The allegation of COI by an editor who does not declare that COI is itself an attack on the editor's integrity, because an editor who edits with a COI that is not disclosed is deceiving the Wikipedia community. If the allegation is true, the COI editor may warrant a block. If the allegation is baseless, the editor who made that accusation may warrant a block. The argument that WP:COI is not clear is one that I consider groundless; the policy is clear. COI doesn't cover "mere" POV editing. An allegation that anti-march or pro-GMO editors are doing POV editing is merely a focus on the contributor, not useful, but not toxic. An allegation that anti-march or pro-GMO editors are doing COI editing really is an allegation that they are paid by Monsanto or otherwise have a concealed corrupting agenda. If anyone doesn't know the difference, they shouldn't make accusations. The allegation of POV editing is common in editing contentious articles, and is best ignored. The allegation of COI editing is a two-edged sword, and any editor making that claim should be aware that, depending on its truth or falsehood, one of the editors is likely to be sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC) As Tryptofish has said, drop any allegations of COI editing, or take them to WP:COIN POV != COI. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we please not have more sections that are not about the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

While I have some quibbles on the fine points, I agree with Robert McClenon is saying which to drop such allegations. Which means I also agree with IRWolfie's comment which is to stick to article work here. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

'GMO controversy' section.

I have removed a comment about lobbying and slightly rewritten this section. I believe that it now gives an encyclopedic and balanced description of the background to the march without promoting any anti/pro views on Monsanto or GM foods. What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Although it is well sourced, but somewhat out of date, I have removed the poll data because it is not about the march, it is an argument supporting the marchers' position. What exactly was it supposed to balance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, what exactly is your poll result supposed to balance? It is just promoting the marchers' POV, which is not the job of an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 is not out of date. Since we have stepped away from a need to use protest-related sites for the scientific position, it is also reasonable to use a poll to show that 9 out of 10 Americans question it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The quoted poll was 2010. We cannot try to balance a general scientific consensus with a poll of the public. Firstly they are about two different subjects, the scientific consensus is about the safety of the foods but the poll was about labelling.

I have no strong opinion either way on labelling but this article is not the place to discuss the subject. All we need to say is that the marchers want labelling of GM food and some others do not. It is not our job to decide who is right, or to present evidence for either side here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree Martin. However, if in this article we include sites to contradict their position, sites where the protest is not mentioned, we must also include information that supports their concerns in a similar manner--thus the poll is reasonable. My preference would be to remove any information that is not directly related to the march. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Which sites are you referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that we should deal with the overall controversy, beyond the March itself, according to WP:Summary style, I have low enthusiasm for including the poll. It looks to me like the poll was added sort of as a way to balance the other edits that Martin made. To the degree that those edits might have needed to be balanced, a better approach would be to try to fix them, instead of to get into making other compensatory edits to balance them. And I do think that some of Martin's edits were a mistake in this instance, and so I have revised them. In particular, I was quite puzzled by the removal of the quotation marks (gosh, do I sound like Viriditas now?), because we have discussed those quotes numerous times before and the consensus was to leave them as direct quotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any consensus. The quotes serve no useful purpose and only make the writing less encyclopedic. There are no issues of plagiarism (the quotes are far too short) or of attribution (both views are clearly attributed. Quotations like this encourage 'quote wars' instead of a proper encyclopedic writing style. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A while back, you removed a lot of quotes, and the now-blocked editor made a big deal about it. I commented that I felt that most of your edits then were helpful, but that I would prefer to restore direct quotes from the people who were behind the protest. Subsequent discussion seemed to indicate that there was at least some consensus, including no objection from you at that time, for putting those quotes back as direct quotes. The drama on my user talk page about supposed plagiarism was about one of those two quotes. Taking those things together, I would have preferred that if you now wanted to de-quote those quotes, you would have discussed it here in talk before, rather than after, doing it, as we are doing for so much else. I am optimistic that the battles over quote wars are going to quiet down now, so I think the best way not to reignite them is to not make new changes that could reignite them. There is nothing un-encyclopedic about having quotations in an article, whereas it's a little dicey to have passages as long as those presented without quote marks, with one unchanged from the source, and the other only changed from "can" to "could". Really, these two direct quotes should not be a big deal to you, so I don't see any reason to tone them down. Let's leave the quotes, and, in "return", let's leave out the poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you at least explain to me the encyclopedic purpose of having direct quotes. There is no possibility of misunderstanding if we paraphrase or even use the exact words in our text. The use of a few words of normal English cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called plagiarism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can explain that. As I just said above, there "is nothing un-encyclopedic about having quotations in an article". It's an article about the March Against Monsanto. People have said things about the March Against Monsanto. We report some of the things that they have said. Maybe there's a slight difference in tone, compared to some old-fashioned print encyclopedias, but that is because we are not an old-fashioned print encyclopedia, and we report a wider variety of topics than anything that has previously been produced in print. This article is about a present-day controversy. We sometimes quote what people said during the controversy. Previously, I agreed with some of your edits about quotes, but I do not see the issue as extending so far that, every time a quote appears, we have to run from it squealing "eek! eek! it's a quote! I'm so scared! save me!". These particular quotes are not going to set off a quote war unless editors on both "sides" decide to make it a war. I didn't say that you plagiarized, but I said that "it's a little dicey", and that's what it is, no more, no less. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems that I have with this section is over-footnoting. There is no need to have five footnotes, with one of them (currently 12) broken down into bullet points, as citations to bang home the point that GMOs are fine. It takes up an excessive portion of the article and is overkill. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is likely an artifact of the broader conflict in place. I tend to agree with you that we should be able to boil it down to one specific source that asserts this. A Reason.TV link I provided earlier does this, and has the added benefit of tying the consensus in with the March. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's also in violation of the footnoting guideline I believe. I'll have to look that up. This is part of a larger imbalance problem in the article as discussed below, and I've tagged it for that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cut it down to two, which is more than enough to establish that GMOs are as safe as a daisy in springtime. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Image

I'm apparently not seeing something about the image that, according to the edit summary, is creating a lot of white space. I don't see that white space on the computer I'm using today (the one I typically use), nor on the one I was using two days ago (while traveling). Thargor, maybe you could describe here what the layout problem is, on your display. I'd really prefer to keep the image, in that we ought to be showing that sort of thing on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You beat me here. The issue is about 8 lines of whitespace between the "media coverage" and "Monsanto and industry response." I'd rather not lose images we can use, either, but I also don't think the value is worth the formatting. I'm not sure of the answer, as I have a massive display and it's pretty significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's really odd, because I don't see the same 8 lines of whitespace. I'm guessing that it has something to do with the width of various screen displays, especially since the "clear" made it worse. I'm going to try an alternative approach now, so if it doesn't work, just revert me, no problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That worked! It did push the CEO image into the references, but that's not really a big deal. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And I've been reverted on it, so I'm going to leave you two to figure it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just add more sourced text that was deleted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that depend on what the text is? My reading of the image size guidelines is that one should avoid making images too big, as opposed to too small. Anyway, it looks OK on my computer either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

