Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Issues

Rather than getting better, this article has been pushed deeper into being a soapbox / coatrack / trojan horse for the anti-GMO side of the GMO debate. This needs fixing. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My thought would be for a neutral or semi-neutral person (maybe Tryptofish who I often disagree with and always immensely respect) to blaze through this and cut the whole thing down to coverage of the article topic. Also so that the amount of anti-GMO talking points / material that still ended up in there would be balanced by coverage of the pro-GMO material. And consensus would give them enough support to prevent a mass undoing of their work or that process, although it could still be edited. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, although I'm not claiming any special status here, of course. I have just gone through the page as a whole. I'm also going to leave a message at Viriditas' user talk (now reverted --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)). Here is what I have done, for now:

1. I (and another editor just before me) have reverted a significant portion of Viriditas's most recent edits. However, I have not reverted all of them, and I actually restored some of the edits that Viriditas had made.
2. I agree with Viriditas that there is nothing helpful about the fringe and undue tags, and I have removed them. Of course, anyone concerned about fringe or undue issues can discuss that here in talk. Please "use your words" instead of placing tags.
3. I agree with Viriditas about adding the further reading entry.
4. I agree with Viriditas about adding sourcing to the concerns section, from Boston Magazine and the Tampa TV station.
5. I agree with Jytdog about the better wording about scientific consensus. I altered his wording about the possible economic losses by farmers. I disagree with his complete removal of what Dave Murphy said, because some of it was specifically about the March. What I've left from Murphy is an accurate representation of what Murphy actually said and did not say, but I've left out things he said that were not directly related to the March.
6. I've made some fixes to the lead language about the number of cities.
7. About the scientific consensus, I've left the Reason source, pending discussion, but I've also added most of the recently-deleted sources from mainstream scientific reliable sources, because they speak directly to that scientific consensus. I've read the talk archives. I've read, over and over again, Viriditas' angry shouts that the sources violate WP:NOR. I know what WP:NOR says. But nobody has provided a logical explanation of why citing those sources violates WP:NOR, and I'm pretty convinced that no such explanation really exists.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I've deleted the Reason source. There are concerns about it, and we don't need it, with the other more-scientific ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with North8000. This article has become a soapbox for the anti GM debate. It is about a march not GM food. I have tried editing but it has all been reverted. THis is becoming a serious problem on WP, wher pressure groups turn articles into soapboxes. I have given my view on how this article should be organised above but this has been largely ignored. WP is in danger of losing its authority if this continues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, it's not worth getting all worked up about. I'm not upset. And I don't think this is the apocalypse for Wikipedia. This is just a run-of-the-mill POV dispute. And I even think that Viriditas is correct about some of the issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not just this article. Many now see WP as a promotional tool for opinions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true. They always have, and they always will, I suspect. The best one can do is just edit for NPOV as best as one can. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I support and thank you for your work here. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I don understand your latest edits. It looks like you ignored the discussion on this page entirely and just added and changed content for no reason. I suggest you take your proposed additions to the OR noticeboard as I believe they run afoul of our policy. Further, you left in wording that plagiarizes two different sources after I already explained the problem. Viriditas (talk)}

No, I read the discussion on this page very carefully, not ignoring it at all, although I can certainly make mistakes. I had reasons for everything I did, and in fact, I provided, just above, a point-by-point explanation of them. I'm familiar with the OR policy, and I have a track record of making constructive edits. I'm pretty sure that I didn't leave in any plagiarized content, but if there's a mistake we can correct it. I do hope that you'll take to heart what I tried to say (reverted by you) on your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Viriditas, I think that the beginning of this section discusses the process. In a few cases there might a few word sequence from a a source which cites that source which you are calling "plagiarizing" and saying that the remedy is to knock out that material. If one accepts your "stretching it" interpretation, the remedy would be to put quote marks around it. If you indicate which you feel have that problem such would be an easy solution. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

