Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fringe tag

For those who have supported the presence of the "fringe" tag, can you please propose specific content that you would like to see added to or removed from the article as it currently stands, that would allow removal of the tag? Let's move concretely toward wrapping the "fringe" issue up. ThanksJytdog (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In no particular order:

• The Thom Hartmann theory about media coverage needs more information about how the mainstream media actually did cover the event.
• The first paragraph in "Issues," where the fringe claim of health issues surrounding GMO foods is basically stated without proper information about the actual science.
• Somewhat unrelated to the fringe tag, but worth noting, the reason the labeling law failed in the background section.

Clearing that up would solve my problems with the article as it's currently written in regards to the fringe situation, although there are still some POV issues that need to be addressed. I agree that the fringe tag is the bigger issue in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Thargor. Are the Thom Hartmann and labeling points really necessary to address the WP:FRINGE tag? From my perspective the only real fringe issue is the issue over comparative risk of GM food. Also what I am looking for is specific correctives. Lots of folks have pointed things out - let's move toward solutions! Thanks again for responding. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also a fringe point of view, based again in an anti-corporate mindset, that there's some sort of concerted media blackout on the protests as Hartmann alleges. It's a common theme among fringe players ("the media won't give those who expose global warming for the fraud it is time," "why won't the media do the research on Obama's birth certificate," and so on). Specifically, we need the information that reflects the mainstream realities of those complaints by the March participants/defenders. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hartmann's article is supported by other articles like Joseph Bachman writing for the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune. Hartmann's (and Bachman's) opinions do not meet the criteria for the "fringe" view guideline nor the criteria for our policy on undue weight, so please take a moment to review them. Additionally, there is nothing "anti-corporate" about their views and they are based on solid evidence behind concentration of media ownership. The WTVT Whistleblower lawsuit between Jane Akre, Steve Wilson and Fox-owned WTVT over the censorship of their investigative report on the health risks of Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin is well known. I would also like to point out that your false analogy with global warming and birther-ism is historically inaccurate. According to scholars who have studied climate change coverage, the American media in particular have given dominant and unbalanced coverage to climate change skepticism, not the mainstream science based on consensus. The late Stephen Schneider noted In the case of global warming:

...political actors and corporate representatives edged out scientific experts as the dominant sources in these news stories...opposition to mainstream climate science began to emerge with the growing concern over the economic costs of binding action and the ascent of the George H. W. Bush administration...In general, U.S. mass media coverage of climate change science since the early 1990s has focused disproportionately upon the uncertainty of climate science knowledge claims, scientific controversy, and the economic costs...[In the U.S.], a pro-corporate bias often arises in newspaper coverage of climate change...In explaining the pro-corporate biases and persistence of uncertainty in U.S. news coverage of climate change, some researchers have focused on the broader structure of the media and corporate power in the United States...(Climate Change Science and Policy, 2009)

In other words, the U.S. media gave those "who tried to expose global warming as a fraud" dominant coverage, and they did the exact same thing by giving birther claims dominant coverage before Obama released his long-form birth certificate. What is interesting about your false analogy is that even though you got it backwards, the bias of the media against climate change and Obama's birth certificate is the same kind of bias we see in the American media today regarding their pro-GMO stance. This proves Hartmann's & Bachman's point about the corporate-controlled media, and your example shows the opposite of what you set out to claim. Namely, that the mainstream media has a tendency to highlight fringe positions and downplay the consensus and/or investigative reporting which threatens their corporate interests. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That the media gives way to fringe positions (like the Monsanto march and global warming denial) does not mean we have to push fringe views. Your citing of the Wilson/Akre situation is telling in this scenario, given their also-fringe viewpoints and the fact that they were fired for trying to push them without correct balance. It's an excellent mirror to the situation at this article, where there appears to be voracious opposition to noting the viewpoints espoused as fringe. That cannot be allowed to happen. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Except you've got it backwards again. The media did not cover the March Against Monsanto, they ignored it in most major U.S. markets, according to Hartmann's & Bachman, and this can even be proven by going through the letters to the editors in the news indexes, and comparing the "why didn't you cover the protest" letters published in regional papers. But to get back on point, the opinions of the protesters at the Monsanto march are not considered "fringe" by any scientific or legal authority on the subject. Factually, the literature shows there is no scientific consensus supporting genetic engineering and agriculture. We know that GMOs are not rigorously tested, there's no approval process and it is entirely voluntary while Monsanto controls the testing. We also know there have never been long term human testing to determine harm, so no scientist can actualy claim that the safety has been proven. Scientists have identified possible risks, such as allergies and toxicities, but they've never been studied. And, we know that the protesters concerns about herbicide use, the economic impact on small farmers, the exaggerated claims about crop yields, the continuing patent litigation against conventional and organic farmers, and the revolving door in Washington allowing private industry to write their own regulations while public policy is destroyed—these are all very serious and real. There's nothing "fringe" here except your interpretation of the guideline. The protesters are voicing real concerns supported by real scientists, attorneys, farmers, and consumers. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the position by Hartmann et al, we can point to plenty of media coverage, which is why the claim is untrue and is a fringe position. Factually speaking, the literature very clearly shows a consensus for the safety of GMO foods. One of the better blog reports on the matter comes from Ramez Naam, who outlines it here. To claim otherwise is to engage in the same sort of conspiratorial thinking that pervades the anti-vaccine movement, global warming denialism, and so on. Wikipedia cannot become a soapbox for fringe, antiscientific claims, nor can this article become a POV fork for them. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline that supports your unique interpretation. Hartmann's opinion piece is actually quite tame and mainstream. His theme, what columnist Konstantin Ravvin of The Oracle calls an "active lobbying effort designed thwart the democratic process", appears in many articles on the subject. Ravvin in fact argues that this biotech lobbying effort itself is a fringe movement, "not representative of the American mainstream but rather an agenda propagated by a strong corporate interest in keeping legitimate public concerns about the implications of GMOs out of the realm of public policy." As I have said previously, this has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot covering it in 2002 with his piece on "The Covert Biotech War".[1] Hartmann's opinion, that "despite demonstrations in over 400 cities, in 52 countries, there was hardly a peep about the event in the corporate media", has plenty of evidence. Most of the protests were not covered by the corporate media. There was one solitary news story distributed by the Associated Press, with smaller outlets making up the bulk of the reports. Columnist Joseph Bachman wrote about this in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune: "Wait, you didn't hear about it? A global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right? It wasn't on CNN, or FoxNews?"[2] CNN covered the protests briefly three days later.[3] The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a paper with a circulation of 200,000, failed to cover the local protests involving 600 people against St. Louis-based Monsanto in their local paper, opting for coverage like "Monsanto is No. 1" and "Monsanto grows globally: Biotech giant leads Post-Dispatch list of top performers" instead.[4] On the other hand, their online edition carried the syndicated AP piece on their website, falling in line with all the other corporate medias outlets to get their story "straight".[5][6] Similar claims were made about The Bulletin in Bend, Oregon.[7] None of this actually matters, however, as news coverage was extremely sparse and was carried predominantly by the single narrative promoted by the syndicated AP piece. No competing narratives, and little to no actual investigative journalism by any large media outlet. Viriditas (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As my edits at the time showed, this is simply a false assertion that should be dismissed outright. I agree that we're better off without the mention entirely. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits showed nothing of the kind. The assertion isn't false. Major news outlets waited three days to cover the article, and only one news wire story was syndicated, intended to cover all of the protests. Further, both Western Communications and Lee Enterprises Inc., corporate news owners, were criticized for refusing to cover the protests. Finally, covering this kind of media reception is a standard appendice, and regardless of whether you personally believe it is false, we represent prominent POV. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a complaint that's impossible to evaluate objectively, and so common that it's not particularly unique here. We already have several good quotes that represent protesters aims. I would be happy to include yet another, this one just happens to strike me as not adding a lot of information or being particularly interesting. This is fairly low on my list of things wrong with this article at the moment. a13ean (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

