Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Response

On May 16, commenting on petitions submitted to the USDA opposing applications by Monsanto and Dow to test new GM crops, Monsanto's CEO Hugh Grant stated the petitioners wanted to block others from choosing more affordable food options.

Nowhere does any source cited say this and I've asked Jytdog and others to stop adding this. Hugh Grant was not commenting on petitions submitted to the USDA, he was commenting on social media. Unless Jytdog is in personal close contact with the CEO of Monsanto, I would be curious why he and others keep altering the quotes and changing the context. Grant did not say anything about petitioners to Kaskey, and he paraphrsed it as "The advent of social media helps explain why many people in the U.S. have come to oppose genetically engineered crops in recent years".[1] Nothing about petitioners. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Recently, an editor removed the following information from the article as "tangential":

Two days before the group held the May 25 protest, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

I fail to see how this information is "tangential". The entire protest movement is based on the lack of labeling laws, and the rejection of this amendment was one of the things protesters were upset about it. I admit that this can be rewritten and expanded, but based on the sources, I cannot see any good reason for its removal. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. Three days before the protests there was a full moon. So? While the Senate may have done something, how did that impact the protests? What does the source say about the Senate's action upon the protests? Did the protestors say something about this? (Yes, I repeat myself, repeat myself, repeat myself.) Until the connection is made -- independently by WP:RS -- the info is tangential. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The connection was made independently by RS. You removed them. Not to worry, however, there are many more that make the connection as well. I think this was just a mistake on your part, however, I do see it as an opportunity to improve and expand the text. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The material I removed simply says "Two days before the group held the May 25 protest, the [[U.S. Senate]] rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.<ref name="RT-eve"/>" This implies a connection between the rejected amendment and the protests. You've got to add something from the RS like "and the protestors carried signs denouncing the Senate rejection...." that actually makes a connection between the Senate action and the protests. The removal was not a mistake on my part. It was taking out improper WP:SYN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 July 2013‎ (UTC)

The source you removed is titled, "On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill", and explicitly makes the connection between the two events.[2] This refers to amendment 965[3] of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954; 113th Congress) proposing the labeling of GMOs. Multiple news sources make the connection, and even Bernie Sanders himself, the man who proposed the labeling bill, makes the connection in interviews with the media[4][5][6] and on his own website.[7][8][9] Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As Upton made the observation and connection between the Senate action & the march, the RT reference is back in the article at that point. It serves to support what Upton said. – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the end result of these edits is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding quotations

"I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled... "Companies like Kellogg's and General Mills are putting things like Fruit Loops on the market that are basically 100 percent genetically engineered ingredients," Canal told Salt Lake City Weekly. "And that's marketed to our kids."

I removed the following quote because it gives undue weight to the opinion of one person compared with the broad scientific consensus: 'I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison'(my emphasis). I have no doubt that Canal said this and genuinely believes it but putting, 'feeding my family poison' in the article, even if balanced by pro-GE quotes, gives undue weight to the extreme fringe view that GE foods are poison.

The same argument applies my general practice of replacing quotes with indirect speech. They give excessive prominence to fringe views. There is nothing at all wrong with my changes, especially as the strong opinions are correctly attributed. At least two other editors have agree with what I have done; you seem to be the only one who objects.

This page has already come under criticism for promoting fringe views and it was even proposed for deletion on that basis. Had I been around at that time, I would have opposed deletion but supported the majority view that this page must not become a promotional article for fringe science. It is fair enough to briefly give the reasons that the organisers started the movement but we are not here to support their cause. Giving their fringe views equal weight to mainstream science and the welfare of the majority of consumers is a very clear violation of WP:due.

It is also my opinion, supported by some others, that this page should not just refrain from promoting fringe science but that it is not the pace to have the GE vs anti-GE debate. We already have a page for that purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no such scientific consensus about genetically modified organisms. Evidence of consensus is scant; evidence of dissensus abounds. Appeals regarding content on this page should not invoke a fictional consensus. groupuscule (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "argument" in that page has no basis here, as it's simply your opinion and does not reflect the real-world consensus in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. The quote you removed has nothing to do with "giving undue weight to the opinion of one person compared with the broad scientific consensus." In fact, it has nothing to do with any "broad scientific consensus" at all. The quote has to do with Canal's reasoning for starting the movement. That she believes that she was feeding her family poison is her opinion and her rationale. Quoting her reasons for starting the movement does not give "undue weight to the extreme fringe view that GE foods are poison", nor could it. Furthermore, your argument for replacing quotes isn't reflected by your edits. You inaccurately replaced direct quotes to things that did not give "excessive prominence to fringe views", such as the statement from Monsanto Hawaii,[10] the CEO of Monsanto,[11] Canal's reason for starting the movement,[12] a protester's reason for organizing,[13] official statements from Monsanto,[14] and more. None of these things "give excessive prominence to fringe views". Most of your changes are problematic as detailed in this thread and above at Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Quotes_removed, where other editors do not agree with your changes as you claim. There is quite a bit wrong with your edits, and I will now ask you for a second time to stop changing quotations. Your last series of edits introduced plagiarism when you removed the attribution and the quotes themselves. [15] Finally, your removal of Canal's quotes isn't supported, and your stated reason for removing them ("emotive") shows that you are confused about how we use quotes. Those quotes represent her POV. We don't neutralize the POV of a person we are quoting. There are fundamental problems with your edits here. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could hear what others think. My opinion is that putting a quotation stating the extreme fringe view, that GE foods are poison, gives the view undue prominence on the page and in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier I said that at a glance your changes looked OK however it seems that with closer inspection as outlined by Viriditas it seems that in at least several instances the edits were not acceptable. And as has been said repeatedly Martin, we do not edit articles for our personal version of the "truth". For instance, if Reverand xxx says that women get raped because they don't dress properly, that's what we quote them as saying regardless of our own views. Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot to comment on here. First, about the material that was on Martin's talk page, it would have been polite to either link from here to the talk page, or ask Viriditas before copying it here, but Viriditas should know that the terms of use, right above the save edit button, allow anything one writes to be copied anywhere else.

This is not the place to have arguments about whether or not opposition to GMOs is fringe science, or whether GMOs are poison.

Overall, I think most of Martin's edits have been helpful, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we should go more in the direction of using direct quotes of Canal, because of her special role in the subject of this page. If we directly quote her, then Wikipedia is not taking a position about her opinions about GMOs as "poison", and it's appropriate to indicate her beliefs and motivations. We can link to other pages in lieu of refuting her here.

I do not regard Martin's edits as introducing plagiarism.