About possible plagiarizing, please see also User talk:Tryptofish#Re: March Against Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be confused. The current version removed the paraphrasing and restored Thargor's plagiarizing of both AP and the editorial by Reason. Is this making sense? Furthermore, please show how the sources you added are both relevant to this topic, reliable, and accurately reflect the content cited. The AP source already did this, but the sources you added do not. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Lets not keep changing subjects. Which current material are you saying is a plagiarism? North8000 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation you're levying. What's your evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I can make of this. The possible plagiarism discussed on my talk page is fixed in the current version by (1) putting it in quotation marks, and (2) saying in the text (not just the inline citation) that it is from the AP. I've deleted the Reason source, and the language leading into where it had been is a composite of several editors' revisions, the most recent being Jytdog, so I don't see how anything plagiarized from the Reason source could still be on the page. Finally, I've already explained about the sources supporting the scientific consensus section. I explained it once, and, when you (Viriditas) subsequently expressed concerns about it, I copied and pasted what I had previously written once again. If you look above at #Viriditas' assertions of consensus, and find the outdent symbol near the end of that thread, you will see what I said there. Viriditas responded to what I said there by repeating that policy does not allow using sources that are not really about the supported content, out of context, to advance a point that the sources do not make, but I had already explained why the sources are entirely reliable, directly related to the content, directly support it, and not out-of-context, and I had already explained why arguments to the contrary appear to be incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please show me how these sources are directly related to the topic of the "March Against Monsanto". They are not and they don't belong here. Further, I have serious doubts that the sources are reliable and support what you are trying to say. Please cite the content per request according to the principles of WP:V. I've actually previously addressed this last month and I showed that these sources were being misused and were in violation of OR. We write about the topic from sources about the topic, and those on-topic sources already cover the response from the scientific community. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought I already did, but I'll try to do it in more detail. Because of the complex threading of this discussion, I'll make a space for it in #Issues about the science sourcing, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And you've made it impossible for me to respond. I'll have to figure out a way to respond directly to that new thread. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Impossible? Really? All you have to do is to comment there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The fringe tags and the undue weight tags are there because the issues are under discussion and they are flags to readers that the article is in a problematic state. Viriditas believes they're unhelpful because he keeps adding fringe material to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And I keep removing fringe material, or at least making sure that it is presented according to WP:FRINGE, but I agree with Viriditas that the tags have become unhelpful. That's why I removed them. How about you look at what the page says now, and explain here in talk what is fringe or undue now? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There has never at any time been any consensus for Thargor's repeated tagging and this has been discussed extensively in the archives. For only one example; see Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_2#Survey Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, the discussion linked above shows you have never had any support for your tag warring. Never. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect yet again. Please stop warring over tags, fix the article instead or leave it to those of us who want to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the way I read it, too: consensus mostly against the tags. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where that consensus is outside of those who are adding the fringe, poorly-weighted viewpoints to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Trypto, in its current form, I'm fine with losing the fringe tag, but if you have your stuff removed, I'm putting it back. The undue weight tag still belongs in the media section, as we're still giving far too much weight to a demonstrably false position. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, Holy King of IDHT, you've been repeatedly corrected on this point for over a month. Whether you consider an opinion is true or false is irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's entirely relevant. You clearly don't understand the policies or guidelines of this project at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand them quite well and I use them everyday. However, you have invented a new policy that exists only in your head and we can't use it. Nowhere do we have any policy or guidleine that instructs us to remove attributed opinions because we personally feel the person might be wrong. That's something you made up. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Thargor. Let's hope that doesn't become necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked at RFPP that the page be full protected. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That could be seen as a convenient and sneaky way of keeping the article locked to your disputed version of the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I smell bad too. You did see the part where I restored some of your edits that were reverted by other editors, didn't you? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you made so many accusations about plagiarism, but now won't answer the question. So, again, which material in the article do you consider to be plagiarism? North8000 (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This continuing conversation means that the issues have not been resolved satisfactorily, and multiple editors now including me have wanted to keep the tags. I respect what Trypto has to say on this, but I oppose tag removal for now. SpectraValor (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You aren't required to "oppose" its removal, you have to argue for adding it. You've got the burden backwards. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, but what I really hope for is a stop to the constant reverting. Please let me suggest that, if you look at the page at this time, rather than at some of the talk page discussions where editors continue to argue about things that are no longer on the page, you will find that the fringe and undue issues really aren't a problem right now. But, that said, by all means let's discuss whatever needs to be discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like at least one editor is bumping up against WP:3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues about the science sourcing

Above, Viriditas has asked me for a more complete justification of the sources following the scientific consensus statement in the background section about the GMO controversy. I'll try to address each question specifically.