a13ean what do you need to see addressed to have the Fringe taken off, and what are your thoughts on how to address that? thxJytdog (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with the Dave Murphey quote -- as it reads, it implies that Monsanto products are in 70% of the food we eat, which is simply false. We know what he was trying to say (GM foods are in 70% of the products), but only because we did the research. The same thing goes for saying that M is responsible for some of the "most lethal chemicals in history". Infamous chemicals to be sure, but not most lethal by a long shot. This is why we should not be using opinion articles for statements of fact. There's other parts of his column which may be appropriate, but in general summaries of protesters views, printed in secondary reliable sources are preferred. We similarly need a very brief mention of the standing scientific consensus. On the other hand, I think the line by Alicia Maluafiti is a bit dumb -- she happens to be quoted in an article about MaM, but her opinion is not nearly notable in the global context of scientific consensus. a13ean (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand the history of editing here, originally the people trying to write the article put statements of the reasons for the march in Wikipedia's voice; these were rejected as being fringe or nonfactual, and then those editors resorted to putting quotes in, to try to accomodate those objections. But the fringe tag remains. What I am trying to drive towards here, is an answer from the objectors as to how we can describe the protesters' motivations (some of which may be plain wrong or distortions, some of which may reflect reality) in way that satisfies those who are finding problems with FRINGE. And without editors performing OR by critiquing those claims? The latter seems very hard to avoid because the marches were not covered by much original reporting in objective, reliable secondary sources (as per my discussion with Thargor above) so I don't see how we can avoid OR if we proceed by stating a motivation and then critiquing it. As an example, I created a note following the quote that Michael Taylor "runs" the FDA which is not true - the note states the fact that he is a deputy commissioner, not The commissioner). I was a bit uncomfortable doing that because it could probably be struck as being OR or SYN as no secondary source connects that quote to the actual facts. So really - concretely - how should this article deal with the "Motivations" section in a way that accurately reflects those motivations and complies with policy? Let's keep moving toward solving this, please. Jytdog (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with representative quotes as long as they don't make nontrivial statements of fact, and don't see any problem with the article summarizing the views of the protesters. See for example the summary of protestors motivations here. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone can disagree with a presentation like this -- it presents their concerns neutrally and accurately. If some creation design advocate says "evolution can't explain [random bit of biology here]" we don't print the quote on his biography, especially without mentioning the fact that it's wrong.

Similarly, I would stress that counterbalancing a minority viewpoint with a reliably sourced, majority one, is not original research or WP:SYNTH. The protestors have raised concerns about the safety of GMOs; the safety of GMOs is directly related to the article, and we must briefly present the majority view, and not bend over backwards to find it in a source that mentions MaM. For example, every time someone thinks they've invented a perpetual motion machine, we don't need to find a source which mentions that the specific model is unphysical. This is the entire point of POVFORK and SOAPBOX.

Neither of these things requires radical changes to the article. Find a better quote or replace it with an overview of concerns from a reliable source. Add a single line that makes clear that these are minority viewpoints. a13ean (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have no issue with this when it comes to the GMO materials. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by that? It's not exactly clear (to me at least) what you don't have an issue with. a13ean (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically "counterbalancing a minority viewpoint with a reliably sourced, majority one." Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that there are people here who prefer edit warring over tags instead of discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The fringe tag is not warranted because fringe viewpoints are not being presented in this article. It's quite that simple. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Report on sources for "broad scientific consensus"

Hi everybody. Here is a report on the sources currently used to support the claim of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified food. I have found that these sources are of poor quality; some are mis-represented and some mis-representative. (Among these sources, the reports published in peer-reviewed journals actually provide least evidence of a broad consensus, often deferring this claim through citations to low quality non-peer-reviewed sources.) I hope that everyone interested in this issue will read the report and take action as they see appropriate. I have already posted the link (and preceding text) at Genetically modified food controversies, but I have reposted here due to the intensity of recent discussion—and the centrality of the "consensus" claim. Editors are welcome to discuss the report at the associated talk page, or to open up some new space for discussion of this issue. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. This is a claim promoted by Monsanto and other biotech companies, with the help of their team of Internet shills who work for a known PR company and troll message boards and Wikipedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@User:Viriditas - Hi. It is clear that there are differences here. However, please do not personalize them. Your comment above is over the line with respect to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Keeping the conversation WP:CIVIL is very important to me. Please keep the conversation focused on content, and please do not continue making comments along this line. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this discussion relates to. Currently there is a parenthetical indicating that several scientific organizations etc. have called genetically modified food "safe." I have altered that to read that they say that there is no evidence of harm. However, I am not convinced that the parenthetical is needed at all. It opens up a hornet's nest and is just not necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's specifically to combat the unchecked fringe point of view being espoused in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions about the safety of GMOs are not "fringe", and are fully suported in the scientific literature. The only sources that have made "fringe" claims about GMOs are Monsanto and its associated biotech lobbying groups. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• In Norway, where I am from, there is no scientific consensus that GMO does not have adverse effects on health and environment. The Norwegian law on the matter is very strict, and almost no GMO has been accepted. The politicans are guided on this issue by the The Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board. Here are some excerpts from a recent interview with the director of the board, Sissel Rogne, who is a professor and specialist in genetechnology and named "Academic of the Year" in Norway in 2012. The interview is headlined "Biotechnology Advisory Board calls for better GMO research":
• "(Journalist): Why do Norwegian researchers disagree so much about GMOs? (Sissel Rogne): Natural sciencists are as subjective as any other, and have the ability to pick out the articles and points of view that fits with their political views. GMO field has become very politicized. There are also differences between being thorough and to be comprehensive. The treatment of GMOs is first and foremost comprehensive, and not necessarily thorough assessment of health and environmental effects. In the bottom lie assumptions that are continued without the researchers going into the material. Many articles are based on a simple and short study that is used to show that genetically modified corn is safe. I can not understand that this is good research."
• "Is genetically modified food dangerous? - There is nothing to suggest that it is "dangerous". The word dangerous is seldom used in connection with GMO foods unless there is talk of allergies. The major problem of GMO food is not whether it is dangerous, but if it is safe or healthy. Food is consumed differently in different cultures and ages. For instance, the maize porridge porridge is the first staple food many babies get when they are three months, although Norwegian children do not get porridge from GMO corn. When genetically modified corn is one of the most important products on the market, one must ask whether the corn is tested out from being a food for children. Today the usual tests based on adult rats for 90 days. I'm not impressed with how scientific it is tested."
• "It is alarming to observe how some are critical to critical research on GMOs. One must ask oneself whether the current tests are good enough to determine if food is safe." (End of excerpts)
• There are also other concerns related to GMOs. I think it is very simplistic to say that the scientific consensus it to state that there are no reason to worry about GMOs and that those who want precautionary regulations are a sort of fringe movement. Concerns for GMOs can it no way be compared to Climate Change Denial etc. If the article is to compare the view of the Montsano proteters with the views of academics it should be much more nuanced than saying the scientific consensus is that GMOs are safe. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed. Unfortunately, in the United States, we have the problem of media consolidation, so we are generally presented with singular, corporate narratives that present only one sanitized view, usually from the perspective of Monsanto and the biotech lobby. This has been a serious problem in the U.S. for many years now. One of the tricks our media will use is to pretend to give "equal validity" to both sides, even when one side has a substantiated complaint and the other one doesn't. For example, in the media coverage surrounding the protest, you will rarely see any relevant experts cited on this topic. Instead, you will see biotech lobbyists, conservative think tanks, Monsanto representatives, and other shills. In this way, the media can portray this as a "he said, she said" issue, or even a warped version of "David and Goliath", rather than a valid concern over food safety and labeling laws. The bias in the U.S. media is so bad, that most media experts depend on Canadian, European, and other outside sources to find out what is going on in their own country. The country has essentially become a corporatocracy. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that everyone involved in this discussion will take some time to review the report—particularly the newly added Part 2, "Evidence of Dissensus", which compiles a large number of reliable, independent secondary sources disputing the "broad scientific consensus" claim. As I mentioned at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, the page has already been vandalized several times, and I'd appreciate folks who might keep an eye on it. Special thanks to Historyday01 for initiating this process, and to Iselilja for providing the article from Norway. groupuscule (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You went to incredible trouble to help us sort this GMO matter out, and I am wondering how to promote your work to get more eyeballs on it. It's really important given the number of Wiki articles that make these same claims, that GMOs are indisputedly safe, and any studies ("affairs") saying otherwise are promptly smeared. petrarchan47tc 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No one is claiming that "GMOs are indisputably safe". Part of the difficulty of this discussion is that the scientific consensus keeps being mis-stated by those who oppose it.Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edits to remove the need for tags