About the specific edits for which Viriditas provides links, taking them one-by-one: I don't see any problems with the one about Monsanto Hawaii's statement. About the Monsanto CEO, I already commented at #Quotes removed. About Canal, I also commented above, and I'd be inclined to bring the direct quote back. About the Los Angeles march organizer, I'm neutral between the quote and the paraphrase, and I don't see any distortion of the meaning in the paraphrase. About Monsanto's official statements, ditto. About "According to the AP", it doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism, but I'd be inclined to either restore the explicit attribution or to insert the word "reportedly" into "Some people are reportedly concerned...", with the inline cite at the end of the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this rationale for using direct quotations. Paraphrasing can be useful for efficiency's sake, but in this case (subbed in to replace a one-liner) seems mostly to muddy the waters. groupuscule (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not object to all quotes but I think that the article as it was looked like a debate on GE food between Canal and Monsanto. I see two problems with this, firstly this is not the place for such a debate; we have an article on the subject. More importantly though, it gives legitimacy to an extreme fringe view (that GE foods are poison) and also gives the impression that the generally accepted view is only that of Monsanto.

I would not object to one or two quotes from Canal, but only in a context that does not give them prominence or legitimacy and also makes it absolutely clear to the reader that we are giving the words of a person with an extreme fringe view. I cannot see how we can do this, which is why I thought we should remove the quotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, that's fair, and that's progress, I think. Where you say that you cannot see how to do that, I can make a suggestion, using the quote at the top of this talk thread as an example. What Canal says there is, indeed, a view reflecting a particular POV. However, a direct quote makes it clear that she, not Wikipedia, is saying it. The problem you describe then becomes how to put what she says in context, without us taking a POV and without having a coatrack of arguments. I would suggest something like: "Talking about her personal motivations for starting the movement, Canal said '....'". Lead into the quote like that, and make it particularly clear that this is what she said. Have hatnotes directing readers to the pages where the GMO controversies are covered in detail. Keep reporting here what Monsanto has said in its responses. (I don't know if there are responses from sources other than Monsanto, but it would be worth looking for ones that specifically address the March.) That will work. This page is about a movement started by people who have a point of view, and there's no getting around the fact that this page will tell our readers what that point of view is. Maybe somebody will read her quote, decide to believe her literally, and not read anything more. There's nothing we can do about that, and it's not Wikipedia's job. But anyone who reads the whole page, including the Monsanto responses, and who goes on to look at the other pages we link to, will have access to enough information to draw an informed conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I could go with something like that for one or two quotes only but I do not think we should try to balance Canal's fringe opinion with Monsanto quotes. That gives her view legitimacy and makes it look as though only Monsanto support GE food. I think we should do all we can to prevent any possible misunderstanding that Canal's view is that of WP. One problem is that putting the full quote, "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", gives too much prominence to her opinion and I cannot see how we could reduce it and still retain the sense. We could actually do better with indirect speech along the lines of, 'Canal stated that she considered GE foods to be poison'. What would you suggest? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't have a point-counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto. I simply meant that Monsanto's perspective should continue to be included on the page, not necessarily right after each quote from Canal. For the reasons that I already said, my suggestion about the Canal quote is to use the quote, but presented in the way that I said. There is no problem with her view appearing to be Wikipedia's view if we do it this way. In this case, I would not paraphrase. Better to encompass all that she said: the increasing anger, the small fortune, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been no "point counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto" anywhere on this page. Judging by this discussion, there is support for adding the quotes back in. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the point-counterpoint seems to be, instead, on this talk page. I didn't say that there was one on the page. I said that there need not be one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you restored the quotes? Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you not know the answer to your own question? Please feel free to restore them yourself, and know that I will support your doing so, as long as it's consistent with what I have said here.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to skip the song, dance, and dinner, and get right down to business. Please make the changes so I don't have to figure out what is consistent with what you have said. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Too bad, since if you bothered to read what I wrote in this talk section, you'd find that I agreed with you about half of the time. When you asked me to read the archives, I did. Whatever. I promise not to invite you to dinner or dancing, but I don't react well to being ordered to do something, since I'm a volunteer like everyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a pattern of reading comprehension problems here. I have not ordered you to do anything. I have asked you to make your preferred changes so that I don't have to attempt to read your mind. You seem to be completely unwilling to explicitly say which quotes should go back in and which should be removed, so I've repeatedly asked you to make those changes. I don't see any problem with this statement, do you? Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry! I didn't realize that you had difficulty with reading comprehension. If I had, I would have explained it again. But in fact, I see from the edits you made to the page that you got it exactly right. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This snark goes to 11. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas' assertions of consensus

I have a few minor concerns following Viriditas' blanket reversions of my recent edits, which she or he has justified as based in talk page consensus. As I read the comments above, it seems that multiple editors have suggested that this page, as it exists, too closely resembles promotional material. I strongly agree. Viriditas has been the most frequent and vociferous opponent to these comments, but I wonder if Viriditas' opinions really equate with consensus. Observations:

1. The "March" was a march, a defined, discrete event. While the founder may hope that it turns into a true movement, and while this may eventually happen, there hasn't been enough time or evidence to establish this. The Wikipedia article should present what has happened, not what we hope will happen in the future.
2. Editors have objected to "grassroots" and other designations ("full time mother of two"?), which seem to be inserted to imply that the good, simple people of America have had enough and are standing up to the evil corporations. Is the continuing presence of such language encyclopedic?
3. My reading of Wikipedia policy is that the scientific consensus must be underlined when we present fringe topics. Anti-GMO events are truly fringe from a scientific and thus a Wikipedian perspective. This is not a slur or a reflection on numbers. Even if a majority of the American public believe that God created the world in six days or that a particular biotech is trying to surreptitiously poison unwitting Whole Foods customers, the Wikipedia definition of fringe is opposition to a well established and verifiable scientific consensus. The article should include a statement about the broad international consensus, and the sources for this statement do not need to address the May 25, 2013 event specifically. In contrast, the article is replete with material that is off-topic or of questionable relevance other than to promote the March organizer or suggest that her views are on an equal footing with scientific consensus. SpectraValor (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your points have been discussed extensively and at great lengths. There is nothing fringe in this article and the scientific consensus is well established with sources about the subject. Please consult this talk page or the archives for further information. I am, of course, happy to very briefly review the finer points of those discussions with you. As far as I can tell, you are attempting to restore the failed arguments of Thargor Orlando, who did not get consensus for his edits. I will chalk that up to a coincidence. As for your points:

1. Movement. This point has been discussed ad nauseum in the thread Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#US bias? Every angle of the discussion was addressed. You are now trying to reopen this argument with a straw man, defining the movement as a single discrete march. However, the sources define it as a movement based on accepted sociological definitions of organized activity that involve more than one geographical location, not more than one march. In other words, this topic is appropriately defined as a global movement per the sources and the accepted definitions in use.
2. Grassroots. You say that editors have objected to this term because of its implications, however the sources have described it as an "international grass roots movement". Grassroots in this topic area refers to ""ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership". This is covered in the above linked discussion.
3. Scientific consensus. You have attempted to re-open several discussions covered in depth at Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2, all of which concluded that 1) there is nothing "fringe" in the current version that needs attention, and 2) the scientific consensus is adequately and accurately presented in its proper context using sources about the subject. As it stands, the article currently says, "The U.S. government and scientists maintain that GMOs are safe for consumption, but those wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws" and "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming."
4. Off topic or irrelevant material. You've claimed that the current version "is replete with material that is off-topic or of questionable relevance other than to promote the March organizer or suggest that her views are on an equal footing with scientific consensus." I can see no part of this current version that reflects this view. Perhaps you will be so kind as to provide examples.