Viriditas asked:

1. "Please show me how these sources are directly related to the topic of the "March Against Monsanto". They are not and they don't belong here."
2. "Further, I have serious doubts that the sources are reliable and support what you are trying to say."

With respect to the first question, I have previously commented on that multiple times. Once again, I will copy-and-paste something that I said, repeatedly, before in this talk:

"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. ...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 [those views] may be in politics and culture."

Again: if the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. And I've made it clear why.

With respect to the second question, let's look at the sources one-by-one:

1. Editorial statement from the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
2. Report from a council of the American Medical Association, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
3. Information from the World Health Organization, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
4. Report from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, saying in part that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.
5. An "other sources" combined list of six peer-reviewed papers from the scientific literature, all compliant with WP:MEDMOS, saying that science considers GMO foods not to be harmful.

These are all sources that comply both with WP:RS and WP:MEDMOS. The content that they are cited to support is: "and the scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." It seems to me that WP:BURDEN is amply satisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this is why I introduced the Reason.TV link, as it directly notes the consensus of science in the context of the March. Reason being a reliable publication, this shouldn't be a problem, although I prefer your way (obviously, since I had initially put it in the article similarly some time ago). Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you cited a blurb about a ReasonTV video editorial, not the source itself, and the blurb was written by the editor. It does not note any consensus, it offers an opinion about the consensus. Note, this is entirely different than the neutral wording used by the Associated Press. I have no objections to using this video editorial somewhere in the article, and I've opened a separate thread to discuss it. However, you misused the source, which is why it was removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I support including this essential information. SpectraValor (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you may want to participate in the thread about ReasonTV and not keep duplicating discussions. Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, what you, in turn, may want to do is to respond to my detailed reply to you in the opening of this sub-thread. I think that I have responded to everything about these sources that you asked me to respond to. If you do not rebut what I have said, then I think the consensus will be that my analysis is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed your points, several times in fact, in previous discussions. I will certainly address them again when I have free time, but your "analysis" violates are most basic OR policy on topical and relevant material about the subject. Your sources have nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. And, we already had a good secondary source from the AP that did, so your addition did not improve this subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have time to make personal attacks all over this talk page, then you have time to explain why you think that I was wrong when I said, over and over again, "if the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. You can't use off topic sources. That's enshrined in our OR policy. And you failed to quote the material from the sources I asked per V. So, I'm still waiting on your response. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see now that you want an actual verbatim quote, per WP:BURDEN. Let me start with one from the first source on the list. (If we need to, we can go through each of them one-by-one, but I have a feeling that would just be a waste of time.) The first source says: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and “every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.”" OK, that's what the source said. The material we are trying to source is: "and the scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." I think that meets WP:BURDEN. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Saw this from the 3rr message board. This is definitely a fringe theory. I see no problem with the fringe theory tag. All scientific evidence shows that these foods are safe. Arzel (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is no "fringe" theory under discussion in this thread. We are discussing the use and misuse of sources. Please read the discussion before you respond to it. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I (Tryptofish) argue that:

"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 [those views] may be in politics and culture."

Viriditas argues instead:

"Nonsense. You can't use off topic sources. That's enshrined in our OR policy."

The content that we are talking about sourcing is: "and the scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." I think Viriditas and I are at an impasse about that, so it probably comes down to what other editors think is the correct argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really come down to what other editors think, as policy demands we balance out fringe theories with the real-world evidence. We don't have a choice here, and Viriditas is arguing that there are no fringe theories in the article because he actually believes the claims being made by March proponents. The evidence doesn't support it, however, thus the "impasse." No policy requires us to take fringe theories as legitimate arguments. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I care what other editors think, anyway, so please let me ask you: Do you agree with me that, merely because the sources are not about the March, it is not OR to cite those sources about the GMO background? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not OR, no, because we're asserting the scientific consensus of a claim made. We have sources that assert the scientific consensus in the context of the March if that helps head off the OR concerns, but the information about the consensus must be included in some form. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