I made a number of edits which are an attempt to address some of the issues raised on the talk page, and which I would consider sufficient to merit removal of the fringe/fact tag. I hate to spread out the discussion more, but if you have any specific constructive comments on these edits this would be a good place for them. a13ean (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, but proposing two fixes before removing my personal complaints on the matter:

• The way you formatted the list of international scientific claims is basically unreadable in its current form. I understand what you've tried to do here, but it makes it very difficult for readers.
• The article no longer notes that GM food safety is the scientific consensus, and it needs to say that somewhere. I noted the duplication when reading through your edits, but it may have been an oversight in your series of edits in not replacing it.

If we can come to a consensus on these two issues, I'll be on board. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. What I really would like to do for the cites is instead of have it read [5][6][7][8] to just have a single [5-8] like you would have in a paper. Does anyone know a trick to doing this? I similarly agree with you on the second point, but I've attempted to get the article to the bare minimum standard of where I think the tag could be removed with these edits, and not to where I think it should reasonably be. Hopefully there's a consensus to start from this point and discuss further. a13ean (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no scientific consensus on the safety of GMO foods because there is no evidence indicating any such safety, as there are no long-term studies on humans. The only evidence we have is a "lack" of evidence, and that's not how science works. I can't help notice how convenient it is for the biotech industry to fight labeling laws; after all, if you can't track GMO foods you've eaten, how can you record their impact on human health? Sorry, but this is industry PR, not science. The question of whether GMOs are safe for human consumption is an open question in the scientific community, not a fringe question, and there are dozens of journal articles calling for more research because of the lack of the data on this subject. Monsanto can't spin a lack of evidence as proof of safety. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the science clearly against you (and we have reliable sources, scientific ones, stating a consensus of the science), but it may, in fact, be the consensus of this page as well.Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such "science", therefore it cannot be against me. Further, you have not provided a single reliable source saying anything about the safety of GMOs on humans because they have never been tested. Finally, the scientific literature is full of the health risks of GMOs, with new sources being released daily. The Chicago Tribune covered this yesterday.[8] Only Monsanto and its biotech lobbyists claim there is a consensus. Scientists do not. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is your claim from a reliable, scientific source, that there is no consensus? Because I can point to at least two scientific articles stating a consensus, and can find plenty more. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already answered this a dozen times. You keep asking the same question over and over again expecting different results. A scientific consensus that something is safe does not arise from a lack of evidence, it comes from proven studies on human safety. Those studies have never been performed, and the literature is full of scientists in their respective fields recommending these studies. The literature only says that some scientists believe that GMOs are as safe as conventional agriculture, and those claims have also been disputed. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So this is a no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, you've failed to show there is anything "fringe" in this article. Therefore, the tag gets removed. You can't be allowed to hold our articles hostage. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You'll note that I'm not the one who re-added the tag. I have shown where the fringe information is. You lack the evidence to support your position, which is beginning to look like a POV push. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The opposite is true. You added the tag and another editor tag teamed for you because you had already violated the 3RR. Since I'm not the one who added the tag, and I'm not the one who is arguing that there is "fringe" material in the article, I'm not the one who needs "evidence" to support my position, you are. I don't have to prove a negative, you need to prove a positive. In other words, exactly where is this fringe material and how does it violate our guideline? You can't answer this question because it doesn't, therefore the tag will continue to be removed. Capische? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR, actually, but the fringe material, at the time, regarded the unquestioned statements about GM foods being unsafe. Those claims have been moderated, and the scientific consensus has been clearly asserted, so in its current form, I have no further concerns. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually you did, but you're just distracting again. There is no fringe material nor is there any scientific consensus, so you're just making shit up again. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:A13ean, agreed as well. I'm not sure there's a way to do as you ask, though, and it seems to be common practice in contentious cases to use multiple cites when necessary. We might be able to scale back as things die down or if a better omnibus source brings itself, but I'd prefer we not untag until we fix those issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am OK with it as it stands - the tags can come off. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple portions of these changes have been reverted without discussion here; I can no longer support removal of the tags. a13ean (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, nearly all the work discussed here is gone. I also support putting the tags back until this is resolved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The way it works is like this: you need to show that the tag, whatever tag you choose, is appropriate. You've failed to do that. What's going on here is you are holding this article hostage until your personal POV is implemented. That's not how we use maintenance tags, and the tags will continue to be removed. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag is appropriate (or was, I am all set but recognize others still are not) because of the fringe viewpoint regarding unquestioned presentation of GM foods as unsafe, which goes directly against the scientific consensus. You keep arguing that we are wrong, but have no evidence to support it. Meanwhile, we can come up with plenty of high-quality, scientific sources that prove you wrong. That's why the tag is there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The tag was entirely inappropriate and you have been unable to demonstrate anything "fringe" in this article. Please look at the guideline on WP:FRINGE and show me what part of this article violates it. Please quote the FRINGE guideline and quote the material in this article. I've asked you to do this several times and you've refused. The reason you have refused is because there is nothing in this article that violates FRINGE. What you are doing is holding this article hostage to your POV. You will continue to add maintenance tags, over and over and over again, until we write the article according to the way Monsanto wants this topic presented. Isn't that correct? Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I could care less what Monsanto wants. The fringe point of view that GM foods are not safe being presented without the consensus position of GM safety to clarify (in violation of WP:FRINGE's point of an idea "that depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" as "reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.") is the problem. Hopefully you will work with those of us who are trying to get the article to meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia to come to a solution. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't say that. Could you please cite me a statement from this article or from its sources that support your claims? I'm afraid they don't support your view. What you are doing is holding this article hostage to your POV. The article meets our guidelines and policies, and you have been unable to demonstrate that it does not. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gene Patent Question

Did Monsanto have any patents on genes occurring in nature? If so, they no longer do.