I believe that covers everything. If you are still interested in proposing your edits, simply choose one to start with and add it here below so we can discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many more people need to disagree with you on this, Viriditas. I'm surprised this is being argued again as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, there is no support for these edits, which coincidentally, restore your edits which were found to lack consensus and violate our policies. You cannot add original research to this article. End of story. We've discussed this extensively in the archives, and there was no support for your violation of policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

While I do agree with Viriditas on some of the above points, I think that the article is biased towards promoting the views of the protestors. The main mechanism for this is by becoming too much of a coatrack/vehicle for making their argument, via too much of (the sum of) repeating their talking points, spun wording, views and characterizations of things. Also via selection of wording. As one example of many, the name used in the lead to identify a portion of a law was the derogatory name/description created by the protestors. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That "name" is the one referred to the most in our best reliable sources. There is nothing promotional about it. It's the most common name for the law in relation to this topic. I cannot possibly see how not best representing our sources is an option. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with North, and I made an edit about the "Monsanto Protection Act" to not present it in Wikipedia's voice. I hope that at least that will be noncontroversial. Regarding scientific consensus, I agree with the changes that were made by SpectraValor in the GMO controversy section. For the lead, I agree with Viriditas about "grassroots" and "movement". For me, what's left after that are the numbers of participants, and I have already stated what I think we should do with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The use of the term "Monsanto Protection Act" is entirely inline with our sources. I am not all that concerned with your changes if the sources support them. As for the changes made by SpectraValor, we have previously discussed this when Thargor Orlando tried to add the same edits over and over and over again last month—against consensus. We cannot add original research to this or any other article which is exactly what this is—sources collected by editors that have nothing to do with this subject. The scientific POV is already well represented in this article from sources about the subject. This is very clear and has been extensively discussed. Thargor Orlando's continuous violation of our policies is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The fact that "SpectraValor" showed up out of the blue to restore these problematic edits and policy violations while subsequently having Thargor Orlando appear out of nowhere to restore them once again, shows that we've got a more serious problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Obvious teamwork is obvious. It's why I quit editing ths article and will not get involved with the GMO issue on wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said to Viriditas on my talk page: No, that isn't rule (policy or guideline) so you are in error. And no, it isn't wp:or because it is wp:suitably sourced. So you are wrong on both counts. I am more concerned about a good process for such changes (vs. the huge bundle that you just dropped) than any end result, so if you could just unbundle and discuss, I think that things would go much better. Interestingly, I think that my POV is the same as yours on this, but as always, when we enter as editors we need to check such that at the door and so 50% of my "disputes" are with people who are promoting my POV. That is our duty as editors in wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You are totally confused about how original research works. Original research can be "suitably sourced", and most often is! Have you actually read the policy?

...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research

None of the sources in question have anything to do with this subject, and even worse, the AP source that accurately represented this section was removed! This is not acceptable. We don't remove reliable secondary sources about a subject and replace them with off-topic, editor-chosen sources that are about a different subject! I am simply flabbergasted that an editor of your standing doesn't know this. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I wish that what you are implying (a degree-of-relevancy requirement for content) were true, but it isn't. Your construction was pretty creative (those three dots represent half the policy, not shortening of a sentence). The first part was putting forth a sourcing requirement for material and so does not establish a relevancy requirement for material. The second was referring to a juxtoposition of material to create a statement that was not in either of the sources. In any event, I'm in agreement with getting /keeping GMO debate material out of the article. The problem is that too much of the talking points of the anti-GMO has been put in via the mechanisms described above. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? There was nothing "creative" about this quote from policy and both are applicable. The sources were not related to the topic of this article and were being used out of context. It is not allowed, end of discussion. You're not going to wiggle out of this one. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

At some point, Viritidas, you're going to have to stop with the veiled attacks on other editors. Nothing in the talk history pushes against the point of the fringe guideline which you continually violate here, and it's hard for me, who has been engaged on this page for months now, to "come out of nowhere." If you can't justify your edits within guideline and policy, they're going to be removed. It's that simple. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on their "team", but I pretty much agree with Thargor and North. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Above, we are told that the issues about scientific consensus were settled at Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2. I've gone back and looked for where there was supposedly an editorial consensus that the sources involved original research by editors. What I could find was Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2#Report on sources for "broad scientific consensus". That doesn't even come close to representing either an editorial consensus or a demonstration of original research, except to the extent that the so-called "report" disputing the scientific consensus appears to be OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

About: [16], I also recently fixed some format errors, and the most recent revert of the scientific consensus material added the errors back: [17]. I'm quite willing to fix errors of that sort, but it seems to me that if someone is going to do a big reversion, they could be careful enough to fix any errors that they, themselves, have re-introduced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Question to those reverting the language back: why is it so important to keep bringing back the word "American" in the first sentence (referring to where Monsanto is)? After all, the rest of the sentence gives the specific location. Is it just easier to hit the revert link? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It might sound strange to US but not everybody in this world knows where this location supposed to be. We're writing for an international audience, remember? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's not a big enough deal for me to really care about, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me to click on the link to the city. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying "teams" I think that my real-world POV on this matches that of Viriditas, (I don't like GMO's) but we check that at the door when put on our wp editor hat. The article should not be a soapbox for promoting the anit-GMO view. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I better clarify that I was alluding to what petrarchan47tc said about "obvious teamwork". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about a minority view but about the march and is simply just not the place to argue for or against GMO's, (besides the points made directly in response to the march of course.)TMCk (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the format fixing, much appreciated! I agree with you that we should not be coat-racking here, but I also want to make sure that what we do say here is NPOV. And, as much as mistrust of GMOs is very much mainstream in culture and politics, the scientific consensus really is pretty overwhelming. Therefore, I think that we need to get back to the main question at hand. I went back and read the archived discussions. I don't see an established consensus for the wording on the page, and I don't see a explanation of why the language that you reverted is original research. The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. You are right that one of them had been malformatted, resulting in a cite error message, but they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There's also the continued concern of fringe viewpoints being introduced which is a constant problem, if you check the archives here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the archives, and you've repeatedly made this false claim without any evidence whatsover. So, again, I will ask you, what fringe viewpoints are being introduced that are problematic? None, you say? Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The ones about the lack of safety of GMO foods in particular, although the weight of the fringe viewpoint regarding media coverage continues to be a problem as well. I'm more concerned with the science on this specific issue of fringe viewpoints. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See! You can't quote a single word, phrase, or sentence from this article because there isn't anything fringe in it! You've been asked over and over again, and all you do is cite your opinion, not the article. Either you don't understand what you read or you just can't support your claims. Perhaps both. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the article does not talk about GM foods being unsafe? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, you are very confused about how we write articles on Wikipedia. The article talks about the protests, and the protesters who believe GM foods are unsafe. That's all verifiable, and it's what we write about. There is nothing fringe here at all and I'm getting the feeling that you don't know what "fringe" means. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt you two having fun about what the archives did or didn't say, but I'd like to get back to what the archives definitely did not say: a consensus against the content introduced by SpectraValor, or an explanation of why that content involved original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I just answered both of these questions in my initial reply to this thread. Is there a reason you are asking me to repeat myself? Look for the bold wording up above. It is very CLEAR. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I really did read that, and I'm pretty sure that I understood it. But I subsequently raised concerns about the reasoning. In the interests of clarity, I'll reproduce what I previously said, here:

"I went back and read the archived discussions. I don't see an established consensus for the wording on the page, and I don't see a explanation of why the language that you reverted is original research. The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. You are right that one of them had been malformatted, resulting in a cite error message, but they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture."