haha, You two should change your usernames to Laurel and Hardy. I've been trying to figure out which image you mean for ages. --Roxy the dog (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ImageSize. " In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so."--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Stan, it's the Swedish image in the Positions section. Thargor finds it's so big that it spills into the sections below, or, if we put a "clear" tag in, to prevent spillover, then there's a huge amount of white space below it. Canoe objects to specifying a pixel size. I'm tired and about to log off. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a piano that needs moving up some stairs.--Roxy the dog (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There are basically three choices if images don't fit. Whitespace, add more text, or create a gallery. Forcing image sizes is not recommended.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of images, do we need one of Monsanto's CEO? I removed it a while back and was reverted by Viriditas. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood why it's there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remove it will anyone object? It's not a pressing issue so I'll leave it open for now. However, I think that this exacerbates the POV issue by enlarging the Monsanto section. It's like having a photo of the president of Merrill Lynch in an article about the Occupy movement. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the only person who objected is now blocked for a while, so I don't think you'll get much pushback. The Monsanto section is quite small and provides necessary background for readers, I don't think it pushes a POV in either direction. Can you explain why you disagree? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary at all. As I mentioned in the previous section, there seems to be a tendency to view this as an article about the GMO controversy rather than one about the movement. Note the examples I cited in the previous section. I'd rather we discuss it there and not here, if you don't mind. Coretheapple (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm loathe to rerun a largely dormant debate, but the article has to address some of the fringe viewpoints per policy. A paragraph on who Monsanto is and what Monsanto does is appropriate about an article protesting Monsanto. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A fourth option is to remove the image, Canoe. I don't know why you're insisting on a poorly-formatted article at this point. This cannot be acceptable (leads to image of current page) Thargor Orlando (talk)

There are basically three choices if images don't fit. Whitespace, add more text, or create a gallery. Forcing image sizes is not recommended.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A fifth option is also to move images around, a sixth to force the image size as it's "good reason to do so" when it's breaking browser formatting. If we see further issues with it that can be shown, we can make further adjustments. This is an incredibly stupid thing to be fighting over. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see all that white space when I view the page. Also I am opposed to removing any image other than the Monsanto CEO. The other images show the demonstrations and removing them would exacerbates the imbalance issue. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Then we should just go back to what Tryptofish did. I'm just going to do it, I think massive whitespace on a screen is "good reason to do so," to use Canoe's logic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to remove any. Just create a gallery at the bottom of the march section. The Utah one with the organizer should also be the lead image.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The most recent image change has now created really bizarre indentation issues. Can someone please explain what was wrong with the initial Tryptofish fix that didn't impact anyone else's screens? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll just repeat that I don't care. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the image issues. Is it a browser thing? Coretheapple (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand either, but I'm guessing it has to do with the dimensions of people's viewing devices. A lot of white space on some monitors, no such white space on others. By the way, I like the cropped image that Canoe provided. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles do not look right on tablets. We can't necessarily adjust every article to fit some kind of common denominator. Doing so may result in alteration of the layout so as to over- or under-emphasize certain images. If an article is OK in Internet Explorer and Firefox, that is sufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why has the lead photo been removed and replaced by a somewhat chubby, confused-looking woman with no signs or marchers to be seen? Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This is true. I hadn't noticed that. We should switch the position of the photos. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. When she has her own article we can use that photo--this one is about the march. Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

She is the founder and it is an image of her on the march. Thus the best image for the lead.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess so. It makes sense to have the photo of Canal in the Cal 37 section, where we quote her the most. (And please, no more comments about what she looks like.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's where I put it, in that section, as that is where she is discussed. The lead photo is of the actual protest. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I think it's a big mistake to put a picture of this woman as the lead photo. While she originated it, the article is about the movement, not her. We should use this picture, but where she is mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't for her the march would not have happened. That is the most appropriate image for the lead in this case. She is first mentioned in the lead.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the others, it belongs in her section. The image of her is not a good representation of the March. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks really strange, and is undue emphasis. The other lead photo, of the protest, is a bit too small but I can't seem to make it bigger. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I made it a little bigger though not quite so large as it was previously... Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

California Proposition 37 and the Farmer Assurance Provision

I have started editing this section to make it more in line with the section heading. So far I have just moved one paragraph. The other two paragraphs do not really belong in this section as they are about the marchers' motives and opinions. They are also written in an unencyclopedic tone which promotes the marchers' POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude. This article is about the protesters' POV - please rest from your copious contributions to his page until you can comprehend this basic premise. petrarchan47 t c 10:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is not, it is about the march. Of course, it should clearly state the protesters' POV and motives; that is what an encyclopedia does. It should not promote the protesters' POV, there is a difference. An encyclopedia exists to tell us facts not opinions. Stating that the protesters had a particular viewpoint is a simple fact. Expressing that viewpoint in a manner that promotes it or shows it in a specially favourable light is expressing an opinion. WP does not express its own opinions.

Of course it should also state Monsanto's response but not promote it. Finally, it should make clear what the mainstream science view is on GM foods, but only once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see my simple, and I though non-contentious, logical reorganisation reverted. Hardlythe spirit of cooperation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read about the protest before contributing much more to this effort. That is all I ask. March Against Monsanto (MAM) is an international grass roots movement as well as a protest against the Monsanto corporation and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). petrarchan47 t c 23:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The protesters' viewpoint

I have RE-added the fact that some have questioned the scientific consensus on the safety of GM foods. This was a major reason for the March Against Monsanto, yet these links continue to be removed. We have a list of 5 or so links to outside, non-March-related sources declaring the safety of these foods, and the wrongness of the protesters. Fine. But those who question the safety were mentioned in nearly every article that covered the protests. These links and references have been removed since the beginning of the creation of this article. That is unsupportable and I hope with more eyeballs on this page, such ridiculousness will cease. petrarchan47 t c 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We really need that, and what was just added is indeed minimal, even skeletal I would say. Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I was uncomfortable when the sentence was removed, and I support putting it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with the way that Thargor just moved that sentence ahead of the "consensus" sentence. That's even better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(Trypto, please speak up when you're uncomfortable at the time, you seemed very much in support of everything that has happened so far, and I hope the impending ArbCom doesn't see folks suddenly changing tunes whilst expecting to be taken seriously.) petrarchan47 t c 22:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my, I'll leave the ABF there to that eventual arbitration, but I can explain very clearly exactly how I decide those kinds of things, because it's something that I do very deliberately. Every day, when I start looking at this page, I begin by reading all of the talk page comments since I last looked in. I read them, and try to understand what everyone has said, in the context of what I read them say previously. Then, I go through each diff of new changes to the page itself, to see what has changed, and to see where there have been any reverts. I then think about any edits with which I might disagree. But, before acting on anything where I disagree, I try to understand something: where the consensus amongst other editors appears to lie. Sometimes, there's something where I disagree, and it looks to me like most actively engaged editors here disagree with it too. That's when I'll revert an edit (as has happened when you have complained so much). Other times, I will see that I disagree with something, but a large number of actively engaged editors disagree with me. In that case, I'll refrain from reverting. If it's something that I feel strongly about, then I'll raise it on this talk page. If it's something where I don't feel as strongly, then I let it pass for the moment, but I'll comment in talk when I see someone else raise the same concern. And that's exactly what I did in the case of this edit. My experience has been that editors who work in good faith for NPOV have mostly come to respect me for that. But editors who want to push a POV do indeed tend to get annoyed with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Very minimal coverage indeed, but tiny additions such as this have caused huge problems here, the addition of FRINGE accusation and tags, etc, and the editors being labeled "anti-Monsanto" and all sorts of things. So forgive me if I am timid to a fault at this particular page. I will share from the archives what was added before this thing was gutted. petrarchan47 t c 22:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

When I first built this article, the following in bold is the extent of the GMO/health concerns that I included:

Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequencesTruthout

Take a look at this version; this presentation is pretty much the way RS talked about the protest/movement. As you can see, the concerns are much more varied than the presentation on the page now, which forces the GMO controversy at top and excludes most of what the protesters actually said. The truth is, the "Monsanto protection act" was said to be a main factor for the protest size, having passed only weeks prior)

More articles about the march supporting this claim:

Guardian "But some say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment."