I don't think that the Supreme Court case touched on patents for genes modified by genetic modification. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Rash edits

Please do not blank out entire sections with out prior discussion. The future plans for the march participants is certainly not an "advertisement" for them. Does anybody here actually believe that they are using Wikipedia to relay information? Also, there is no sound reason to keep blanking out Thom Hartmann's views. Read any similar article in the 'pedia and you will find similar opinions by well-known personalities included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

First, you have four reverts in the last 10 hours, which could get you blocked. Second, yes, it reads solely as an advertisement for future activity, and is not sourced reliably even if it weren't. It's not an appropriate section and needs to go. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You have the same number of reverts, Thargor Orlando. It does not read as an "advertisement" at all, and it is reliably sourced regardless of the misplacement of website links, which should not have been added. The section is entirely appropriate per our policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC concerning tags

There is a dispute at March Against Monsanto as to whether undue weight tags and a fringe science tag are necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Neither tag warranted. This article is on an anti-Monsanto movement, and it is not being used as a platform for presenting of fringe point of views of any kind. There does seem to be some sentiment to include a large portion of text in the footnotes heralding the safety of genetically modified food. That effort is misguided, I think, because it is not needed to counteract any claims in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The fringe point of view being presented without question is the one concerning the safety of GM food, which has been discussed in-depth above. The overwhelming preponderance of the data shows the foods are safe, and it is considered by many to be a scientific consensus on the matter. Per our fringe theories guideline, we must note that consensus and that point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • No, a fringe point of view is not being presented. That's my point. Just mentioning it isn't the same as "presenting" it, detailing it. The parenthetical material and its lengthy footnotes would provide far more of substance talking up genetically modified food than is in the article knocking it. In fact, there is basically no argument made for that point of view. Its existence is simply noted. If this was being used as a coattrack for presenting the anti-genetically modified pov then I would see the complaint here. Note that I'm not even getting into what is or is not "fringe." I don't think one has to get into that to see that the tag is not needed. Coretheapple (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The fact that it's presented without comment at all is a passive acceptance of the point of view as valid. Thus the need to explain the consensus position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not a fringe position and there's no need to explain anything. Your misinterpretion of the fringe guideline also runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, which is policy. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Some balancing needed The "it's bad" statements are attributed to the protestors, so the article isn't making the offense of stating them as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. But the article is glaringly missing at least mentioning the other point of view (that the current widely distributed ones are safe) and it's doubly so given that the missing view has a lot of acceptance, backed by a preponderance of evidence. BTW, I also saw some notes above on how science operates. That would take a book to cover, but in the relevant area, there are varying degrees of acceptance, including "widely accepted" (including supported by work per the scientific method) but the non-existence of something (e.g. harmful effects from the products) is never considered by science to be "proven". So nothing is ever "proven" safe, and saying that that is a criteria for something is a red herring. And considering "not proven safe" as as support of the reverse view is even more logically and scientifically outlandish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• No tags, fix the problem - If we're going to have a month-long, publicly-advertised RFC, fix the problem (if there is one) instead of just coming to a consensus that the article should carry tags indicating that there is a problem. The only scientific claims I see the article coming close to saying about the safety of GM foods is: "The primary goals of March Against Monsanto were to expose what protestors believe are the dangers associated with genetically engineered foods" and it's properly attributed to beliefs of the protesters. Why not use this NY Times article, for example, which says "Regulators and some scientists say this poses no threat to human health" and maybe something from this LA Times article. Then a tag wouldn't be needed. Zad68 03:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the tags I added a response about the march, but it was removed[9]. I found that in a five second google search, so if it is not the best (I have no idea who or what the Hawaii Crop Association are, but it was mentioned in a "March" article so was relevant) then add another. I don't like the way this tag is being used here and don't think this article should be a defence of the technology. As long as the protesters claims are not being presented as scientific then I see no need to have the scientific opinion tacked onto this article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Remove the tags I put Aircorn's edit back as I agree with the editors that believe that it is easy enough to find RS that disagrees with the protest's position on the safety of GM plants. As has been said, this article is about a protest, not about an attempt to settle the question about the safety of GMOs. Gandydancer (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Assuming the key points in the article stay as they are as of this edit, remove the tags. I don't like that we've shuttled the scientific consensus as an offhand "response" to the March as opposed to it being, well, the scientific consensus, but that might be the best we can do for now and at least the consensus is mentioned. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Without the scientific consensus information that was removed in this edit, I cannot support removing the tags. We cannot, per WP:FRINGE, allow the fringe claims to go unquestioned. A simple expression of the consensus without the evidence does not meet our guidelines or policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• No tags needed. There is nothing in this article that falls afoul of our guideline on WP:FRINGE topics. This article is also written in accordance with our policy on WP:NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Neither tags warranted, by coretheapple and Viriditas. (I may elaborate my views on this later). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• No tags needed The one, very anemic, statement regarding GMOs requires no rebuttal since it is sourced to and is about the beliefs of the protesters. The statement could be expanded (and still it would not require tags). MAM was an anti GMO protest as well as an anti Monsanto one. It seems a bit silly to raise such a fuss over allowing this bit of information on Wiki petrarchan47tc 19:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This statement is not anemic, it's actually completely false, misleading, fringe theory. That's the type of problem we need to avoid putting unquestioned into the article. No one, to my knowledge, is against including the claims of the protesters. In situations of fringe science, however, guidelines and policy require us to include the consensus position. When people remove that information, we run into problems. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-GMO advocates believe GMOs can lead to serious health consequences".Marching against Monsanto in "The Belly of the Beast" - this is a perfectly anemic statement (now long removed) referring to - not science - the beliefs of a crowd topping two million. We have links to the Wikipedia articles about GMOs and the controversy, which is entirely appropriate. This is not a page for that debate, and simply telling the reader what these folks were protesting should not cause this much trouble. petrarchan47tc 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, the fact that it's not science is the problem. It's a fringe position that must, per guideline and policy, be noted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• No tags needed The article is a useful description of a movement that is generating publicity. In view of the subject of the article there are a lot of quotations from marchers or those that support them. It is not a balanced view of the GMO debate, but doesn't claim to be. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of Associated Press source

There is only one Associated Press source that should appear in this article. This is the full, revised version of the original story with correction. Currently, we have numerous uses of different versions of this source which confuses the coverage. I'm going to switch this to one single version per best practice. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There are more than two versions in the current article, and I don't think an editor removed the right one. There is at least one full version of the AP source comprising around 800 words or so. I believe that is the correct one to use unless there is a longer one. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I did it. I had originally reduced the number to two and had kept both because they had separate dates. One was dated 5/25 and one dated 5/26, and you were right they were nearly identical. (even though the AP puts the legend on not to change their text, people do! crazy). I used the earlier, longer one. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You removed the wrong source and you left in multiple copies of the AP source, so the problem is now worse than it was. You also added an older source which has since been corrected and superseded by a newer one. AP sources are routinely chopped up and torn apart in syndication, so the legend only applies to the use of a sentence, not to the removal of entire paragraphs. The reason I started this thread was to try and solve the problem, not make it worse. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, until your most recent edit, the AP story was repeated five times. I'm getting the sense that people do not read the sources they are adding. HuffPost and the USA Today appear to have posted the entire news report, whereas The Guardian, Yahoo, and The Province posted snippets. Here are the publishers and word counts:

• HuffPost - 821
• USA Today - 818
• Guardian - 629
• Yahoo - 626
• The Province - 571

Using DiffNow (or any other text compare tool), shows that the USA Today and HuffPost stories are identical except for stylistic changes, such as the use of a percentage sign instead of "percent". Therefore, I'm going to link only to the USA Today version, which appears to have published the most complete (and revised) edition of the single AP story. The Guardian, Yahoo, and The Province published older and/or incomplete versions, which is very common with wire stories. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Note, I've completed this task. I've also removed the Al Jazeera cite as it was not about this protest nor a news story. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto's statement

respects people's rights to express their opinion on the topic, but maintains that its seeds improve agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources such as water and energy.