In the day or so since I wrote that, I think that the section on the GMO controversy has improved a lot, so some of what I had been concerned about is now outdated. And in fact, I don't see a need for the "fringe" template that has been put back at the top of the page, and I would agree with removing it. However, I still do not see why we could not add back the sources that SpectraValor had added, but which were reverted. They could go at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section, after "... and a scientific consensus is emerging that genetically-modified food is safe." In this case, I'm not even talking about changing anything in the main text, just adding sources. Is there an OR problem with doing that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It was repeatedly explained why SpectraValor's edits (which, if you believe in "coincidences", was a reversion to a similar version originally added by Thargor last month) cannot be added. Per our policies on using sources and avoiding original research, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". And, "even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." Is it making sense now? It isn't allowed. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I support this proposal, which is entirely consistent with and indeed demanded by Wikipedia policy on scientifically fringe topics. SpectraValor (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you support violating our policy on no original research, but you cannot create a local consensus that overrides our site-wide policy. Sorry. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

More soapboxing removed.

I have removed some excessive anti-Monsanto quotes from the article as these give undue weight to a minority opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not they don't, and you've been previously corrected in your erroneous beliefs about these quotes and how we use quotes in three separate discussions:

• Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#Quotes_removed
• Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#Quote_wars
• Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Regarding_quotations

As far as I can tell, this is a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. We've already had this discussion, yet you are not duplicating the same discussion twice on the same page and reopening it as a different discussion. There isn't a single policy or guideline that supports your continual removal of these quotes. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet there isn't a policy that supports your recent additions of fringe theories and beliefs, and yet you keep adding them in even though, time and time again, you've been told why this is a problem. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you repeating falsehoods again. There has never been any addition of fringe theories to this article nor does our guideline on WP:FRINGE have any bearing on this discussion. Furthermore, the policy at work here is WP:V. You don't get to remove what you personally disagree with here. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I am troubled that a single editor continues to disrupt good faith attempts to bring this article in line with policy. Cherry picking quotes from small community and tabloid newspapers should not be necessary to write a Wikipedia article on an "international grassroots movement." Ironically, even these same questionably reliable sources, read in full, call many of the single editors' conclusions into question. SpectraValor (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. This article is entirely 100% inline with policy, policies that neither your nor Thargor appear to understand, as you have both been repeatedly adding original research against our policy. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on how the article should be written

In my opinion the article should include:

Reasons for the march

We should include, in encyclopedic language, the reasons that the march took place, clearly and fully giving the marchers' reasons forobjecting to: GE food, Monsanto, some US legislation, and corporate power - once only.

Response from mainstream science

A quick summary of the mainstream scientific view on GM foods.

Response from Monsanto

Again, in encyclopedic language, a summary of Monsanto's response to the march - once

Details of the actual march

Numbers, countries etc, clearly separating the organisers' claims from independent data.

Future plans

Brief indication of the marchers' plans for future events.

The article already does these things, and in cases where you claim it does not, we find that either we cannot do it because of strict policies regarding original research or a lack of information. Essentially, your entire argument for changing this article is a straw man. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not, in my opinion have:

'Quote wars'. Detailed discussion of any of the subjects discussed, we have articles on those. Unenecyclopedic or inflammatory language. Promotional statements for the marchers or Monsanto. Anything and everything on the subject just because there is a sources somewhere for it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are the one who is engaging in "quote wars" here, disrupting both the article and talk page with your obsessive deletions based on no policy or guideline, only your own opinion. Further, your above layout contradicts virtually every discussion we've had on this subject, including the overwhelming consensus that we should not have a point-counterpoint layout. You continue to make unsupported claim after unsupported claim about this article. When asked to provide evidence supporting your claims, you refuse. The quotes you removed were neither excessive nor "anti-Monsanto", and the POV of a source is not a criteria we use for removal. There is no indication anywhere that we are using anything less than encyclopedic language, but you'll keep saying that because it's a nebulous term you don't have to define or describe, and it gives you a fake "reason" to keep making disruptive edits. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentence about who is promoting labeling laws and why / Agent Orange

This one sentence is not a huge deal, but I think emblematic on recognizing and dealing with what has been happening here. The statement as it was 2 days ago was

but those wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws."

This is an unsourced statement that everybody promoting labeling laws is from a sole group with a sole motive. Further, even the the particular source used gave several different groups promoting the labeling laws from which the one group was cherry-picked for inclusion, and also to construct the false/unsourced statement that that all promoters were from that one group. I made a tiny change (added "opposing or") which was a no-brainer partial fix, changing it to:

but those opposing or wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws.

Viriditas reverted the change. I then went through the source article and changed it to include the groups referred to in the article:

Due to these concerns, some consumers wishing to avoid GMO products, some organic food companies (and) some consumer groups and consumers wary of processed foods have advocated for mandatory labeling laws.

My changes was only a partial fix, as it still left intact the incorrect unsourced statement of a single motivation. A few other "sky is blue" other additional motivations are to require the stigma and expense of labeling as a way to oppose GMO by those who do so for other reasons, or by/for organic food companies to gain an advantage. This is not to support putting those in, it is to say that the statement of a sole motivation is both implausible and unsourced.

Viriditas then removed "some organic food companies" from the list of proponents. This removed info is straight from the source cited to support that statement.

With so much work attempting an only-partial no-brainer fix, and with Viriditas similarly modifying / dominating the article in other areas (23 of the last 25 edits) this is getting pretty depressing. This includes, Viriditas, who deleted a bunch of GMO research results as not being germane enough, just adding that Monsanto made Agent Orange during the Vietnam war! (which I reverted) This is getting depressing. I didn't / don't intend to spend much time trying to help with this article and am about to be chased away by this situation.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is this some kind of sick joke? Your edit wasn't even written in English and consisted of a straight copy and paste from the AP source, which is plagiarism. Here is the content you added, which of course, makes no sense in English:

some organic food companies some consumer groups and consumers wary of processed foods

What does the AP source say?

The Food and Drug Administration does not require genetically modified foods to carry a label, but organic food companies and some consumer groups have intensified their push for labels, arguing that the modified seeds are floating from field to field and contaminating traditional crops. The groups have been bolstered by a growing network of consumers who are wary of processed and modified foods.