Montana News "some people questioning the long-term health risks that come with consuming food that contain unlabeled GMOs."

HuffPost "But critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment"

NOLA "Monsanto--the corporation being protested--has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years for its products' alleged adverse effects on the environment, human health and small business agriculture"

Because people have come in and forced non-March-related sources into the article to support their "GMOs are super safe" line, we no longer have the compunction (under which I was editing) to balance (ie, to reflect the views of the article subject) this SYNTH using only March-related articles.

Here is another version where I recently worked on the "Background section" adding the oh-so-controversial introductory bit about the protest, and ordering the subsections to better reflect the way RS presented the issue. The only way to help build this article is to actually read some/all of the source literature. I would suggest using the ref list from this version to that end. I have read every article available about this March in my research whilst building the article, and would suggest that the only way to adequately gauge how we're doing here, is to do the same. In this respect, I guess it's a good thing not much has been written about the movement. petrarchan47 t c 23:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No complaints about any of those things being added attributed to the protesters with the exception of the unreliable Truthout. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm..... Truthout has an extensive article on Wikipedia. It seems to have pretty good credentials. Has its reliability been discussed previously, here or preferably on the RS bulletin board? Coretheapple (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Truthout has terrible credentials. You'll recall that they were behind the entire "Karl Rove is going to be indicted" nonsense that we were teased with for months back in 2005. They're a highly partisan, inaccurate source, and we should avoid using them, especially when we clearly have good sources to use instead. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection either to stating those facts as the marchers' claims except that they are already there; we have, 'The marchers expressed the belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health,[34][35] with some of the protesters asserting that such foods cause cancer, infertility, and birth defects'. Repeating the same claims in different words gives them undue weight and is unencyclopedic. Just for the record I am equally against endless repetion of the mainstream science position or Monsanto's response. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Truthout is fine and because of its coverage of this story is particularly useful. All news media at times publish incorrect stories. If you want to get into news coverage of the Iraq war, especially the events which led up to it, most if not all major U.S. news services continued to publish false information about weapons of mass destruction, links to al Qaeda, etc. TFD (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Truthout is not fine, it has a history of actively making up stories to suit an agenda. It's not news, and should be avoided at all costs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering that:

60 Minutes cited a report published at Truthout as a source for their episode on May 16, 2010 about the BP oil spill and the whistleblower who was warning about a possible blowout at another BP deepwater drilling site.^[1] Digital Journal wrote up the story.^[2] CNN's Randi Kaye in an article cited a report by Truthout as the first article on Mark Kovak's inside knowledge about the safety concerns at the Prudhoe Bay, Alaska BP oil field.^[3] On July 8, 2010 Kim Murphy, a reporter for The Los Angeles Times cited Truthout's investigation into neglect and cost-cutting practices at Alyeska Pipeline in her report on the resignation of Alyeska's CEO.^[4] On July 14, 2010 the United States House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing in the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. The hearing^[5] titled "The Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines (Part 2): Integrity Management," cited an investigative report by Truthout as a document for the committee's investigation.^[6]

What exactly do you think is wrong with it? Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mostly that it's a highly partisan source with a history of incorrect reporting. Jerome Corsi has been referenced in plenty of newspapers and reports too, but he's not a reliable source for anything, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

They have no such reputation, and you have not offered no evidence of your assertion. TFD (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of partisan sources that count as reliable sources (the Fox properties, The Nation, Al Jazeera too). Did any verdict ever come from RSN? Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but they're typically not favorable about unreliable partisan sources. The Nation, The New Republic, National Review have a history and a set of standards that simple advocacy media like Truthout does not. We don't need Truthout in this article for any referencing, so why use it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You wrote just last month at RSN, "ThinkProgress, Media Matters, and Truthout are used and defended regularly here. [13:45, 27 July 2013]".[1] You are now making charges against them without any evidence. The fact that one story, which was double sourced per journalism standards turned out to be untrue is no worse than Judith Miller writing numerous stories for the New York Times that turned out to be false. TFD (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Check the context: that wasn't a positive claim. You yourself said "no one suggests using extreme left sources," and I listed three that were defended regularly. That doesn't mean either of those three are worth using in an encyclopedia. Regardless, we don't need to use Truthout for the claim being made above, so there's no need to concern ourselves with it, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

POV concerns

I've been away for a while so I'm having trouble picking up the thread of the discussion here. I have concerns about this article that I and others have expressed previously, and remain. Right now, there is too much of an effort to make this into a kind of mini-GMO controversy article, with every claim of the protesters either watered down or rebutted. This article is about a notable protest movement. If you go to similar articles such as Occupy movement, you will find that very little if any space is devoted to the substantial Wall Street and conservative position that the Occupy protesters are wacky fringe cranks. Far too much attention is devoted to debunking these Monsanto protesters. It skews the article and it is not necessary. The "fringe" argument doesn't hold water because this is not an article about the GMO controversy, but about the protest. Overall, this makes the article far too slanted toward Monsanto's POV. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, you are fortunate in what you missed. Part of the problem is how to reconcile the concern that you just raised, which is a very valid one, with the fact that much of the subject matter deals with claims about science. In that way, this page is different from one that deals with economic issues. I'd be very receptive to expanding the Positions part of the page, for example. I think that it's easier to address these issues specifically, so it would be very helpful to name specific things on the page that you would like to change. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

What a sensible comment. One good example of the push to make this into a GMO controversy article (one which makes sure to reiterate: GMOs are SAFE FOR SURE), is in this edit where Trypto pushes the "GMO controversy" section to the top of the article, obliterating the introduction to the section and to the topic itself. I have asked him about this and was told to get consensus here first... for an introductory paragraph i am told i need consensus. The problem is, the editor on the talk page from whom i needed permission was one who had just sought to have this and a related page (Organic Consumers Association, who head the "Millions Against Monsanto" movement) deleted from the pedia. petrarchan47 t c 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said at the time, one of the problems was that your edits made it so that Canal was responding to things that had not yet been introduced to the page. It just seems to me to make much better sense to start with background, then go to what Canal and the other protesters were responding to. I wasn't "pushing" it to the top of the page, I was reverting your "push" of it down lower on the page. As I also said at the time, you do not have to get consensus first, but if you make an edit that is obviously, based upon discussion that anyone can read on this talk page, going to be disputed, then you should not be shocked if someone disputes it. A good way to avoid getting reverted is to discuss it first. I'm not sure who you are referring to as the editor from whom you "needed permission", but I didn't start any AfDs, and I remember !voting "keep" at the one I think you are referring to. As for needing "permission", discussing things, when there are disagreements, on article talk pages is how Wikipedia works, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, havent read the post immediately above this one) Thanks, Petrarchan. Trypto, I understand that particular concern, but right now we have the "even-Steven" situation that I mentioned a while back. Let's see if we can focus this article more on the protesters and what they're doing and why, and less on replicating the GMO article. Reading this article I almost get the sense of Wikipedia acting as a kind of nanny, taking the reader by the hand and explaining that this is all hogwash and pseudoscience, and it just skews the whole thing. Coretheapple (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re your 00:12, I don;t know what to say as I haven't been following that discussion. I hope we can look at the big picture and fix the POV situation. Coretheapple (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another example of what I'm talking about: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories. That's an article about completely spurious conspiracy theories that have sprung up concerning the Newtown school shootings. There is simply no need to intersperse either that article or this one with finger-wagging about what bad ideas they are. Coretheapple (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