On the question a couple dozen lines up. Viriditas is essentially making a claim that a non-existent policy exists. Which is that a source can't be used to support some material in an article (or be used in an article) unless the source discusses the topic of the article, and that such a use is "OR". This is not in policy or guidelines (and would be ludicrous) and so the foundation of their argument is faulty and thus so is their argument. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On the "scientific consensus is that genetically-modified food is not harmful." I think that the sentence needs a tweak to avoid being an overreach. I doubt that there is such a statement about ALL GMO foods, including the one just invented in a lab yesterday or the ones yet-to be created. I assume that the sources refer to the ones that are approved or in use. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and that last point is such an excellent one that I'm facepalming for not realizing it sooner! We should, instead, use the near-consensus language from Genetically modified food controversies. But I think the sourcing is OK for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the (probably bogus) criticisms of the sourcing, the last few comments in this discussion make it entirely clear that SpectraValor's edit here: [1] was within consensus and was constructive, and it should not have been reverted. I've restored it, with a few minor tweaks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the following from #Let's put up some specific proposed changes, decide on them and move forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right now, this (in my opinion) is the most pressing issue, especially in the "concerns" section. To meet basic NPOV standards (including our fringe theories guideline), we need to ensure that antiscientific fringe theories do not go unchecked in the article. I believe the best way to do so, in the few cases left, is to simply use a source that asserts the consensus and note it after the point. The source does not have to contextually mention the March, but it would be preferable if one exists (such as the Reason.TV link from earlier). Thoughts on this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've commented at length in the original talk section that it doesn't matter that the sources are not about the March, because the sentence that they support is not specifically about the March. Again, we are talking here about one particular sentence, not a general principle about the page. (Maybe it isn't working to have this discussion in two different places.) The key purpose of that sentence, however, is just what you said, to provide a context about FRINGE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

End of moved discussion.

Other discussion

Again, for what has to be the millionth time, none of your links have anything to do with this March. We can only use sources about this topic. Got it? Good. Now, you say you don't trust the accuracy of the Boston Magazine source. You need to explain why you don't think it is accurate and how it differs from other sources. Does the bill protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential risks? According to the multitude of sources that we on this subject, yes, it does. Now, if you can show otherwise, please do so. The pattern that I'm seeing here is very clear. You and other editors are repeatedly removing and arguing to remove any content critical of Monsanto, regardless of the fact that this content is easily verifiable and published by many different reliable sources. What we have here, in my opinion, is a clear disregard of Wikipedia policies, and a disruptive pattern of wikilawyering to push a POV. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who wants to include details about HR 933, if it's related to the march than material related to HR 933 IS on topic, if it isn't related to the march then why is anything about HR 933 IN this article in the first place? Firemylasers (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, as you have been repeatedly informed, it is the multitude of sources about the march that include details about HR 933, and as editors, we write articles based on the sources. It is directly related to the reasons for the march, and this has been explained a dozen times on this page and in multiple discussions. You are simply disrupting this talk page again, pretending that those discussions never occurred All of the sources used to discuss HR 933 in this article are about the march. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting to discuss HR 933 on a page about a march. Please point out where Wikipedia policy states that off-topic expansion in an unrelated article is not supposed to be NPOV. We are supposed to write articles based on reputable sources and are supposed to provide a NPOV, this is not achieving that goal. Firemylasers (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong on every point. The sources about the march discuss HR 933. What part of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV isn't making sense to you? Please choose a specific source from the article that you feel does not meet this standard? Please be brief and specific in your reply. It sounds to me like 1) you didn't look at the sources 2) you didn't do the research, and 3) you aren't making any sense. Finally, I would like to once again point out that you and others are disrupting the talk page. The HR 933 discussion is already taking in place in this thread. This thread once again duplicates an already ongoing discussion thread. Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed sources pass all of those. Your attempt at excluding these sources violates WP:NPOV. Firemylasers (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you appear to be confused. We only use sources about the subject. In this particular instance, we are using sources about the March Against Monsanto. Was there something that a particular source said that disagreed with the sources we are using? I don't think so. That's a specious argument made by Thargor Orlando, and it highlights why we don't cherry pick our sources. The source in question is Annear, Steve (19 June 2013). "Thousands Sign Petition In Support of Labeling Foods Containing GMOs". Boston. You can read his bio here. What exactly is it about his reporting that you dislike? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, first the POV problem is a cherry picked hypothetical example of what it protects against (and cherry picking of a "source" (which is actually a participant rather than a source) that is saying that. Other cherry-picked examples could include "protects Monsanto against trumped up lawsuits known to be baseless, pursued solely (by Monsanto's opponents) to harass Monsanto." plus 1,000's of other possibilities. Viriditas, you are trying to establish a highly variable non-existent relevancy criteria. A very low bar if it is anit-Monsanto/GMP, and a very high bar if it is pro-Monsanto. The same old coatrack problem that I have noted several times. In essence trying to make/keep it a soapbox/coatrack for inclusion of only or mostly anti-Monsanto/GMO talking points North8000 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing cherry picked here, and it appears that you do not know what that term means. The source was written by a seasoned journalist about the March Against Monsanto.Thousands Sign Petition In Support of Labeling Foods Containing GMOs This source is also in parity with other sources about the topic. Do you have an argument against how it is used except for IDONTLIKEIT? Here is the material:

In May, protesters took to the streets of Boston as part of an international protest against Monsanto, one of the leading agricultural biotech corporations that produce genetically engineered seeds. The rally, called “March Against Monsanto,” urged legislative leaders to force food labeling so that consumers can make informed decisions about what they buy and eat.

Two months prior to the protests, President Barack Obama signed a bill that protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks. Protesters dubbed the legislation the “Monsanto Protection Act.” The protests were part of a growing concern here in the state, which has the backing of groups like Massachusetts Right to Know GMOs, who has has lobbied elected officials in an effort to pass legislation to label foods.

Exactly how many sources like this one do I need to repeat here showing the same thing? This is not a coatrack of any kind. Media outlets reported this concern over and over again. WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida said that the protesters were "asking for a repeal of certain provisions in the recent bill nicknamed the "Monsanto Protection Act" that could allow seeds deemed unsafe to be planted, despite legal action."[2] The Orange County Register reported that "the march comes on the heels of the Farmer Assurance Provision, signed by President Barack Obama in March" and goes into detail on it. The Daily Inter Lake reported that

"The backlash against Monsanto arose mainly not out of health concerns but of the controversial Farmer Assurance Provision, derisively known as the “Monsanto Protection Act,” signed into law in March. "I had been aware of GMOs to an extent,” said Ren Robinson, one of the organizers of Kalispell’s March Against Monsanto. “But it was really after the Monsanto Protection Act passed that I got involved. I thought it would work itself out."