If that's going to remain in the article, then we're going to have to write about the many rebuttals to this marketing claim which is considered highly dubious by numerous reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about a protest not the GMO argument. If you are going to remove the Monsanto statement because you believe it to be highly dubious I can't imagine why you have no problem with the statements that the protestors have made that criticize Monsanto, which Monsanto and their supporters consider to be dubious. Same thing goes for the other criticism you removed. They should be returned to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Except, you've just quoted the GMO argument, namely that Monsanto's "seeds improve agriculture by helping farmers produce more from their land while conserving resources such as water and energy". That has nothing to do with the protest. The other "criticism" was nothing of the sort, it was a statement from a biotech lobbying organization that explicitly exists to support Monsanto, and their statement deliberately misattributed the scientific litearture to to make a GMO argument. Sorry, but I'm not following you here at all. Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Viriditas, the opposing views and statements are already in the article. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Concur with the two above. Monsanto's statement appears adequate for the artice, and is attributed to Monsanto. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement is an expression of a GMO argument that has been refuted in the scientific and legal literature. We do not need or require a statement from Monsanto. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The entire article is about a protest filled with verifiably dubious claims. A line from the target of the protest is more than appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Filled with dubious claims" - for the life of me, I cannot figure out what you're referring to - would you make a list here so I can understand? petrarchan47tc 19:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

About the safety of GM food, the media coverage, Monsanto having a food monopoly, Monsanto's influence in Washington, the relationship with citizens united. Not all of them are fringe statements, but they're surely dubious. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those claims are neither fringe nor dubious, but entirely supported by the relevant scholarly literature and reliable secondary sources. Reality is not whatever Monsanto says it is. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A line from monsanto makes sense as long as others are included too (all but Monsanto's response was removed recently but at last check, other viewpoints were re-added). petrarchan47tc 19:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The current version[10] seems balanced. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the statement from Monsanto's biotech lobbying organization. It has no place in this article and they do not accurately represent the science. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Added back in. We need some responses to the March that are not in agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you. That section already has two responses from Monsanto. Why have you added a third response, this time from a lobbying group that claims that "[GMO] crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming". That statement is not just contested, but demonstrably false (GMOs are poorly tested, poorly regulated, and their safety ranges from unknown to as safe as conventional) but comes from a source whose only existence is to promote Monsanto's products. In your edit summary, you say that I must "add another" and that it is a "reasonable compromise" even though previous discussion shows no such compromise nor agreement on adding at statement from a biotech lobbying organization. Do you really believe that the best way to represent science is to let the biotech lobby do it? And, has it yet occurred to you that the real reason the scientific consensus is poorly represented in the media is because it does not exist? Here's scientist Charles Benbrook, formerly of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture, directly countering claims made by Monsanto. It's a bit strange that you think it is preferable to cite a Monsanto lobby group than actual scientists. More to the point, the claims by the lobby group are disputed as are Monsanto's. The very notion that Mosanto's seeds improve agriculture and help farmers needs to be juxtaposed with the legal evidence.[11] And their claim that farmers "produce more from their land" seems to fly in the face of evidence showing lower yields.[12] Ironically, we seem to be seeing a lot of "fringe" claims from the pro-biotech side. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, where is your evidence, reliably sourced, that the Hawaii organization is from Monsanto? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On their own website.[13] Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. They're not "from Monsanto," but represent groups including Monsanto. They're independent. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. HCIA is a member-supported trade association "that supports the growth and development of the seed industry, agriculture and agricultural sciences in Hawaii through advocacy, outreach education and science-based information". Monsanto belongs to HCIA. There is nothing "independent" about it. They are an industry front group for Monsanto and Monsanto helps fund the HCIA. Staff of the HCIA don't just get funded by Monsanto, they work for Monsanto.[14][15] There is nothing "indepdendent" here at all. It's a lobby group that represents Monsanto, and if they are going to be in this article, then we're going to have to represent other lobby groups as well. Is that what you want? Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto voted Most Evil Corporation (twice)

Most evil on the planet, to clarify. This should be integrated in the article. Here are some WP:RS refs: http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2009/11/17/monsanto_the_most_evil_corporation_on_earth http://voices.yahoo.com/monsanto-voted-most-evil-company-world-environmentalists-8388725.html http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/25/1211599/-Monsanto-A-Beginners-Guide-to-the-World-s-Most-Dangerous-Corporation http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/11/monsanto-modifies-soy-beans-to-grow-fish-oil/ http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-named-2013s-most-evil-corporation-new-poll-1300217 www.naturalnews.com/030967_Monsanto_evil.html articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/08/tthe-most-evil-company-on-the-planet-monsanto.aspx MaxPont (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

the first "WP:RS" source is blog on Salon that a) has nothing to do with the votes you mention but is just a random reaction to watching Food Inc; b) is a blog so is not an RS anyway. sheesh.Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Commentary on a WP:RS (Salon, Forbes, Daily Kos, Yahoo) should be considered a reliable secondary source that gives notability to this fact. MaxPont (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, are you suggesting some content for the article or are you just here on a WP:SOAPBOX?Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that other editors could find a way to integrate this in the article. MaxPont (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Except, this is not a helpful direction. OK, so they are "evil", how does that help us improve this topic? It doesn't. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to resolve

This can and has become a soapbox-via-coatrack of the more general GMO debate. While, of course, the talking points of the movement and responses to those could be considered germane, that's a slippery slope to duplicating the whole GMO debate here. My suggestion: have only a small amount of talking points here, and equal amounts from the two sides. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any potential for a coatrack nor a soapbox. Your advice is a prescription for disaster and follows the failed media equivalency model that the scholarly articles rail endlessly about, and the last time I saw it implemented was in the Tea Party movement article. This protest has eight primary issues raised by protesters (popular support, labeling laws, limits on corporate lobbying, product safety claims, private and public revolving door, loophole legislation, patent claims, and sustainable agriculture). What is Monsanto's "side" to this? Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the reason for the Fringe tag were the statements (which I think no longer exist) saying that currently marketed foods from GMOs are actually dangerous. This is not a "Monsanto point" - it is the scientific consensus. There are not just two "sides". Others here have raised Fringe issues about other statements that they felt did not accord with reality (which again is different from "Monsanto's side") - I am not sure what the status of those objections are. No Wikipedia article should be "balanced" in the sense of giving both "sides" an equal voice - that is crazy. But every Wikipedia article should make sure that there is nothing stated that is Fringe (with respect to reality as described in reliable secondary sources - not with respect to the "other side") that is not tempered somehow. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I would invite people to read other featured articles on protest movements, articles like Stonewall riots, for example. All relevant talking points are discussed in their appropriate context. This is neither a soapbox nor a coatrack. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the assertions of consensus from scientific bodies to bring us in line with policy on the matter. As long as that's in place in some form, I have no further objections, for the record. Yes, North is right that this is likely to become a soapbox without vigilant editing, but it appears enough of us are up for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's because there are people here willing to do the work to keep that from happening, instead of treating it as a space for unquestioned bunk science. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Except, you are the one presenting bunk science. According to an article about GMOs in the May 2 issue of Nature (497, 24–26) doi:10.1038/497024a, "Researchers, farmers, activists and GM seed companies all stridently promote their views, but the scientific data are often inconclusive or contradictory".[16] Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that GM food is safe. Period. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, in the flurry of commenting, please do not make overly broad statements like this - it does not help keep the issues clear. The consensus is not that "GM food is safe", and you know this. I know it takes more time to type the whole thing but please do so. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, the science statements regarding what's being discussed are clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are working to make sure the scientific consensus is well represented but statements this broad are not helpful - they actually match the "straw man" that people who are worried about GMOs set up. The statement that "GM food is safe" is not true, stated this broadly, nor is it supportable. The consensus is 1) about currently marketed food from GMOs and 2) importantly, is not absolute (which is absurd) but rather is relative to food from conventional organisms. It is absurd to say "Water is safe" and it is absurd to say "Water is dangerous". Please, please do not throw gasoline on the fire by making overly broad statements. This is hard enough without this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you give an inch, they'll take a mile. I've already been accused of being a paid shill for even considering that there's a scientific consensus, and including these caveats where they don't belong in this article is, while noble and understandable, doing more harm than good. When the argument is that GM foods are unsafe, the fringe position being put out there is wrong. I have no problem with including the language as it is stated in the reliable sources for the article, but there's no need to mince words here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