To centralize discussion, the difference between Occupy and the March is that Occupy was a subjective demonstration with debatable topics, while much of the March deals with settled science that has a consensus position. Per policy, we must address fringe viewpoints when introduced into the article, thus the occasional points about the consensus. As for the Monsanto information, as I said below, a paragraph on who Monsanto is and what Monsanto does is appropriate about an article protesting Monsanto. Monsanto's response to a protest about Monsanto is also worthy of note, and does not create a POV/unbalanced situation, especially when the voice of the protest is by far the preeminent point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

They certainly should be addressed, certainly not ignored completely. I'm not advocating that. But you have here two sections, "Monsanto and industry response" and "GMO controversy" that address the issue you raise. That's one section too many. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

One section is the background, which is obvious. There needs to be background on the GMO controversy in order to understand the reasons for the protest, and that section needs to, per policy, note the scientific consensus. The "Monsanto and industry response" is also obvious, as their response belongs in a proper place in the article with other responses to the protest, as the protest is directly about them. I don't see a significant need to expand it further (although I'd prefer we restore the Hawaii piece if only because the assertion from the Hawaii spokesperson is arguably the best industry response that asserts their position available), but I don't see any justification for saying it's "one section too many." I do think we've struck a good balance here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I've done some editors and reorganizing to try to alleviate some of these concerns. For instance, I've moved the previous stand-alone Monsanto section to become part of the GMO section. We don't need to reinvent the wheel on Monsanto. I moved the CEO comment to that area. Then I integrated the Monsanto/industry response with the media section. That ties it in better to the march. We had some windiness here and there as well as an unecessary quote from some Hawaiian person saying that GMOs are safe, which we already established further above. I still am not happy with the space devoted to the industry position, but this helps I think a bit. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I liked the combination edit on that, and I don't love the CEO comment there, but I can live with it. I did change back the industry/Monsanto response, though, because it doesn't make any sense to have the two together. One is the media, the other is the industry, they shouldn't be considered the same. Otherwise, though, no real issues with the changes, although I think we need to talk images further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) re the "broad scientific consensus" language, I'm not seeing it in the two footnotes that remain. Admittedly I took out a bunch. We need to allow one or two footnotes that specifically say that there is a broad scientific consensus, yadda yadda, or we're engaging in synthesis. Any suggestions? Meanwhile, I'll go back to the sources I took out. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I perused the sources that I removed earlier. They really shouldn't have been there in the first place, as they were primary sources requiring interpretation. I left two, but the second was a primary source too, somewhat hazy and requiring interpretation, so I removed. I left the AAAS one, which is written in plain language not requiring interpretation, and summed up what it said. We really need a reliable secondary source to say that there is a broad scientific consensus. We can't make that interpetation by putting on our thinking caps and analyzing the sources. That is beyond our pay scale, especially since we aren't paid! Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that my edit on the scientific consensus bit has been reverted. Well, I now have a serious problem with both the factual accuracy of this article as well as its POV, and have so tagged. I found this article in International Business Times that squarely addresses the issue, and it says: “'There is broad scientiﬁc consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat,' Pamela Ronald, a Univeristy of California at Davis professor, wrote for Scientific American in 2011. But the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned of 'serious health risks' indicated by animal studies measuring the effects of GM foods." Based on this, I think that we have a dispute in the scientific community and that Wikipedia should not be taking sides. Any thoughts on this? Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I can explain. First, I want to point out a minor side-issue. One of your recent edits took out the phrase "according to the Associated Press". Personally, I'm long past caring about it, but I want to note that the phrase was in there because Viriditas argued that it was plagiarism of the source if we didn't say it. I just want to make you aware of that; draw your own conclusions.

Now, to your question about why I put that language back. I actually liked a lot of the edits you made, but not this particular point, and I feel quite strongly about it. It's been discussed to death. First, please see: Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus". This was an RfC with very broad community participation, and you can read the closing statement there, that concluded that the sources do support the language in that sentence. It's been analyzed and re-analyzed, and you really need to go through that entire discussion and be able to demonstrate that the consensus was wrong, and I doubt that anyone can responsibly do that. Of course, that was at another page, but there has been a lot of discussion here as well, including about whether that RfC does or does not translate to this page. See, above, #4. Is the amount of "the science" in the article appropriate? (in those restricted sections) about some general aspects, #8. Is it a violation of WP:NOR to cite sources that do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name, to support the sentence about scientific consensus in the background section? specifically about that sourcing, #"GMOs are safe", and #Questioning the "scientific consensus". I don't particularly care about the removal of some of the sources, but I also don't think that their removal really did any good, since it kind of sounded like there was a POV concern that one "side" was getting "too many" sources, which strikes me as kind of a pissing match. But it's a solid fact that there is a consensus in mainstream science, albeit one that has WP:FRINGE dissenters. (As for the tags at the top of the page, I'll just note that, previously, there was an awful lot of complaining when similar tags were placed, based upon concerns about the POV perhaps going the other way.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

For reasons I don't understand, all of the comments below were added to this talk while I was writing the comment above, and yet I did not get an edit conflict. That explains why some of what I said is redundant with what was already said below. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The GMO stuff is addressed below. As far as that AP attribution is concerned, I couldn't disagree more. I don't understand how he can say that. If that's the kind of thing you've been arguing about on this page, I can see why there's been gridlock. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have often felt like my head is going to explode.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The GMO Controversy section is a summary of a main article (Genetically modified food controversies), and - as specified by WP:SYNC - needs to mirror it. Which it does. If you want to challenge the content here you must first get it changed in the main article, and then we can sync it here. Until then, we must follow what the main article says. I have removed the tags as they are spurious. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We can point to numerous studies that show the safety of the food, which is why the statement exists in the article. We also have this expert opinion that synthesizes the claims, and this which ties the consensus in with the March. This is not in dispute in science. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that the "parent" article has a recently concluded RfC allowing this language, so I won't re-fight that battle here. However, given the limited size and scope of this article I think that we need a good secondary source making that point. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no harm in adding either of the links I've provided. One is from an explicitly scientific publication, the other is explicitly related to the topic of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Scientific American article, while removing the AMA link. That is a primary source requiring interpretation. Better to have two plain-language sources. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The AMA document is a secondary source; on its first page it describes how it is based on existing literature (those would be the primary sources). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Two footnotes is enough for this article on that statement. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I am bothered by the RfC in the parent article. At first blush it seems to be countenancing synthesis, and puts Wikipedia in the position of taking a stance on an issue that is not fully settled. However, I think that in this article editors have to step back from that scientific controversy and deal solely with the march. I'm still concerned about the Monsanto POV being overrepresented but I think that this version is improved, though more work is needed. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In this article, when we encounter the fringe viewpoint that GM foods are unsafe, we're required by guideline and policy to address it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely incorrect. If there is advocacy of the fringe POV, in Wikipedia's voice, that needs to be corrected. But just because protesters are advocating a position that you feel to be fringe, there is nothing in the content guideline requiring that it be shot down every time it rears its ugly head. I am not so sure that the anti-GMO position is really all that "fringe," but even assuming it is, we're not writing about the position per se. If it was, I'd be jumping up and down about the "scientific consensus" stuff, and as you can see I am not. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is policy: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects ... " (my bolding) This applies, for example, to claims about GMOs causing birth defects. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that this article is about a protest, not a fringe subject. If this article were Alternate views of genetically modified foods, it would be different. Since this article can't seem to make up its mind as to whether it is about a protest or a reinvention of the GMO wheel, we get this unnecessary tit-for-tat stuff that skews the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In the course of covering the protest, the protestors' sometimes fringe views are relayed. These must be presented in line with policy. I thought this had been settled weeks ago - surely nobody is proposing that claims about (e.g.) GMOs causing cancer should be allowed to stand without opposition? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF, User:Alexbrn? YOU are the one, and as far as I am aware, the ONLY one, who decided to add a very fringe claim based on a small article you found in "International Business Times", which to my knowledge is not RS. Now you continue to argue against this article based on the addition you made? (edit in question). petrarchan47 t c 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "arguing against the article". I'm arguing for it! by representing the protestors' view faithfully, and in accordance with WP's policies. Which is what we want :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