I then followed up your edit by by fixing it and paraphrasing it. I'm sorry, North8000, but if you can't be bothered to write articles and must resort to copying and pasting from sources, then you shouldn't be editing. It is that simple. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The source named several groups promoting the labeling law, and did not ascribe an overall motive. I summarized the groups (there was no "copy and paste"). I suppose that the specific that you didn't like was that it specifically mentioned organic food companies as proponents of the law, something which you removed. And the extreme OR / wp:ver violation which remains is ascribing a single motive to all proponents of the law. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"Concerns" section and fringe-ness

1) Concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health 2) Allegations of a conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 3) Losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply 4) Concerns about GMOs and the declining bee population 5) Concerns about legislation like Section 735 of HR 933,

Of these 5 concerns, 1) and 4) are "concerns" about matters that science has a clear consensus on (GM food is as safe as conventional; GMOs are not involved in bee collapse). 2) and 5) are easy to show conflict of interest on. 3) is based on economic ignorance, the way it is stated, and lacks any "softener" like "concerns" or "allegations". The description of 5) is not an accurate description of the law.

The section is led with " According to the group, the protests were held to address supposed health and safety issues, perceived conflicts of interest, and agricultural, environmental, and legislative concerns. These include"

With the framework of that paragraph, I ~think~ it is OK for there to be FRINGE stuff, like 1) and 4), especially since they are not being stated in Wikipedia's voice (with footnotes, etc, as if they were valid concerns). Like I said, I think 2) and 5) are OK, but the description of 5) is not OK because it is a) not accurate, and b) stated in Wikipedia's voice. It would be OK if it were greatly truncated and just said "concerns about legislation like the "Monsanto Protection Act". And 3) needs "concerns about supposed" or something.

I am making those 2 changes - -shortening 5) and added words in front of 3). Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just quick extra note -- outside of adhering to WP:FRINGE with regard to science (and as I wrote above I ~think~ we are OK, with all the framing that has been done), going into depth and backing up the protesters' arguments with reliable sources is not what Wikipedia is for. We just name their concerns. Neutrally.Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and when covering an "international grassroots movement," we should be able to do better than a Colorado tabloid or a politically slanted Russian online "news" source or a Falun Gong organ from someone's basement for sources. SpectraValor (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources are entirely fine and adequate, and not a single one has questioned its standing as an "international grassroots movement". Furthermore, all of these things have been repeated in multiple sources and you have no basis for removing or changing them. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good argument. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing fringe about any of these statements, and this has been previously discussed extensively in previous discussions now found in the archives. These concerns are all adequately sourced to reliable sources about the subject. There is nothing whatsoever in our WP:FRINGE guideline that addresses these concerns in any way shape or form, and it appears you are misusing this guideline. What we are dealing with here is WP:V, a policy that trumps your misinterpretation of a guideline. Jytdog, you didn't come here to discuss your proposed changes, you came here to say "I am making those changes" and argued it's your way or the highway. That's not how Wikipedia works. All five concerns are solidly sourced and verifiable. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And unless the scientific reality is addressed on those claims, the article violates the fringe theories guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The concerns of the protesters are cited by the reliable sources. What part of the "scientific reality" do you claim has not been addressed? Be specific. Viriditas (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of maintenance tags

I've removed both the "fringe" and the "undue" tag as they appear to be placed for no reason whatsoever. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have readded them due to discussion above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What discussion? Do you even know what a "discussion" is? You added the tags for absolutely no reason. Stop doing that. Viriditas (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion occurs when various contributors carefully consider the issues. A discussion is not a single editor making demands of every other editor and making up rules as she or he goes along. I don't see that any consensus has emerged for removal of the tags, and I for one will oppose the removal until that happens. Viriditas is in danger of violating the spirit of [WP:3RR|3RR]] if this continues, and I am losing patience with this kind of editing. SpectraValor (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion has occurred, many times now, and each time Thargor receieved no consensus for his addition of tags. This discussion from June shows that to be true. The fact is, Thargor does not care about consensus, and he never has. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ReasonTV

I temporarily removed the ReasonTV source as it was used poorly in the article in a way that removed paraphrasing and added back in closely copied and worded content from AP. According to our article on Reason, "ReasonTV is a website affiliated with Reason magazine that produces short-form documentaries and video editorials." Further, according to the site itself, the video editorial was funded by the Reason Foundation, a "right-libertarian research organization that...produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values."

The Reason Foundation, along with Monsanto, is allegedly a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), whose advisers have been directly employed by the Reason Foundation. This would mean that ALEC was receiving money from Monsanto while employees of the Reason Foundation were acting as advisers and directors for ALEC. According to our article on ALEC, journalist John Nichols says that "legislation authored by ALEC has as a goal, 'the advancement of an agenda that seems to be dictated at almost every turn by multinational corporations." So, it does not appear to be a stretch to say that ReasonTV is not a neutral source.

Several problems with this. First of all, when we use a source like this, we have to use it carefully. Second of all, the link to the ReasonTV is a video editorial, and the opinion cited is commentary. The only attribution we have is to Sharif Matar, the writer, director, and editor of the video. The content in question is merely an editorial blurb for the video, not actual content we can use. The blurb reads:

Despite a growing consensus from major scientific organizations that there is no harm associated with GMOs, those that turned out remained firm in their belief that genetically engineered food is dangerous and rejected contrary views as "lies" or simply the product of scientists bought off by the industry.[18]

Please note how this editorial contrasts with the more neutral AP source:

The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe.[19]

Which is, more or less, what our article says. The AP source also remains neutral in their coverage of the protesters. An example:

Across the country in Orlando, about 800 people gathered with signs, pamphlets and speeches in front of City Hall. Maryann Wilson of Clermont, Fla., said she learned about Monsanto and genetically modified food by watching documentaries on YouTube..."Scientists are saying that because they create their own seeds, they are harming the bees," Wilson told the Orlando Sentinel. "That is about as personal as it gets for me."[20]

So right away, we see that some editors contributing to this article do not understand the difference between a neutral news source and an editorial blurb from the libertarian ReasonTV, a news source indirectly connected to Monsanto through ALEC. While I have no doubt that we can use this somewhere in our article, the way it is currently being misused to state an editorial opinion as fact is not the way to go. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Reason.TV is a highly reliable extension of Reason (magazine). It is as reliable as anything else here, and asserts the scientific consensus as well as relates it to the March. That's what the source uses it for, it's reliable, and it's added back in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

IDHT much? I just explained to you that it is a not a neutral news source like the AP source in use but a video editorial. In other words, it is an opinion piece that you misused by failing to attribute it correctly and citing it as a fact. It's also tarred by a possible COI as outlined Capiche? Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a neutral source, merely a reliable one. Which it is. Russia Today and The Grist aren't "neutral" either, you just dislike the fact that there's reliable sourcing that asserts the scientific facts against the fringe viewpoints you continue to add to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, I just finished explaining the problems with this source and how you used it. If you don't understand this problem, then simply say so, but we don't cite editorials as fact, we attribute. Since we already have a neutral reading of the background from the AP, why are you trying to insert an editorial here? And, I'm not convinced this is a reliable source. You should take it to the RS noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your "neutral reading" does not include the scientific consensus language, and you were complaining about original research, so I found you a source that contrasts the fringe viewpoints of the March with the scientific consensus. Don't fight me, thank me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted that source, and replaced it with better ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, and he'll probably remove them again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, you are being dishonest. On your talk page you have admitted that you did not cite ReasonTV's video editorial. You cited a blurb about their editorial video written by its creator. That is not a source, nor is it even reliable! That's like citing an advertisement. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure it is. It's published by a reliable source with editorial standards and controls. It's the textbook definition of such, and is no more or less biased than any number of sources being used in this article for various claims. It's quite basic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is questionable whether or not it is reliable, so I recommend you take your concerns to the reliable source noticeboard to get an outside opinion. The source itself is an editorial published by the Reason Foundation who appears to have a conflict of interest with stories about Monsanto based on the fact that advisers and directors from the Reason Foundation were working with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which was receiving funding from Monsanto. Based on this evidence, I would argue that its reliability is in question. And as an opinion piece, it needs to be used very carefully, and certainly not in the context of any scientific claims. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it (ironic) doesn't make it questionable. If you have an issue with the source, feel free to raise it at the RSN. I'm confident that it's a perfectly good source, much like many of the other ideological sources already in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted that source, and replaced it with better ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is an RFC needed?