whoosh. Not sure how to respond to this. I am accurately stating the scientific consensus, which is a nuanced statement (nuance is different than "giving an inch"). You will do as you will. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such statement in that article, and there is no such consensus nor is it stated in those terms. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thus the need to add in the scientific consensus information. You're wrong on this, and policy requires us to combat fringe science, period. 13:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a scientific consensus of any kind. Even the latest issue of Nature disagrees with your old sources and notes the problems with GMOs and the contradictory science.[17] Viriditas (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas - I just want to point out the full quote from Nature that you put into the article, brings up some of the issues around GM crops around which there is scientific uncertainty. But please note that in that extended quote, the relative risk to human health of GM food that is currently marketed, is not mentioned as something that there is any real scientific uncertainty over.Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Follow up note. I just removed that source and content based on it, as it was written on May 1 and does not reference the MaM nor can it be a response to the MaM. This wikipedia article is about MaM and is not about the controversy over food from GMOs - right? Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not that this will resolve it, but the general statement-of-question that is being tossed around here (GMO's: Safe or not?) is so broad/ambiguous that the conversation can never possibly more forward. For example:

• Which GMO's are you talking about? Certain ones? The ones in common use? The ones that haven't been tested yet? The ones that are not yet invented but will be soon? Every GMO that might be ever invented?
• Safe from what? Harming human health? Against having any negative effects? (such as from encouraging farmer behaviors that breed superweeds?)
• What is the threshold for considering it safe? Proven by science (proof of a negative)? ....there is no such thing. Generally accepted as safe (e.g. by immense testing / evidence? No known problems?

North8000 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi North8000. Great question. I have been trying to keep this clear, too. The scientific consensus is about food (in other words, stuff that humans eat and its risks to human health) and is not about crops (from which food is produced) and goes like this: "currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as (or as risky as, however you prefer) food from conventional counterpart organisms". It is not about any conceivable GMO used in any conceivable way, nor is it about the effects of GM crops from which food is made on environment nor is it about applied chemicals (not the effect of these chemicals on the environment nor on ag worker health) nor is it about industrial agriculture per se nor is it is about patents or other market aspects - it is about currently marketed food from GMOs and it is relative, not absolute. I very much appreciate your effort to keep this clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Abundant evidence suggests that little scientific consensus exists on any issue pertaining to GMOs. This would include the claim that "currently marketed" genetically modified foods are "as safe as food from conventional counterpart organisms". Indeed, if any relevant scientific consensus does exist, it is that techniques of genetic engineering may well have unintended effects on the host organism—and can therefore not be presumed equivalent to a combination of ancestor plant + new genes. This claim amounts to saying 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts', a piece of conventional wisdom which Big Science™ has now borne out. Also: many genetically modified foods that are "currently marketed" in the US are banned as unsafe in other countries. As North8000 points out, "safe" is an very imprecise medical claim that Wikipedia almost never makes. That the claim of "safety" has been pushed so heavily for this relatively untested class of foods is astounding. groupuscule (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On fringe theories and ArbCom

I was pointed to these cases yesterday in another article, and it's worth sharing here. I don't want GM foods to go the way of other fringe theories where the articles end up under arbitrary discretionary sanctions because those who cannot accept the real world science continue to push fringe theories. We have an opportunity to nip this in the bud before it gets to a point none of us want to reach. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing "fringe" in this article and there's consensus against your edits. You are deliberately misreading our guideline on WP:FRINGE and our policy on WP:NPOV in order to push a pro-Monsanto POV. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about fringe, but there's an wp:NPOV, with it having become a coatrack for the talking points of anti-GMO folks. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, it has not. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

changes by user 128.229.4.2

Hi User:128.229.4.2 - please join the discussion here before making more changes. The texts you are changing are being actively discussed. Thanks User:Gandydancer for making that last reversion, you beat me to it. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quote from one protester from Occupy Maui

This one seems the most out of place to me. Every other quote used refers to a named person or a named position. Why does this unknown protester get their statement presented here? It is not adding much new that is not given in the previous sentence. AIRcorn (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors have confused wikipedia with a newspaper, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Future plans section

This section keeps getting added back in. It's horribly sourced and reads like an advertisement. Why are we including it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are poor, however it is not a case (as far as I can see) of doubting the accuracy of the sourced material (and I don't see it to read as an advertisement). Although some editors here feel this protest was well-covered, I'd say that it was not. But that does not mean, for one minute, that Monsanto and other similar corporations have not taken note of it and remain extremely aware of the implications and have serious fears of where this may lead... I'd guess that they are working on their plans for a counterattack at this very minute. I tend to believe that much of corporate America, including the media, believe that this issue is still cooking, though on the back burner at this time. I see no problem with including the fact that future protests are planned in our article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what most of this comment has to do with it. Why is the section appropriate? "Corporate media" and "Monsanto counterattack" aren't reasons to include something that almost certainly violate WP:CRYSTAL. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that your viewpoint has a lot of merit and your WP:CRYSTAL seems appropriate. I am hoping that other editors will weigh in on this as well. I am certainly willing to change my mind but for now the inclusion seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is not horribly sourced, and can found in many different reliable sources already in the article. The problem is that the person who added it made it seem like the material was sourced to primary websites instead of the newspaper articles. This is a common editorial problem that is usually solved by moving the links to a footnote. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you present a source in the article that supports the claims that isn't Alternet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the actual sources in the article? This paragraph is already sourced. Alternet shouldn't even be there. I'm getting pretty tired of your red herring arguments. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you present a source or not? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "the paragraph is already sourced" aren't you getting? Stop disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it's sourced. It's sourced poorly, to Alternet. You claim that there's other sources in the article we can use, I'm asking you to present them. This still assumes the section should be in the article at all, of course, but please work with us, not against us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

More of your red herrings. What part of "Alternet shouldn't be there" aren't you understanding? The material is sourced to reliable sources in the current article and in the same paragraph. There are additional sources available in the news indexes. You continue to ignore the sources that support the material while focusing on sources that are superfluous and should be removed. You're obviously here to play games, not improve the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any further defense for including this section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, footnote seven, which directly supports it. Viriditas (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Even though it violates WP:CRYSTAL? Even though it relies in part on a terrible source, Alternet? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is violated, and it doesn't rely on Alternet. This has already been explained to you several times. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added yet another RS, this time The Louisiana Weekly. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann undue weight tag

Could the person that added this tag (or anyone that supports it) please state exactly why it is appropriate and what they believe would be necessary to remove it. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