At the noticeboard, you said, "For me, the crunch point comes (when taking fringe guidance into account) when the article states, of the protestor's concerns, "GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing 'cancer, infertility and birth defects'". Should that be allowed to stand as-is, or immediately qualified as a fringe view in accord with the fringe guidance?" WTF, Alexbrn, are we to make of this? Are you speaking here of the very addition you made, but using it as an excuse to add Fringe tags to the article, and acting as if someone other than you had added the bit? Because that's how it appears. You added International Business Times as a source, which is not an acceptable RS, and further claimed that IBT was "one of the better sources in the article". Whoa. petrarchan47 t c 19:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

O the drama! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh c'mon Petrarchard. It's not that he has no intelligent reply--you are at fault for trying "to confuse and divide the community in order to weaken the community's policies, gain support for a cause or policy interpretation, or serve some other goal such as driving away contributors."

Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not stated without opposition. We say unequivocally, and repeately, and prominently, and in Wikipedia's voice, that GMO foods are as safe as the lint from a baby's bottom. That point cannot be made more clear. Saying after every protester's claim "but the scientific consensus disputes this" is absolutely unnecessary. Indeed, at the moment we make the "clean as a whistle, safe as tap water" point more than is needed. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, perhaps it may help with respect to the concern that you express to note that there is a difference between the scientific consensus, and the consensus outside of science, in politics, society, culture, etc. Specifically within science, we really are dealing with mainstream consensus and fringe dissent. But outside science, it's quite the other way around, which is why I keep trying to suggest that we not focus overly on the science, on this page, but instead present the protesters' perspective more in terms of non-science perspectives. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, which is why I had no problem with the "scientific consensus" language as that apparently was decided, erronenously or not, in an article on the scientific controversy. But here we have an article on a march, a protest movement, with far too much focusing on the opposition. We say what the scientific consensus supposedly is, we make that point. If we say that too much, we make the article out of balance, too much of a pro-Monsanto slant. The "even-Steven" element, this misguided attempt to "counteract the fringe POV," is what occasions this concern. I'm aware of the differences between a political and a scientific issue; I don't think that's a significant distinction, one that requires a continual effort to rebut the opposition to GMOs that underlines this protest movement.Coretheapple (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Re the point raised above about WP:FRINGE supposedly "requiring" a constant rebuttal, I just don't see it. The fringe policy does not really apply to this article at all, except to the extent that it can be viewed as promulgating or promoting a fringe theory. We have to guard against Wikipedia taking any kind of position, in its voice, promoting the anti-GMO POV. But the article does not do that. If it did, the remedy would be to rewrite the offending sections, not to make this a tit-for-tat situation, with the heroic forces of science staring down the fringe crackpots. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is original research to rebut arguments made by a group with material that does not specifically refer to that group. We do not know for example whether the health concerns mentioned by the group are the same as those addressed in scientific papers, and should not assume that the safety of consuming GMO products is the major motivation for the March. TFD (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I hadn't thought of that. We need to explore this aspect of the situation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

YES petrarchan47 t c 18:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

About constant rebuttal of fringe, I think that past discussions have shown that there is no need for "constant" rebuttal, in the sense of a point-counterpoint everywhere the fringe views appear, but rather, that the rebuttal needs to be easy for readers to find, somewhere on the page. About original research, it isn't original research to rebut arguments made by a group with material that does not specifically refer to that group. It's original research to rebut arguments made by a group with material that does not specifically refer to that argument. It would also be original research to present as criticism of a group, material that does not specifically refer to that group. The sources do clearly indicate that food safety was a major concern of the group – just read what we quote Tami Canal as saying. But we probably underplay the non-food concerns, such as environmental and economic, because we've been too embroiled in debating the science stuff, so I'll say – again! – that we ought to refocus in that direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be greatly helpful to expand the non-food concerns regarding GMOs, yes. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD, we have a source that does so directly if we need it. The consensus at the time was the route we've taken taking NOR/SYNTH into mind. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"I think it would be greatly helpful to expand the non-food concerns regarding GMOs" Which has been exactly my point all along...but as you can see, I never got very far with it and finally just gave up on even trying to edit this article. Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You should definitely be bold and reinsert, and if there's an objection it can be discussed. That must've been while I was away. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The editor who knows about this subject is User:Groupuscule petrarchan47 t c 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, of course you need it. See "synthesis": "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case the March says one thing, scientists say something else and the synthesis is that the March is saying something with which scientists disagree. And if no sources exist then the comparison would be insignificant. You should be aware for example that none of the foods currently produced by GMO are healthy - cottonseed oil and high fructose corn syrup are not in the food pyramid - so we need to be clear about what the March is claiming. TFD (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD, we've had this discussion, it's likely in the archives, you can see how it went. Your claim here is kind of strange in the broader context of these articles, but, again, we have a source we can use that links the consensus directly to the March if that's what you require for this to meet your needs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I'm actually not opposed to a statement of scientific views on GMOs. I think we need that. But I do agree that this article needs to be focused on the march and grassroots movement, and that this article should not host a debate on the virtues and disadvantages of GMOs. I removed the "overemphasis" tag in the interests of comity but I am starting to think that that was unwise, as there definitely is an overemphasis and a continuing good-faith disagreement on that issue. If someone wants to reinstate it I certainly wouldn't object. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The only place a "debate" really exists is in the necessary background section (which is why TFD's claim is odd, but, again, easily solvable if it's that big an issue). The bulk of the article is about the March and the positions they hold, with a small amount of nods to the scientific consensus as required by guideline and policy. I don't think anyone is going to outright object to increasing information about the March and the movement as long as it doesn't increase the amount of fringe science in the article (which was the most significant point of contention, and the most guilty party is in the middle of a multi-month block for his attacks on other editors here). Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The most guilty party of adding fringe is Viriditas, in your opinion? Please bring diffs from now on for statements like these. What did s/he add that you consider fringe? Who are the other editors, or what additions are you referring to? Please know that Alexbrn added The belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing "cancer, infertility and birth defects" to the "Concerns" section in this addition. I look forward to your reply. petrarchan47 t c 17:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what guideline and what policy that is? TFD (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV in tandem with WP:FRINGE. Again, please read back in the archives so we don't have to do this all over again. Or, conversely, add the link provided above that ties in the March with the consensus. I certainly won't be reverting you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, I think that we need to draw a distinction between promulgating fringe viewpoints and reporting the views of the marchers, why they oppose stuff, etc. It would be the very same if this was an article on people opposing vaccination. I realize that Wikipedia, with justification, takes a dim view of promoting fringe viewpoints. However, when opposition develops to certain things that are established in science, I think that reporting that opposition in articles does not promote fringe views. I think that our readers are intelligent enough that if we state clearly in the article at one location what the scientific view is, it is not necessary to repeat the scientific view constantly throughout the article.