I wasn't following this page in the last few days, but now I notice that it has been page-protected for three days due to edit warring over a content dispute. Should a article content Request for Comments be posted to get outside opinions on the content dispute before the page protection expires? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As always, the more eyes the better, but this article is not lacking for input from previously-uninvolved people. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "more eyes" determined that Thargor's repeated tagging of this article went against consensus. However, that has not stopped him from repeatedly adding the tag against consensus. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding things to the article that violate policy, and we won't need to have tags on the article that point out those issues. Yelling loudly doesn't help your case, nor does edit warring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never added anything that violated any policy, nor can you provide a diff showing that I have. Stop making shit up. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your continued introduction of material that promotes the fringe viewpoints of GM food while removing information that deals with the actual scientific consensus. Not to mention the continual accusations that many of us are being paid to edit here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Total and complete nonsense. You can't provide any diffs to support what you are saying because you're making it up as usual. I've introduced material that the preponderance of our reliable sources note as important and I've added more pro-GMO, pro-Science material to this article than you and everyone else combined. You're so entrenched in your erroneous POV and confused by how articles get written that you don't know actually know what we're doing here. I've been writing from both sides of the aisle at all times, but you obviously don't know how to do that. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your editing history at this article speaks for itself. I'm not going to get into a contest with you over who's better or worse. If you keep editing outside of policy, whether it be through revert warring or continued personal attacks, I'm confident it will be dealt with appropriately. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you cite a single diff showing a problematic edit? Is it because you are making things up again? Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop the subtle personal attacks and try to work the content issues rather than continuing to focus on the fact that two editors do not like each other. This issue is not ready to go to the ArbCom, but, if it does, the typical ruling by the ArbCom will be some form of topic-ban for certain editors or some form of discretionary sanctions. If you want to continue editing this article, do it politely. By the way, "stop making shit up" is very uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what is and is not a personal attack is completely backwards. Making an accusation over and over again while refusing to support that accusation is a personal attack. Telling someone to "put up or shut up" is not. I hope you are clear on his now. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert, I guess it depends on what question the RfC would ask. I'm the person who went to WP:RFPP to obtain the page protection, and I did it about edit warring. Most of the edit warring has been over adding and reverting two tags about fringe and undue. Personally, I think that, although more eyes are, indeed, always good, the real problem here is editors who are telling one another to "stop making shit up" instead of working towards consensus. WP:RFC/U, maybe? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more issues to this article than simply the tags. It's difficult to build consensus, however, when editors decide that their opposition is funded by outside groups. It's no wonder that we can't come to a conclusion when such bad faith is in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The accusations of bad faith are not new. I first came to this page when it was new, and an IP editor had added a poorly formatted table identifying cities in which the marches were held, and another editor deleted the table as unencyclopedic, and the IP editor went to the Help Desk complaining that the deleting editor must have owned stock in Monsanto. The problem appears to be a combination of content disputes (the tags, for instance) and conduct disputes (the uncivil edits). There are various stages of dispute resolution to be attempted. The least drastic would appear to be formal content Requests for Comments to bring in previously uninvolved editors to address the content issues. That would be less drastic than trying to sanction the uncivil editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The current RFC is untenable and it is not uncivil to demand evidence for an accusation. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your analysis. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No, what's uncivil is calling your fellow editors "ALEC funded" or implying they're paid shills. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Removec RFC on Genetically Modified Organisms

How much attention should be given in this article to concerns about the safety of Genetically Modified Organisms, a product of Monsanto and a concern of the protesters?

At least in the United States, the mainstream scientific view is that these organisms are safe and that concerns about their safety is fringe science. To what extent should these concerns (by the protesters) be mentioned in order to maintain neutral point of view?

Minimal to none. Advancement of fringe theories does no one any good, and ironically if not for these kinds of seeds it would make growing enough food very difficult. Arzel (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment -- this RfC is confusingly worded. As far as I can tell, the question is not if we need to present the views of the protestors (they're concerned about the safety of genetically modified food) but if FRINGE applies and we also need to include the mainstream scientific view (that genetically modified foods currently on the market are not any more dangerous than conventional food). a13ean (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this unauthorized, inaccurate, and non-neutral RFC that appears designed to contribute to the continued disruption of this topic. Nowhere, and I repeat, nowhere are concerns about the health of safety of GMOs considered "fringe", nor can any single reliable source be found supporting this statement. In fact, we find quite the opposite, namely, many scientists and peer reviewed articles calling for these concerns to be studied and investigated due to a lack of data on the subject. Now, if we want to have a reality-based RFC based on an actual problem that needs to be addressed here and not something that Robert invented, then we need to decide, by consensus, on the wording. The fact remains, we write about what our best sources say, and that's exactly what his article does. Now, please, no more fake RFCs about issues that don't exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended Viriditas, but no reputable scientist still entertains the notion of a "debate" over the health effect of genetically engineered foods. Over the past two decades a very clear consensus has emerged, supported by quite literally hundreds of safety assessments from a wide variety of sources. I find your anti-science stance on this issue quite disappointing. Claims that genetically modified foods are dangerous to human health are the very definition of fringe claims. Your opinion does not trump the mountains of established evidence and statements from organizations ranging from the The National Academy of Science to the European Commission. I am extremely disappointed that you are attempting to censor this RFC because of your fringe views, although I do agree to some extent that this RFC may not be entirely needed at this time. Firemylasers (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not anti-science here or anywhere else, I do not have any "fringe views", and I have not attempted to "censor" anything. User:Robert McClenon, who I have literally never seen before, just showed up to start this RFC about something that is not under discussion. If there's going to be an RFC on anything, it should relate to what the active editors are doing and what they are concerned about. Concerns about food safety are not considered fringe anywhere in the world. That's a flat out lie. Protesters maintain that there are no significant long-term safety studies on human health risks from GMOS, current safety testing fails to assess harm, there is a risk of toxin exposure, and there is a risk of allergic reaction. And, according to protesters, when you don't have labeling laws, people don't know what they are eating so they can't report any problems related to GMOs or avoid them. No "problems" have been reported because there are no labeling laws. According to the claims by protesters, GMOs are not rigorously tested anywhere, there's no approval process except for an entirely voluntary process controlled by Monsanto who tests their own products. Additionally, concerns about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops remain valid and under debate. Concerns about the safety risks of GMOs (or anything else for that matter) are not "fringe" nor are they considered fringe by any reputable source. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"I am not anti-science" - yet you are making anti-science claims.