HI Gandy - this exact question is being discussed above, in the "media coverage" section that is 2 sections up. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. Gandydancer (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed with absolutely no guideline or policy-based response justifying the tags, so I've removed them. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. Can you imagine what Wikipedia would be like if every statement would get tagged just because an editor did not think it was factual? As for the article tag, it has been said time and again that this article is not a debate over GM. Like the "Occupation" protests, it is meant to cover the protest movement not whether or not the participants are right or wrong in their reasons for protesting. Gandydancer (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've restored them per the ongoing discussions above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no "ongoing" discussion. There's only you saying "it's fringe because it is fringe", which is not a good argument. As for your evidence, you seem to relying on your personal beliefs which we can't use. As a result, there is nothing to discuss. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That you do not like the direction the discussion is going does not mean the discussion is not ongoing. As we've made progress (without your input, interestingly enough), we may not actually need to restore the tag, however. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The only "direction" your discussion seems to go in is "I don't like X so we must delete it" at which point the progress that results is the unsupported deletion of material that you personally dislike. That's not acceptable and the material will be restored without your disruptive arguments or ridiculous tagging. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"It isn't true, and we can verifiably prove it" is not "I don't like it." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In your case, it most certainly is. Which source are you relying on that counters Hartmann's opinion? None, of course. 03:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The section about the media that has covered the March was removed as original research. Can someone please point out how it's original research? Or why Hartmann's op-ed should be included at all? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What about an acknowledgement of Hartmann's opinion without mentioning the content of his opinion? Instead of what is currently written in the "Media Reception" section, why don't you write something to the effect of, "and an op-ed piece by Thom Hartmann"? That position seems to acknowledge both sides of the debate: on the one hand, it doesn't give undue weight to Hartmann's opinion, but on the other doesn't exclude Hartmann's opinion about the protest movement. Gobbleygook (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but then it raises the question of why we'd be including it at all. I don't especially see why Hartmann's claim is noteworthy, but this was raised back when there was an issue of noting the actual coverage, which appears to have disappeared. The article, in its current form, handles it well enough, in my opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But Hartmann's claim is, at least to me, subjective as he's talking about the extensity of media coverage, so the objective fact of the existence of media coverage of the protest (your argument) is moot. I agree with you that it's undue weight to give one op-ed piece by Hartmann's the space of entire paragraph, but I don't see how expurgating Hartmann's piece would be justifiable either. Gobbleygook (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarrification about the undue weight tag

Can someone please clarrify what exactly the article is giving undue weight to? Is there some criticism of March Against Monsanto that has not been included here in the article? If so, please add them. I could not find any such criticism --Wikishagnik (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

My inclusion of the undue weight tag earlier in the week was in regards to the claim about media coverage, which appears to be solved. The existing fringe tag is in regards to the continued unquestioned assertion of GM foods being unsafe against the clear, documented scientific consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GMO's have not been in use long enough to know whether there is any long term risk or not (including generational). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is simply untrue, and the science overwhelmingly backs this up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is false. The science consistently states that further studies are required because there have been no long term studies on human health. Risks of toxins and allergies are often cited as concerns, as well as the safety issues concerning the overuse of pesticides needed for GMO crops. Further, science is a skeptical enterprise; it does not make blanket proclamations such as "totally safe" and "no safety concerns" because it acknowledges that everything has risks, even GMOs. The only people pushing the "no evidence of risk and totally safe" angle are biotech lobbyists and their paid minions. According to The Daily Ticker, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture ruled last month that it needs more time to conduct detailed studies of new genetically modified corn, soybean and cotton seeds from Monsanto and Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) before approving their use in the food supply...These seeds 'may significantly affect the quality of the human environment,' the USDA said in a statement."[18] Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources addressed Monsanto's claims in May. According to Bloomberg, Benbrook said that "plant breeding does much more to increase crop yields than genetic modification [and that] engineering crops to tolerate herbicides makes farmers jobs easier, while increasing the public’s exposure to chemicals such as dicamba and 2,4-D that have been linked to reproductive problems...The best way to help alleviate hunger is for the world to reduce food waste, eat less meat, and restore soil fertility."[19] Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, nobody here is saying "no evidence of risk and totally safe" - the consensus statement acknowledges risk and is not about all GMOs possible - the consensus statement is, "currently marketed GMOs are as safe as (or if you prefer as risky as) food from conventional organisms." It is exactly careful and skeptical. Companies that make GM crops and regulators are very aware that it is possible to introduce toxins or allergens in creating new GM crops; there are two well known examples of GM crops that were in development but were killed by the companies creating them, when the crops turned out to have unexpected allergens during testing; the other example is Starlink, which got to market and because the allergic response in some people was known (as tests by the originating company had shown), regulators restricted it to use in animal feed; it turned out that the distribution system could not keep it separate from the food supply and it was removed from the market. So those are well acknowledged points that are indeed part of the scientific consensus about possible GMOs - currently marketed food from GMOs has cleared those hurdles, well enough. The other things you say are not relevant to the scientific consensus on the relative safety of food from GM crops. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the article took the direction of becoming a soapbox-via-coatrack of espousing the views of one side of the GMO controversy. Some balancing is needed. The best way would probably be a reduction in the repetitions of the statements of their position & talking points (via quotes etc.) as that is the main way that the article has become a soapbox for one side of the GMO debate. BTW, I don't like GMOs, so my concerns are based on doing a proper article, not a RW POV. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The quote from an unidentified protestor should probably be removed or at least paraphrased. I think it is already covered in the previous sentence anyway, but can't quite make sense of it. Is "until Monsanto conducts further testing" supposed to be on the end? AIRcorn (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tag re-added

We now have two sources with complaints about the media coverage in their own paragraphs, with a third complaining about coverage that showed the scientific consensus, with all of those claims being factually incorrect. I have restored the tag for the section until we sort out how to deal with this situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the inclusion of this tag and would support conflating the paragraphs to a general statement about the lack of media coverage for the march (you can add the bit about the scientific consensus if you want). Gobbleygook (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we've had it tagged for a while with no debate, and I think if people don't speak up about whether they're against this consolidation and adjustment, we can make the change. I'll give it a little more time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean that they are factually incorrect? Gandydancer (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically the claim that it was ignored. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

We aren't in a position to evaluate that opinion as "factually incorrect". The most we can do is show that it was covered. And the fact is, most major media outlets ignored the protests. CNN didn't even cover them until three days later. Currently, you've got a bit of primary OR saying that multiple media outlets covered them, but a) the sources don't say that and that's your own original research, and b) the Washington Post didn't cover them, they only published the AP's report and a photo essay which used photographs from AP and AFP. The link you've currently got goes to the photos, so Washington Post should be removed. What you need to do is find a good source that says "the idea that the protests were ignored is ridicuous because", but you can't, so you're disruptively adding a tag. That's not how it works. We aren't in a position to prove a negative. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gobbleygook, you were specifically asked not to stalk my edits, and I'm bringing this to the attention of an admin. Thargor, there is absolutely no support for your addition of the maintenance tag nor your proposed "remedies". What you consider "factually incorrect" has no bearing on our inclusion of this material. They are opinions attributable to notable, reliable sources, noting more. Evaluating them for accuracy would entail you having to provide alternate opinions from other reliable sources. Because none exist, there is no reason to keep the tag or to implement the proposal under discussion. Your argument amounts to "I don't like it" and that's not good enough. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me this cant about stalking when you were wikihounding me for the first week of my Wikiediting career. Also, I happened upon this page by coincidence as this movement is prominent in the news. Gobbleygook (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're also incorrect viewpoints (not "I don't like it" but "that is factually wrong"), and the section is weighted towards them. Thus the tag. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, please read WP:NPOV. We don't deal with "incorret viewpoints" unless you have a source that says "the claim that the media ignored the protests was false". You don't, so you can't use the tag. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not an advocate for the "factual tag". Thargor seems unwilling to state his issue clearly, but based on other posts he has made on this Talk page, I believe that his understanding is that the March was covered by major media (print and local TV), as per the partial list that is in the article (which doesn't include the local TV reports, which are easy to find via google). I believe that is the "factual" issue he is contesting. Especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. Does anybody have a comeback for that so we can resolve this tag? Seems to me there was a real dearth of actual reporting on the marches by solid journalists; lots of media picked up the AP story and just ran it. The NYT and WSJ said nothing. On the other hand, lots of outlets ran the AP story and CNN did pick it up, and there were lots of local news reports. So I don't know how to resolve this. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I feel I've explained it very clearly. As of the time of writing, we have two long paragraphs bemoaning the lack of coverage of the march, which is easily disproven. We have one sentence that collects a handful of the hundreds of articles that covered the march, so right now it's a serious undue weight situation in favor of a factually incorrect claim. At this point, we may be better off keeping the partial list of coverage, with a quick line afterwards along the lines of "...although some media commentators claimed the mainstream media ignored the march." I was okay with just Hartmann and the list of outlets, since he's a fairly noteworthy commentator, but this is too far in the wrong direction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not easily disproven, and you failed to disprove it. The May 25th March was covered domestically by only two large sources, Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. CNN didn't even cover it until three days later. There is nothing "undue" about this at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, the factual record tells us otherwise. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I do have 2 questions, which I'll put separately so they can be responded to separately:Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