At this point what troubles me is the GMO controversy section, as I feel that it is too long given the length of the article. I think this proportionality issue would fade away if the article was built up more to provide the views of the anti-GMO people. I know that there are substantial views that have nothing to do with the scientific consensus on safety, and those are not given proper emphasis. I understand that some editors have looked into that aspect, and I would encourage them to not be discouraged and to build up that area within this article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The GMO controversy section is currently one paragraph. The information in that paragraph is all relevant to the March in terms of labeling GMOs, and also addresses the scientific consensus of safety. It links to the main article, and I might actually agree that it's *too* heavy on the labeling stuff, but I don't know what I'd excise either. I don't know why you believe that the single paragraph summarizing the background issues in play would be too much. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a really short article. More on the protesters' views would make it proportional, so I'm hoping those who have done work on that would not be discouraged and would expand what is here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll have my backing on it for what you can find as long as we're not dealing with too much unanswered fringe science. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, to the extent that their complaints are directed at a commercial enterprise, such as Monsanto, we do report their position, without question. I'm not suggesting that they can make all kinds of charges against Monsanto without the latter being given an opportunity to respond. So yes, there would be an expansion of the reply aspect somewhat. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, WP:FRINGE is about fringe theories, not groups that may hold some views that may be fringe. For example, in articles about various religions we do not use astronomy and biology textbooks to rebut theories about the age of the universe, the sun stopping in its orbit, the existence of heaven, transubstantiation, resurrection of the dead, the existence of demons and giants etc. We can of course use reliable sources about specific religious groups that criticize them for their views. And NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic (my bolding)". The topic here is March on Monsanto, not the dangers of GMO. TFD (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD, the idea that genetically modified food is unsafe is a fringe theory not supported by science. The background of the topic is genetically modified food, so it makes sense to work within that topic. To repeat myself again, we have an available source that contrasts the March with the consensus if we need it. Feel free to add it if you're feeling strongly about it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point, amid all the discussions of policy, it's getting difficult for me to figure out what we are talking about in terms of what to possibly change on the page. As best as I can tell, it's about the concerns of some editors that the GMO controversy section is too long and gives too little weight to the protesters' perspective, per WP:UNDUE. Am I right about that? If the issue is that it's too long, what, specifically, does anyone want to delete? If it's about adding instead of subtracting, I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of moving away from the debate about science and health, and focusing instead on adding material about the environment, economics, and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence, "There is a broad scientific consensus, however, that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than does conventional food.[2][3]". Neither source mentions March Against Monsanto and one was written before the March was set up. The whole section is POV anyway because while the March had various reasons for opposing GMO, including environmental damage and contamination of crops, this section implies that it is the health concern alone that is important. TFD (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, read what I said at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies on the RfC ""There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." "Statement is accurate ...In fact cooking oil, one of the major GMO products, does not even have GMO molecules in it. Nor is there any theoretical reason why GMO would be more harmful than non-GMO."[4] So no need to lecture me on the science. But this article is not about GMO food controversies. TFD (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The section you're complaining about is about GMO food controversies, however. The main article is Genetically modified food controversies, the section summarizes it as necessary background. Regardless, again, we have a source, linked above in this section, that ties the consensus in with the March. The only person opposed to its use is blocked for at least the next two months, so if you think we need to have that explicit tie-in, I don't think anyone will stand in your way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD believes that it is SYNTH if we cite a source rebutting an argument when the source does not refer to the people on this page who made that argument. TFD believes that. TFD is wrong. Wrong. It is SYNTH if we cite a source rebutting an argument when the source does not refer to that argument. It is SYNTH if we present a source as criticizing those people when the source does not refer to those people. But, here, we are not presenting those sources as criticizing the March. We are presenting them in the background section, to describe the background for the debate that follows. We present those sources as rebutting the argument that GMO foods are scientifically unhealthful. And they do rebut that argument. And it's FRINGE to ignore that simple fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, of course, but in a situation such as this where we do have a source that does an explicit tie-in, I'm seeing a third way available. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, third ways are frequently very good ways to go, when there are disagreements. I recollect that Viriditas had some kind of objection to that source, but I no longer remember what the objection was. I would just ask that the source be in addition to the sources we now have, rather than instead of. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

checking in

I've been away from this article for a long time, and just read the article as it stands this morning. I was pleasantly surprised with the big picture- the article seems to be pretty NPOV, complete and well sourced, with appropriate sections of appropriate length. Overall the background is presented well, and the protestors concerns are very clearly stated, without rebuttal, in the Positions section. Clearly there are lots of emotions running high here but I just wanted to say that it seems to me that the process has worked - you all have done a great job providing an encyclopedic article on the March. Congrats on that.

It is unclear to me what major structural issues are left to resolve - seems to me mostly arguments about details now (by details I mean things like what to say about the number of protestors). So I am curious - does anybody think major revisions are still needed to the structure, or to the length of any sections (in other words, the amount of detail to go into), or is it really now about details/tweaks? Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're definitely right. At this point, I think we're in agreement as to expanding some of the March sections with care as to how to do so. Looking good, thankfully. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Se "POV concerns" section and the ones following it for the remaining concerns regarding this article. Coretheapple (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me restate that I am not in agreement with repeating the same claims in different words. I have no problem with stating the marchers beliefs, and claims fully but we must do this only once. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, the article is certainly much better than it was but the language could still be made more encyclopedic, as I did, without complaint, to the 'Positions' section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism???

There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that to report what someone said in indirect speech, as in 'Organizer Canal points to Michael Taylor, a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA, saying that she believes that US food regulatory agencies are so deeply embedded with Monsanto that it's useless to attempt to affect change through governmental channels', is plagiarism and that every word spoken must be in quotes.

Plagiarism is attempting to pass someone else's work off as your own. The words, 'are so deeply embedded with Monsanto that it's useless to attempt to affect change through governmental channels' are clearly attributed to their author, Canal, so I can see no argument for plagiarism. If any editor really believes that these 17 words are being plagiarised than we can surely rewrite the section in our own words but I really do not think this is necessary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am getting so tired of all the insinuations of bad faith at this page. Martin, I agree with you that it is nothing more than a personal attack to accuse you of plagiarism. You knew that there were quotation marks, and you made a choice to delete them, so there is no way that you could have intended to mislead other users into thinking that you were passing off someone else's words as your own.

But, Martin, I disagree with you too, on a matter of content, as I have said, over and over again, before. As I have previously said on this talk page, there is no reason to run screaming "eek, eeek, it's a quote, help, save me!!!" every time we see quotation marks. Quotation marks are not evil, and they don't need to be expunged from the page. They don't, in and of themselves, make the page less encyclopedic, nor do they, in and of themselves, increase the argumentativeness of the page. There has come to be a consensus here that the protesters ought to be quoted directly, and that their views should be featured prominently on this page, so long as they are clearly attributed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really have no idea what either of you is talking about. "blurry line between..." were not my words and needed to be quoted in the way that WP guidelines suggests for Right: The New York Times reviewer found the film "pretentious and boring".[2]. How the fact that I pointed that out can be an attack of Martin is beyond me. How can that possibly be twisted to mean that I was accusing Martin of attempting to "mislead other users into thinking that [he was] passing off someone else's words..." Oh really, this is all just too nutty for words. I am just sick to death of all this drama. Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thanks for your understanding but I do have to disagree with you on quotation marks. I think they are unencyclopedic; you very rarely see them in printed encyclopedias. Of course, they do have their place for cases where the words spoken were famous or possess some special literary merit but that is not the case here. In this particular case they draw the eye to the words and thus give undue prominence to the views of the speaker. The only case I think they are justified here is in showing the words written on the marchers' banners.