There is no coatrack here. We have dozens of sources linking HR 933 and the March and I've already covered this in a previous thread. Again, you folks have your panties in a twist, and you keep trying to re-open the same discussions over and over again in the hopes that you'll get a different response. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I am open to any modifications or any new proposed wording that comes from sources about the march. And we have a hell of a lot of them, so please don't offer another source that has nothing to do with the march. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am open to removing the line altogether, as I noted how the way Boston Magazine put it does not reflect the bill as noted by experts. Do you have a reason to include it that meets our muster? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You noted no such thing. The only place you noted it is in your head, and I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You have not shown that "it does not reflect the bill as noted by experts", nor have you cited one of the many sources about the march that covers this topic. Instead, you once again cited an off-topic source that has nothing to do with this subject. Again, if you can't cite a source about this subject, we can't use it. Further, your most recent revert is absurd. In your edit summary, you wrote, "Too many local additions, too many bad sources, removal of good sources." Sorry, but that's 100% false. You removed reliably sourced content about this subject, you added back sources into the lead section against best practice exemplified by WP:LEAD and you claimed that there were "too many local additions", which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Finally, you made the ridiculous claim that there were "too many bad sources" when in fact there was not a single bad source added...except by yourself in your own revert! So, again, we have your continued disruption of this article and absolute refusal to improve it. The diff from your revert shows that you did not improve this article in any way, but instead degraded it by removing reliable sources that supported the material. I would like to hear your justification for this revert, beginning with why you removed citations to the Orange County Register and the Honolulu Weekly, and why you deleted the expansion of the March section with citations to the Caribbean Business, eNCA, and The Victorian Advocate. Please also explain why you added back citations that have nothing to do with the subject of this article, why you added back wording that was sourced to a now removed unreliable video editorial, and why you removed the quote from Jack Tapper, the removal of which was discussed here with no response. In fact, if we were to look at your history on this article, all we would find is the repeated addition of original research, off-topic sources, and blanket reverts made for no reason and without any stated justification. In my world, that's called intentional disruption. But please, tell me how "too many local additions" justifies you deleting this content. And where are the "good sources" that you added back and where are the "bad sources" that you reverted? Care to name them? In other words, put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is impossible to have this discussion if you're not going to read what's presented to you. We've discussed many of these already. As for the local stuff, why is a paragraph about Austin relevant? As for the bad sources, InTheseTimes is not appropriate. At this point, we should be discussing these major additions before adding them. You know this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We have not discussed this already. The expansion of the march section is underway. You reverted it for no reason. A march in Texas is clearly relevant and I was in the middle of writing about it when you deleted it. In These Times is quite clearly a [{WP:RS]] for this topic, and I would like to know what is "inappropriate" about it. The magazine has won multiple awards and has only professional journalists working for it. In fact the author of the article in question, Miles Kampf-Lassin, is the freakin' editor. Care to explain how this isn't a reliable source? And what the heck does "At this point, we should be discussing these major additions before adding them" mean anyway? None of the edits under discussion are "major". You also added back in wording from an unreliable source that has since been removed and you added back in off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this topic. Again, how did your revert improve this article? Please be specific, because I'm not seeing any improvements. Why did you add the sources back to the lead when this content is already sourced in the body? Why did you remove the Tapper quote? You say this has already been discussed, but you never responded to the discussion. If you can't answer these simple questions, then the material will just get added back again. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss what you want to add at this point in order to make sure this doesn't go crazy again. It will do a lot to repair some of the bad blood that's been stored here because of the accusations levied on those who are working with you on the article. I admit I reverted too far on the Tapper quote, and as a show of good faith, I will restore it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still getting the "I'm holding the article hostage until you comply with my demands" vibe from you, Thargor, so the good faith here is in short supply. I don't like to be held hostage. Now tell me about why we can't expand the march section, why we can't use In These Times, and why you deleted the Honolulu Weekly showing that the HCIA was paid by Monsanto. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How's this: people who accuse me of being a paid shill do not get to complain about being "held hostage." We have stated, time and time again, about the policies, the fringe viewpoints, and so on. Let us know what you propose to add and why, and we can discuss it. We must clean this article up. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "this" article, and there is nothing that needs "cleaning" up. You are holding this article hostage to your demands while repeatedly disrupting it with multiple reverts and deletions without ever once explaining or justifying your reverts. You still haven't responded to my multiple requests up above. You can start by explaining why In These Times isn't a reliable source for this article, followed by why you deleted the expansion of the march section, your rationale for deleting the sourced statement by Honolulu Weekly showing that the HCIA was paid by Monsanto, and finishing with why you restored content from an unreliable source that was removed with the addition of sources that have nothing to do with this topic. I'm waiting. Viriditas (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to keep waiting, then, if you can't see the responses above. Gain consensus for your additions, like you did with the Tapper quote, and this will go more smoothly. This is not anyone holding the article hostage, this is trying to bring the article in line with policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who has spent the last several months disrupting this article by repeatedly adding maintenance tags and off-topic sources to this article without consensus. You are and have beeen holding this hostage to your POV, and you have never responded to a single question I've asked about your reverts. You recently removed material from this article for no reason and you refuse to explain your reasons just like North. Again, you were directly asked why did you remove the link to In These Times? It's a reliable source and it will be added back. You were asked why you removed the sourced statement by the Honolulu Weekly showing that the HCIA was paid by Monsanto. It's a reliable source (they won a major award for their reports on GMOs) and it's going to be added back. I've discussed my edits throughout the entire time I've been at this article, while you have not. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So, who wants to change what?