1) The article by J. Kojo Livingston in the Louisiana Weekly is full of factual errors and appears to be an opinion piece more than a news piece. Is there something notable about Livingston such that his analysis of the news reports as being biased toward Monsanto meets WP:NOTABILITY -- why should we rely on or care what this guy says? I've never heard of him. Real question, you all may have a great answer. It is just such a crappy piece of writing. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that we have three opinions about the media coverage from across the United States According to his bio, J. Kojo Livingston is "an ordained Baptist Minister with over 34 years experience as a community activist/organizer/developer. He has created and directed youth and violence-prevention programs. His ministry involves street-level direct outreach and crisis intervention. He is a 22 year veteran journalist who has written for , designed and edited local and national newspapers and magazines. His current and past affiliations include Christian Unity Baptist Church (New Orleans), the U.N.I.A., the Republic of New Afrika, Amnesty International, SCLC, the New Orleans Committee Against Apartheid and others." Sounds to me like he has expertise writing about protest movements. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Still a terrible piece of writing and the factual errors are real boners. Nothing in there about him being a media critic. As we are discussing above, pretty much the only coverage was the AP story, and that story does indeed say "Genetically modified plants are grown from seeds that are engineered to resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply." The AP author did not attribute it, and if I google that phrase all I ever find is the AP story. How do you reckon Livingston decided that this is "Monsanto's definition"? btw I think this is bad writing and shouldn't be cited anywhere, but I will not argue to take it out. We should be able to do better than this though. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to take another look at Livingston. I suspect you may be right about either removing it or using it in a different context. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2) Secondly, all three paragraphs favor the march. There were columnists who were critical of it. Are you all opposed to "reactions" that are critical? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that critical reactions should be added. I am putting together a list of the most critical reactions for inclusion that I never had a chance to finish. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note for Thargor: I just justified the use of the maintenance tag for you, but not based on your erroneous reasons. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And I laughted out loud when I did it. :) Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this here?

The protests were covered by news outlets including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and Russia Today. On American cable news, the march was covered three days after it took place on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper".

I don't have a strong objection to it, but Thargor added this based on his own observations which sets a poor precedent. Also, the reference to The Washington Post should be removed, since the protest was not covered by them. All they did was run the AP wire story and host a photo essay page that supplied photos from wire services. As far as large outlets are concerned, the protests were immediately covered by only one wire service (AP) and one newspaper (LATimes). CNN covered the story three days later. So, as far as domestic coverage is concerned, the story was mostly ignored. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The Washington Post did cover it, as they supplied a photo gallery covering the march. The point of having the section is to demonstrate the media coverage. If anything, we should be asking why the editorials making false allegations about coverage are still in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo gallery contains photos from the AP and AFP, not photographers from The Washington Post, so no, they did not cover it. All they did was run the AP wire story and create a web page to host the wire photos. No reporters or photographers from The Washington Post covered the story. The opinions, as far as I can tell, are based on a lack of coverage of the protests by major media outlets. However, smaller outlets did cover the story. I've already explained what you would need to do to challenge these opinions, and right now, the best thing you can do is do actual research on the protests to find critical opinions. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Covering" usually means putting it in their publication. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it does not. Large outlets have automated means of "covering" stories involving the publishing of wire stories and wire photos. That does not mean that their staff "covered" the story at all. Coverage, in this case, was provided by AP. This is unlike the Los Angeles Times, which actually covered the story. Do you understand the difference? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know all that. But I don't think that you understood what I was saying. Which is what a/the common meaning of "covered" is. Which is that the mere act of putting it in their paper is called "coverage" /"covered" per a common meaning of the term. Regardless of where they got it from. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In this context "coverage" means that the news outlet actually covered the protests with reporters and/or photographers. It does not mean that they simply repeated a wire story. Most major media outlets did not cover this protest nor did they cover their local protests. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The context of "covered" is how North understands it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not, which is the main thesis of the writers you oppose who maintain that major media outlets did not cover the protesters. And the facts show, they did not. Instead, AP distributed a singular narrative disseminated as a wire source which was reprinted on many media outlet websites. This is not "coverage" of protests; it's an automatic news delivery system which promotes a singular narrative for consumption. A media business model does not supplant or replace actual journalism that covers actual protests. I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but that's the entire point of the commentary. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, in this exchange, you have exhibited a lack of recognition of what I was saying (that we're talking about a common (and probably the most common) definition of "coverage" /"covered" , not claiming that those organization went there themselves) which so far is a lack of recognition. And your arguments have been basically repeating irrelevant things that we already know implying that they are new to us. That's not so OK. Then you top it off with silly sounding insults like "Do you understand the difference?" and "I'm sorry if you don't understand this,". Why don't you lose those insults and just converse here? North8000 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I did. The Washington Post did not cover the protest movement. They reprinted a wire story from AP. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to say again - after the March I spent several hours looking for RS to generate content from. When I say "RS" I mean really high quality, authoritative, objective, independent reporting that nobody could object to. Like what would be a produced if a NY Times reporter went out and talked to people, made a bunch of calls - if a NY Times reporter covered the story. I found pretty much nothing except variations of the AP story which is pretty thin in itself, and the LA Times article, which they probably did b/c of the local importance of Prop 37. Try it yourself! I'm not stating judgements as to why there was so little actual coverage, I am just saying that I think it is true that there wasn't much.Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear. There was little mainstream coverage by large media outlets. We can agree on that point. However, there has been a small number of smaller circulation coverage by local media outlets, perhaps a dozen or more covering major geographical regions. I plan on using this coverage to expand the march section. Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Coverage" by your limited definition, one that is not agreed on by most. That it's not as "in depth" as some may want is perhaps a valid criticism, but in terms of "was it ignored," it's demonstrably false. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)\

Hi Thargor, I don't agree with your definition of "covered" either. Thank goodness that important news is not usually "covered" this way! btw did you try to find RS that were of high quality for this article? Under my own standards of what I like to bring for sourcing (objective, carefully reported, well written, no factual errors, that nobody can disagree with) I actually found nothing. The AP story was pretty cursory and the LA times article was short and locally focused, and Jake's report on CNN was shallow and showy and had pretty much no digging. What did you find outside of those 2 and CNN? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are no really solid sources yet (that I could find). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources to help describe and detail the march? Not in the detail some would like, no. Sources that demonstrate wide mainstream coverage? Literally hundreds. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)