Normally encyclopedia articles are written in prose and in the words of the writers. What reason is there for wanting to have so many quotations in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I think the way it is on the page at the time of my timestamp is just fine. So I guess I'm the only one in this talk thread who is happy. I'll leave it to you two to work things out with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I am not taking this too personally but you sometimes seem to revert what I thought were uncontentious edits of mine very quickly.

The WP:plagiarism article starts, 'The University of Cambridge defines plagiarism as: "submitting as one's own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement."

It goes on to say that it is correct to use 'Indirect speech—copying a source's words without quotation marks; this also requires in-text attribution and an inline citation' and it gives the example 'John Smith wrote in The Times that Cottage Cheese for Beginners was the most boring book he had ever read'. That is pretty much what I did.

My objection to excessive quotations in this article is that it presents a confrontational style, more like that of a newspaper. Too much 'Canal said GM foods were poison', Monsanto said, 'No they are not they are helping to feed the world' is not how encyclopedias should be written. The "double quotes" in particular also draw the eye to the words and give then undue prominence on the page. Quotations also seem to be being used as an excuse to say what is essentially the same thing several times as in 'X said, "GM foods are poison"', 'Y said, "GM foods have serious health implications"', 'Z said, "Eating GM foods can be bad for you"'. The sentiment is clear and we need only say it once.

What are your reasons for wanting to keep quotes in the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, just to be clear: although I indicated that I was stepping back from this discussion for now, I meant what I said about what is on the page right now, so please be aware that I will probably revert you if you remove the quote marks again. And I've already given my reasons, multiple times. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think your opinion overrules the WP policy that I have quoted above? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Because my opinion has nothing to do with plagiarism. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict--I have not read the above post)I don't have anything to work out with Martin--the phrase "a blurry line between industry and government" is difficult to paraphrase and to avoid plagiarism should have quotation marks. If Martin thinks otherwise and calls them "scare quotes" he is wrong. Period. You are the one that jumped in to stir the pot by suggesting that I was making a personal attack and accusing Martin of plagiarism. On one hand some editors are suggesting that we add more on the MAM position to the article, so I did, but once again the arguments and accusations begin. I'm going to leave this article again and come back if and when editing is not such an endless nightmare. I have better ways to spend my time. Gandydancer (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Martin, I have made very few deletions of anybody's work in this article. However you removed the quotes from copy that I added which would leave my copy as plagiarised, since it was not my own/Wikipedia's own words, and I believe that I was correct in doing so. Gandydancer (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general observation, I find in controversial articles it's quite good to use direct quotations (attributed) as then there can be no argument over how the source is represented, and no scope for "tweak wars" as the content is bent back and forth to suit the POV of rival factions. When the content and atmosphere has settled down it may then be time to smooth things over into indirect flowing prose. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess that makes life easier but, in my opinion, it creates a worse encyclopedia. Why not just print excerpts for all the sources and leave our readers to work everything out for themselves. But as it looks like the consensus is to keep this article a a repository of quotes I will leave it now. Good luck people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Media section (again)

I just wanted to re-start the discussion above about the media section. I think that the Alternet and Thom Hartmann stuff is OK. They are notable commentators, and the articles about them make it quite clear where they stand politically. Lack of media attention seems to be a major beef of the protesters, so having these notable advocates for their cause saying that is helpful. Again, as previously discussed, all this does is state how people of a particular political frame of mind view the marches and the reaction thereto. The reporting thereof is not Wikipedia endorsement. It would help a lot in restoring balance to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with including that material in that form, and I think that we have consensus for it. And I hope that we won't have to re-open that debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think Alternet is a good enough source to include here. I still think a single sentence is appropriate per WP:UNDUE, but I recognize that I'm not going to win that battle, but I feel very strongly about removing Alternet. They're not acceptable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, that's what happens when you re-start a discussion. Thargor, I hear you, but I think it's best to accept the current version, which is truly a compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with compromising on the weight. We, however, should not accept using unreliable sources simply because we like what they have to say. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Alternet is not a suitable RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternet is a suitable source for this topic, where corporate media failed to adequately cover the information. Search the RS noticeboard for "Alternet" to see where I got this information. The only caveat is to make sure and not use Wiki's voice, but to specify "According to Alternet". It seems that only alternative media has covered this protest with any depth. If indeed there is an interest on Wikipedia in keeping depth out of this article, I can see arguing for months and months against these alternative sources - but I cannot see any guideline-based reason we have been arguing about Alternet for literally months on an article that receives no more than 200 hits a day.</rant> petrarchan47 t c 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternet is fine because it is not being used as a source about anyone but Alternet: its editorial stance on the media coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Remember that the purpose is to demonstrate a particular sentiment among people, essentially on the left I believe. Alternet seems to be a left-leaning operation, and since it is notable it deserves inclusion. We're treating it here as we would any notable source of opinion, any person or organization. We are not using Alternet as a source for, say, an assertion on the safety of GMOs. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is a noteworthy sentiment, it would exist in reliable sources, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is, in Alternet. That is a reliable source for its own views, and Alternet is a notable organization. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't about whether they're a notable organization, but whether they're a reliable source for viewpoints. They're making a very specific claim, and I do not agree that simply attributing that claim to them absolves us of using them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