"I do not have any fringe views" - but your views are the definition of fringe.

I agree to a certain extent about the RFC, but I think that comments on the degree of information that should be included can be helpful.

"Concerns about food safety are not considered fringe anywhere in the world" - incorrect, concerns about food that has been extensively proven to be safe are indeed considered fringe. This is a scientific issue, not an opinion issue, and your claims clash with the evidence.

"Protesters maintain that there are no significant long-term safety studies on human health risks from GMOS" - Protesters seem to be unaware that:

• No actual need for long term studies has ever been demonstrated.
• A handful of long term studies on animals were conducted and found nothing useful.
• Actual human tesing is impractical due to ethical and logistical issues, and has never been performed on any other food production method before.
• And for that matter, no other food production method has had any safety testing performed on it.

"current safety testing fails to assess harm" - The opinions of protestors do not trump the opinions of both major organizations nor the incredible amount of evidence in existence on this subject.

"there is a risk of toxin exposure" - Such claims are not supported by the evidence.

"and there is a risk of allergic reaction" - As with the toxins claim, this claim is not supported by the evidence.

"when you don't have labeling laws, people don't know what they are eating so they can't report any problems related to GMOs or avoid them" - This claim ignores how any "problems" should be easy to reproduce, and given how these particular crops have never been shown to be a health hazard, this is by no means a non-fringe opinion/claim.

"GMOs are not rigorously tested anywhere" - One would wonder what their definition of "rigorously tested" is, and I certainly wonder why this absurd claim is considered credible.

"there's no approval process except for an entirely voluntary process controlled by Monsanto who tests their own products" - This is a severe and intentionally blinded misrepresentation of the current regulatory structure in the US. How is this not a fringe claim?

"Additionally, concerns about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops remain valid and under debate" - There is no reputable evidence behind this claim.

"Concerns about the safety risks of GMOs (or anything else for that matter)" - Ah, so claims that vaccines cause autism are not fringe? Global warming denialism is not fringe? Evolution denialism is not fringe? You seem to be operating off of an entirely different definition than what WP:FRINGE defines.

"nor are they considered fringe by any reputable source" - You seem to have a completely different definition of "reputable source" than what WP:FRINGE#Reliable_sources has. Firemylasers (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources like science reporter Natasha Gilbert, writing for the journal Nature in May 2013 says, "It can be hard to see where scientific evidence ends and dogma and speculation begins...critics question their environmental, social and economic impacts. Researchers, farmers, activists and GM seed companies all stridently promote their views, but the scientific data are often inconclusive or contradictory."[21] Are you now going to claim that the journal Nature is "fringe" too? All of the concerns about GMOs have been made in reliable sources, including scientific journals. In 2012, François Houllier, president of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, called for more "risk–benefit analyses of GM crops" and "more interdisciplinary studies of GM foods, especially on health impacts in animals and humans", yet you say these studies are not needed and it is a "fringe" opinion? Michael Antoniou also called for "the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies" and "when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient." Yet this is a "fringe" opinion? And, the concern about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops, a concern you dismiss with "no reputable evidence behind this claim", actually has solid reputable evidence published in Environmental Sciences Europe, showing that "the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied...The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."[22] The sweet, delicious irony here, is that it isn't the claims of the protesters that are "fringe", but actually the claims made by Monsanto. Contrary to what they claim, studies show that GMO crops do not increase yields or reduce pesticide use and there are no long-term health studies showing they are safe. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Are you now going to claim that the journal Nature is "fringe" too?" - I think you're completely misinterpreting what Natasha is saying. Have you taken a look at the literature recently?

"François Houllier, president of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, called for more "risk–benefit analyses of GM crops" and "more interdisciplinary studies of GM foods, especially on health impacts in animals and humans"," - Thank you for showing me that let's see, a single person decided that more studies would be beneficial? Great. Now show me how this invalidates the evidence or scientific consensus. Or how it even says anything more than "more studies are always useful". Also note that Houllier has been highly critical of advocacy-driven studies from activists such as Seralini, and that these comments were made in response to Seralini's antics in 2012.

"Michael Antoniou also called for "the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies" and "when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient." Yet this is a "fringe" opinion?" - Michael Antoniou is affiliated with Seralini and CRIIGEN, he is not a reliable nor reputable source, especially with how CRIIGEN is funded and how CRIIGEN has a long history of producing flawed studies.

"And, the concern about the health effects of agrochemicals used on GE crops, a concern you dismiss with "no reputable evidence behind this claim", actually has solid reputable evidence published in Environmental Sciences Europe, showing that "the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied...The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."[23]" - First of all your claim was about health effects, something that Benbrook's paper never attempted to address. Secondly, Benbrook made up statistics to fit his paper. There's a reason it was published in that journal. Not sure what I'm talking about? Read the following links, which address the issues in his two (almost identical) papers in depth: [24] [25]

After you've finished digesting that, read this excellent and very informational post on the subject of weed resistance: [26]

"The sweet, delicious irony here, is that it isn't the claims of the protesters that are "fringe", but actually the claims made by Monsanto." - I think that the irony is that you appear to be incapable of separating good science from bad science.

And on the subject of herbicide use: [27]

"Contrary to what they claim, studies show that GMO crops do not increase yields" - Intrinsic vs overall yields, are you still caught up on that point?

At any rate, here's a good example of yield increases in Bt cotton: [28]

You also seem to have ignored how yield benefits from Bt and RR crops aren't direct and never have been. Put a RR and conventional crop side by side in a weed-free field and you'll see similar yields. Put them side-by-side in a infested field and see which one fares better with the same amount of herbicide use. Hint: It won't be the conventional one. The whole point of Bt and RR is to reduce pressure on the plant from insects (Bt) and weeds (RR when combined with herbicide), not to directly influence yields.