I removed some of the anti-GM propaganda from this article shortly before the page protection I and think that it is not too bad now although I would still like to address some of the anti-GM quotes and generally tone things down a bit on both sides. Does anyone think more needs to be done? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is one statement that is overreaching in a pro-GMO way, and that the article is otherwise too much of a coatrack/soaxbox for the anti-GMO talking points. Of course the trojan horse is "we're just covering what the anti-GMO people are saying, and this article by its title is just about the protestor's point of view". So I think that the amount of repetition of the anti-GMO talking points needs to get reduced. The media section should also get reduced or eliminated. It's just a few cherry-picked all saying that "this event wasn't covered enough". Putting someone's negative characterization/ talking points against the Tea Party Movement into this article is also off topic. So there's no "media coverage" in the media coverage section, just commentators saying that the media didn't cover it enough, including repeating the implausible 2,000,000 claim as fact. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My issues are basically the two issues that I've discussed above: 1: Too much coatracking providing a lot of perspective on fringe viewpoints that do not contain information regarding the scientific consensus in violation of WP:FRINGE and 2: the media coverage section which gives undue weight to a verifiably incorrect viewpoint regarding the media coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you both about the alleged media conspiracy but could you give some specific examples of what you consider to be coatracking. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

My biggest issue is with the sections of background and concerns, both with the duplicative effects and the lack of corresponding scientific consensus information to offset the fringe beliefs about safety, bees, and so forth. The background section, as it stands today, is okay. I do not hold any expectation that the edit will remain in place when protection expires. The concerns section is still an issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem as a sum total one. About 50% of the article consists of the talking points of the anti-GMO side (spread into almost every article section) of the GMO debate slipped in under various methods. And about 5% of the article is the talking points of the opposite side. I think that that "50%" needs to get reduced to 20% and the "5%" increased to 10%. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no need to give much of the mainstream view, this actually gives the marchers claims legitimacy. It is more important to state the motivations of the marchers in the light of the mainstream view as is done on Flat Earth Society for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, this is about the March, and the concerns of those involved is relevant. The issue of weight isn't so important in that specific regard because the article should be weighted heavily toward the events and concerns of the marchers. This does not allow us, however, to violate our fringe policies guideline by pretending that the concerns cited (when appropriate) are valid. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We state the marchers concerns but in language that makes it clear that these claims are not generally supported by mainstream science. This is not the place for debate on the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)\

For the record, I'm not calling for debate, simply that the science be stated correctly when appropriate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And just where has the science been stated incorrectly? Nowhere, of course. Yet you keep making these ridiculous arguments based on zero evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

1. For me, the biggest thing, in terms of what is on the page as of the time of page protection is to simplify the Media coverage section, per the discussion above, at #Media Coverage. There are also some unresolved questions in this talk, that really ought to be worked out before any revert wars break out:
2. #Issues about the science sourcing
3. #TL;DR version for other editors (includes #Possible solution: "as" --> "as raising")
4. #The HR 933 signing timeline
5. #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section
6. #Unsourced changes to the lead section
7. #Removal of Facebook message

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why there are issues of science sourcing. There should be no science in the article. We state the motives for the marchers in the light of the mainstream science view of the subject. No science sources are required. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the link to that discussion, you will see the text on the page that this is talking about. (Somehow, I have a feeling that you would object if we presented the protester's views without also including that half-sentence!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Our guidelines demand it, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, maybe we need to distinguish between legitimate concerns about GE crops as presented in Genetically modified food controversies and the outrageous claims made by the marchers. The problem is that the marchers have made statements along the lines that GE foods are 'poison' and that there is worldwide media conspiracy against them. These claims need to be stated in the article but in the same way that the Flat Earth Society's claims are in that article; in a way that it is clear to the reader that these views are extreme fringe. There is then no need to present the mainstream view.

I do not think the legitimate concerns about GE food have any place here. The marchers can lay no claim to them and they are discussed much more thoroughly elsewhere in WP. There are legitimate concerns about GE food but that is not what the march or this article is about. The marchers made ridiculously exaggerated claims and in doing so shot themselves squarely in the foot. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we may be misunderstanding one another because we are talking about two different things. What I am talking about is a sentence in the background section that reads as follows: "The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods,[8] and there is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[12][13][14][15][16]" I'm referring to the sources at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's my input on some of Tryptofish's points and a few more.