They're making a general comment, and not one that's particularly bizarre, nor is it directed at any one person or organization. That's why it doesn't bother me too much to use it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It may not be bizarre, but when they're making a statement as such, they've not shown the reliability to be looked upon for such a claim. I'd prefer us to lose it if we cannot source it reliably. We have far too much reliance on unreliable sources on Wikipedia as is, and this article is shaping up to be better in part because we're demanding good sourcing. Let's not abandon that for the sake of cognitive biases. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I think your conflating their reliability as sources with, I guess, a kind o general unreliability such that you don't think they're worth quoting. I don't look at it quite that way. Their political tilt is well known, and I really don't see the harm of their being relied upon for the purpose of stating their opinion. I assume they are reliable enough to reflect their own opinion! That's all we need, that and their notability, which seems indisputable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't being used as a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact: Alternet is reporting that no one carried the protest live, using ideological language to do so. I don't see any evidence that they are reliable enough for that statement of fact, and if we can verify their claim, we should use a better source to do so. This should not be a negotiable situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the statement of opinion, which I think should resolve this, making it plainer that this is a statement of opinion. I think we need this for balance. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I see the change as worse. We're attributing more to a bad source, while dampening the point that you believe it to be an opinion even though they're reporting it as fact. I again request that we not use this at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I thought that your point had some validity. We were utilizing Alternet as a source on a factual statement. Now it's framed entirely as opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording ("asserted" instead of "said") to make that even clearer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is twofold: 1) Alternet is reporting it as fact, not opinion (a key problem with advocacy journalism) and Alternet simply isn't reliable enough to be used in that manner, and 2) Alternet isn't reliable enough to be used that way. By trying to attribute it as an opinion, we're now misusing the source on top of the inherent problems. I again ask why we need it at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Coretheapple here.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, if this was a BLP I'd go along with you. But I think that for a general commentary on media coverage it is fine. Remember too that all editorials state their opinions as "fact," but are viewed overall as opinions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. On the negative side, it gives more weight, on the boundary between due and WP:UNDUE, to the fringe conspiracy theory that the media actually ignored something that they should not have. On the positive side, it presents a view associated with the March, and it does a better job than earlier versions of this page at attributing the opinion, rather than implying that Wikipedia accepts the opinion. I agree in part with Core, in that it is not misrepresenting the source as an "opinion", in that the description as "sparse" is clearly intended by the source as editorializing, in contrast to reporting a statement of fact, such as the follow-up at CNN. Because this page is about fringe views, and because we provide the kind of balance that the fringe guideline requires by including the first paragraph of the section, I'm leaning towards accepting that it's OK. I can still be persuaded to shorten it a bit, but I would oppose moving it away from a direct quote, in quotation marks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe now it would be WP:DUE to delete the Bachman/Wisconsin reference. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I now think we should delete the part about Bachman. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Core, good sourcing is not limited only to BLPs. There is nothing to indicate in the source that it's an editorial, unless you're saying all Alternet pieces are editorials, which, in that case, I question the need for this on yet another level. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As I just said, I think that we can reasonably read the source itself, as written, as presenting some of what it contains, including the choice of the descriptor "sparse", as opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Tryptofish's edits resolve any remaining issues. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think there is now an issue that we should delete Bachman, as I also just said. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the objection to Bachman? I'm not getting that link to work. We may want to hear arguments from whomever added it. That Wisconsin paper appears to be a reliable source. I don't know who this Mr. Bachman is, however, and hesitate doing so without hearing who he is and reading what he has to say. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Google cache articles, I'm not finding that particular article, though my sense is that Bachman may not exactly be oozing with notability out of every pore. But I am reluctant to remove the pro-marcher viewpoint as I feel that it is not adequately expressed in this article, and it adds balance. Again, let's hear further discussion please. Coretheapple (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, V added two sources, this one and another from a weekly news. Unlike Hartmann's opinion, I never felt that either of them were significant enough to cite for an opinion and I stated that at the time. On the other hand, Hartmann was robustly argued about, with quite a few editors holding the belief that his opinions should be deleted because they were "not correct". Mention of him was reduced to the one line that the article now has. Gandydancer (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should take it out, then? This Wisconsin person seems to be a small-town newspaper columnist. I hesitate to include him, as it does seem odd to include such a minor person in this article. Sort of diminishes the article a little. Hartman, OTOH, is notable and well known. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, the issue with Bachman has been that it's really a small-town kind of thing, and comes across as just tacking on every source that one can find for commentators who expressed the view that there was too little coverage. I think that it's clear that Hartmann, in contrast, should be kept on the page. For the most recent past discussions, please see #7. The media section still overwhelmingly gives too much information to a false viewpoint, where most of the discussion was about the Alternet material, but there's a cross-section of recent opinion, and #Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, where Bachman specifically was discussed. At the time, I felt that we need not remove Bachman, but I now have changed my mind, because we now have a more extensive treatment of the Alternet material, and consequently, Bachman doesn't add anything new, and seems a bit trivial in context. Because of all the past discussion, I didn't want to make the edit without new discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The issue with the link is that it requires a paid subscription. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just getting a broken link at that location. I hesitate to include, but I hesitate to exclude for reasons of balance. I don't like the idea of a small town paper columnist, but I don't like the idea of shifting the POV of the article. to be or not to be....Coretheapple (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to take you to task for that! Don't you know that this talk page is only for the use of paid editors who are working for one POV or another? :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a trial edit of giving Hartmann another line and deleting the Bachman entry. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more okay with the Hartmann section if we focused on his "corporate media" claim as opposed to the still-false claim that the coverage was scant. I think we're giving a lot of airtime to these views and we're falling out of balance again. As this section is about the media coverage of the March, we need to give care about the types of claims being made. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obviously from what I already said, I agree with you about Bachman, thanks. I'm not wild about the further content from Hartmann, however, because all it really does is expand on his opinions about something unrelated to the March. If there is evidence that Monsanto, specifically, does what Hartmann surmises, then let's present it with reliable sourcing. Otherwise, it just puts Wikipedia in the position of repeating something that implies that Monsanto did something nefarious, based only on a rather fringe opinion piece. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I just made some further edits, with the intention of making the additional content from Hartmann more concise, without removing it entirely. Basically, I tried to make it into more of his explanation of his view of the coverage of the March, without going into all his views about the media in general. As those edits stand, we have swapped out Bachman for a clarification of Hartmann, and I think that's a net positive. If that works for other editors, then it's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I had expected that my opposing POV "trial edit" would last long enough to discuss it, but that does not seem to be the case. You have instantly changed it to a "trial edit" to suit your own POV and now expect discussion. I will not attempt any further edits for a few days. Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a POV. Go ahead and discuss anything you want. Go ahead and make any edits you want. There's no such thing as a "trial edit" that is required to be kept intact without further modifications until the trial editor gives permission. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've said to you before, and am repeating now, having taken a look at the article edit history, you appear to have an issue with WP:OWN. In my opinion, the changes you made to the edits of Core and Gandy did not make the content more clear, but far less so. petrarchan47 t c 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And I'm sure you'll say it again. As for Core's edits: [5]. As for Gandy's, they were described in the edit summary as a "trial edit". Most editors understand that as something similar to a "bold edit" in WP:BRD. And nobody reverted. And there was discussion here. Insisting that no one else make edits until given permission, that actually could be considered OWN.

But let's actually look at the content. The sentence I altered read: "In Hartmann's opinion, because the media is beholden to corporate advertisers they avoid topics that may make their sponsors appear in a negative light, and instead tend to focus on what he calls 'the new system of infotainment.'" I shortened it to the phrase, "which he attributed to the media avoiding topics that might make their advertisers appear in a negative light,". So what, exactly, did I make "less clear"? That the media is beholden, and that there is now what he calls "the new system of infotainment". Is Hartmann's theory of infotainment a part of anti-GMO protests? Is the word "beholden" important to an NPOV presentation of this section of the page? Or is this complaint just more assumption of bad faith? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your change looks clearer to me, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

^ "Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster". CBSnews.com. May 16, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2010.
^ "Report: Bush DoJ sheltered BP executives from criminal probe". DigitalJournal.com. May 21, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2010.
^ "BP Alaska: A Ticking Time Bomb?". ac360.blogs.cnn.com. June 23, 2010. Retrieved July 21, 2010.
^ Murphy, Kim (July 8, 2010). "Alaska pipeline CEO retiring early amid criticism". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 8, 2010.
^ "The Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines (Part 2): Integrity Management". transportation.house.gov. Retrieved July 21, 2010.
^ "The Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines (Part 2): Integrity Management. - Page 6, footnote 17" (PDF). July 14, 2010. Retrieved July 21, 2010.

[1] "Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster". CBSnews.com. May 16, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2010.

[2] "Report: Bush DoJ sheltered BP executives from criminal probe". DigitalJournal.com. May 21, 2010. Retrieved June 12, 2010.

[3] "BP Alaska: A Ticking Time Bomb?". ac360.blogs.cnn.com. June 23, 2010. Retrieved July 21, 2010.

[4] Murphy, Kim (July 8, 2010). "Alaska pipeline CEO retiring early amid criticism". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 8, 2010.

[5] "The Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines (Part 2): Integrity Management". transportation.house.gov. Retrieved July 21, 2010.

[6] "The Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines (Part 2): Integrity Management. - Page 6, footnote 17" (PDF). July 14, 2010. Retrieved July 21, 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]