"or reduce pesticide use" - herbicide example: [29] insecticide example: [30]

"and there are no long-term health studies showing they are safe" - False, see below:

[31]

Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

At any rate, I leave you with this informative image: [32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firemylasers (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your wild eyed opinion that any scientist who criticizes Monsanto or GMOs can't be trusted is nonsense. Your claim that I have misunderstood the Nature article is false because I quoted it. Your claim that the Nature article is outdated is false because it is dated May 2013. Your claim that any scientist critical of GMOs or Monsanto shouldn't be trusted is anti-science. Science is a skeptical enterprise. Your so-called "long term study" is nothing but a literature review, which is subject to the same kind of bias found in a meta-analysis, namely the cherry picking of studies which prove the author's point. Further, the study you cited notes many problems with GM soybean research and plays around the concept of what is statistically significant harm. Viriditas (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please also all bear in mind that we already have articles on the subject of GM food and their safety. This article is about 'The March against Monsanto'. Its content should be restricted to that topic. This is not the place to rehearse pro and anti GM views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We should minimize making this a WP:COATRACK for the general GMO debate, but we need to explain the motivations of the marchers, and to put those motivations in context per WP:FRINGE, so a brief summary per WP:Summary Style is appropriate. The underlying issues are being discussed productively at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#Request for comment on "broad scientific consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, we should explain the motivations of the marchers but briefly and in our own encyclopedic language rather than as a series of adversarial quotations. That is exactly what I have suggested above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Back at #Regarding quotations, I had tried to draw a distinction concerning quotes from the people who actually were behind the March, as it is the subject of the page, and I made suggestions about how to avoid making it sound like Wikipedia was expressing an opinion about the truth or falsehood of what the quotes claim. I thought that you said that you could work with that. Do you still think we can find a reasonable middle ground about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that we could find some middle ground here. My objection is to editors using WP as a soapbox for their personal opinions, which can be done by careful selection and display of material from reliable sources. The two principles that I believe are relevant here are 'encyclopedic language and style', and 'constraining the content of this article to the march and its background'. Anyone who does not understand what I mean by 'encyclopedic language and style' should go to a library and read some articles from Britannica or Chambers encyclopedias. Alternatively they might look at some of our FAs like Microsoft.

I agree that we must state the background of the march and the motivations of the marchers but but we should not enter into any kind of pro/anti GE food argument here; the reader should be referred to the relevant articles. Do you agree with these general principles? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I do agree and I think that you stated that very well (just so long as we are not precluding a reasonable number of direct quotes from the participants in the March). I think that it's very important right now for editors from a variety of perspectives to try to find a middle ground. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of RFC

A previous RFC was applied to this page, and was removed by another editor who referred to it as an unauthorized RFC. I see nothing in the dispute resolution policy that authorizes the removal of a so-called "unauthorized" RFC. I have tried to treat the disputes here as content disputes to be resolved by requesting consensus. If my efforts are frustrated by removal of the RFC, this will be a user conduct dispute. If anyone dislikes the wording of the RFC, they can use this talk page to address how they would prefer to see the issue addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this should probably be referred to a WP:RFC/USER. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was poorly phrased, but the unilateral removal was inappropriate. a13ean (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, Robert, that editors who are working on the article might be better at drafting RfCs. I know we had a huge issue at BP when you swept in after having no involvement there at all, and made a very poorly worded RfC which caused all 'voters' to be called back to explain their answers. I'm not sure if RfC's are your 'thing', but I would recommend working on articles to get a better idea of the issues, and when you feel compelled to start another RfC, the wording will come from a place of understanding and help solve, rather than cause problems. petrarchan47tc 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Since everyone on this page was busy with name-calling and reverting rather than trying to resolve the dispute, a content RFC was the least unpleasant way to try to resolve the issues, rather than having to focus on the user conduct issues that were interfering with resolving the content dispute. As the section below notes, user conduct is now being observed also. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware

WP:ANI#Eyes needed at Talk:March Against Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue that was identified has to do with the uncivil comments and personal attacks and with editors who think that the fact that they are on the right side justifies their saying in an uncivil way that their "enemies" are on the wrong side. Tryptofish has asked administrators to pay attention to this page. Any editor who still thinks that rightness justifies incivility should not be surprised if they are blocked without warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Those comments were neither uncivil nor personal attacks, and you appear to be disrupting this talk page by filing biased, off topic RFC's based on your personal opinion and not on the consensus of participants nor on any of the active issues. Your continuing participation here does not seem to be helping things. Previously, you tried to have this article deleted which didn't work. Now, you are trying to accuse people of uncivility and personal attacks while filing biased RFCs that have no bearing on the discussion here. Based on your record here, it would be best if you recuse yourself from acting as a neutral arbiter in any way on this article. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually Robert, I would hope that there would be warnings before resorting to a block. I said specifically at ANI that I'm not looking to get anyone blocked, just to put a stop to the kinds of postings that get in the way of consensus, and I'll leave it to others to form an opinion as to whether there was any of that here in this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, since my wiki-style is to be blunt with people but to avoid trying to get them in trouble, I'm going to avoid using wiki-offense words here. At this article you stand out from the crowd by miles in terms of the amount of writing with nastiness towards other editors and the degree of that nastiness, and a large amount of aggressive editing of the article in ways that are controversial.

In particular, regrading content, in various ways (NPOV,fringe etc.) many have expressed that this article has become too much of a soapbox for the talking points of one side of the GMO debate, and IMO even in the face of that (before locking) you had been doing edits that pushed it even deeper into that problematic territory.

Why don't you just dial all of that back a couple of notches? North8000 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This time I agree completely with North8000, an editor with whom I have had disagreements in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has reason to be frustrated by what's going on here. Unproven smear words like "fringe" and "anti-scientific" are far more inappropriate than Viriditas's attempts to clearly describe the views of "March Against Monsanto" at the page about "March Against Monsanto". groupuscule (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. While those wouldn't be my words to describe those viewpoints, their use is not nastiness against other editors and extremely aggressive / dominating contentious editing which is what this particular mini-thread is about. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To the extent that I was the person who started this discussion thread, I think that I'm entitled to express my personal opinion that editors on both "sides" should try to achieve consensus, instead of hampering it. I'm not aiming it at just one person. Now, that said, I've noticed a very conspicuous asymmetry. To the best of my imperfect ability, I've tried to find middle ground since I came upon this page. My positions about content have been about 50-50 between the two "sides". Groupuscule and I disagree about what they said just above, but Groupuscule also sent me a thank notification for one of the talk comments I made the other day. Now when I disagree with the editors who might be described as leaning "pro-Monsanto", some of them kind of keep arguing and ignore what I said, but nobody so far has said anything nasty or mean-spirited to me. On the other hand, there's a ton of pixels here where I've interacted with that one editor, and they overreach when I agree with them and consistently accuse me of either stupidity or bad will when I disagree. Look, it's fine to care about the political issues underlying this subject, but WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, something else stands out to me. And I'm very much talking about all editors on this talk page, and not any single individual. It's real easy to get editors to talk at great length about what they think about bad user conduct, as in this thread. And it's real easy to get editors to argue at length about an edit that offends them but that has not been on the page for some time, due to subsequent edits improving the situation. But I'm finding it very difficult to get multiple editors to sit down, read the source material, and answer questions about the right way to word text, the right way to summarize source material, and similar concrete content questions. There are plenty of opportunities to do so, above on this talk page. Pretty soon, the page protection is going to be lifted, so it has some significance to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Having real discussions is much more productive than firing volleys.North8000 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, please bear in mid though that sources are not everything. Everything that we write must be supported by sources but we must not write everything that is supported by sources. We are writing an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. (In fact, I think North may remember that I helped write the part of WP:V that says that!) As I said, I'm interested in "the right way to word text, the right way to summarize source material, and similar concrete content questions." What you are talking about goes to part of that, but we also must not, for example, inaccurately represent those sources that we do choose to cite. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like it was yesterday! Quite a time! North8000 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)