• Science sourcing: As Martin said, sources are not required. I think what some editors are not understanding is that on fringe topics (and "fringe" is not a slur, it's just a description of how a minority or majority view relates to scientific consensus), the mainstream scientific view should always be given prominently, in the lead, even if mainstream scientists don't call out that particular fringe group or topic by name. That's how an encyclopedia works. On the flip side, you do not go out of your way as some have done in this article to mention everything that you see as supporting the fringe position. Even though scientific sources aren't needed to describe the scientific position, it wouldn't hurt to include them, like AMA and WHO.
• Facebook message and the like: The protesters views should be described, as covered by reliable sources, not weekly tabloids or commentators or by comments on Facebook and not in the sense of I found this guy who I think has similar opinions and he said this.
• Reliable sources should be used to show the issues at stake as specifically related to the May event including the traditional biotech companies' financial interests, the insurgent organic industry's financial interests especially in Europe and North America, and the food security issues in lower income regions. According to respected sources like the New York Times, the issue isn't just Big Biotech versus concerned consumers. There are real or perceived financial and health interests all around.
• The media coverage section should be removed (my opinion) or at least edited to remove commentary. It's unencyclopedic and silly.
• The March should be presented mostly as an event (reality) not a movement (organizer's wishes and possible future development).
• Size. It really doesn't matter how big the march was or whether it was ignored or over-emphasized, it just matters what the reliable sources said about it. These things should get a sentence or two, no more. SpectraValor (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

One more. The section about Canal is way out of balance and too long because of repetition and unnecessary detail. For example, there is repeated reference to Canal's childrens' health, but nothing about how the availability of what Canal calls (but is described in the article as matter of fact) "fresh" food has affected her children. Canal's opinions should be presented concisely and as opinions. What is poison, what is affordable, what is fresh, these are Canal's opinions. SpectraValor (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we may be misunderstanding one another because we are talking about two different things. What I am talking about is a sentence in the background section that reads as follows: "The Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of GMO products in the marketplace, nor does it recognize a distinction between GMO and non-GMO foods,[8] and there is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[12][13][14][15][16]" I'm referring to the sources at the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But thanks for your input about my other points. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make any sense. That section has been extensively discussed here on this talk page and in the archives and I don't see how your edits have improved it. It is neither out of balance or too long, no do I have any idea what policy or guideline you base this opinion on. We write articles based on what the sources say, not on what Wikipedians think. Please make a case for your changes, first. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

But I did, and others did, again and again. Viriditas seems to think that as long as there's a single dissenting opinion, that single opinion defines consensus and justifies reversion of everything other editors do, without discussion. I'm confused by this view, but even more so by the way members of the community who are not editing this page have protected Viriditas and even praised this tendentious, nose-thumbing behavior as a matter of integrity and a principled stand against "paid" editors. This disruptive editor needs a topic ban, and I'm glad to help anyone with making the case at RfC or ANI. SpectraValor (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are engaging in deliberate disruption and ignoring discussions where consensus has already occurred. For example, we established consensus on the use of quotations by Canal, yet you ignored it and removed the quotes. Your latest set of edits weren't based on a single policy or guideline, simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT which we don't use to edit. Since we have to start somewhere, why don't you start by explaining your rationale for removing the quote from Jake Tapper. The quote in question follows:

American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".[3]

Please make a brief policy/guideline based argument, while at the same time, offering a persuasive opinion as to why your removal of this quote is an improvement. Please only stick to my query about the Tapper quote. When you are finished, we shall move on to the next concern. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been no response to my query. I have left a similar query on the talk page of the user who removed the material. With no response here or from that user, I have added the material back in. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with including that quote. It certainly is pertinent and reliably sourced. But, as for the rationale for adding it back, it seems to contradict the fact that another edit ignored the discussion at #Issues about the science sourcing, although the one thing that is consistent is that those edits seem always to push an anti-GMO POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't ignored anything. You can't add sources to this article that aren't about this topic, and you can't add content to this article that isn't found in the sources. The AP source quite adequately supplies the content and source we need about the subject. There is nothing whatsoever "anti-GMO" about having CNN note that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government", which is exactly the concerns that the protesters have in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I do have a problem with including a cherry-picked quote in an encyclopedia, and so do other editors, even if Tryptofish does not. Viriditas is certainly welcome to include it in their Facebook page. This page in contrast does not belong to anyone, and we must consider WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Making the jump from "here's a quote I would love to include about this evil corporation" and "my concerns are exactly the concerns of the protesters" to "this is appropriate weight and tone for an encyclopedia article" is slightly problematic. SpectraValor (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased

I'm not sure why the HR 933 section exists, it seems like an odd thing to have its own subsection. Furthermore the paragraph only presents the opinion of one "Dave Murphy", who appears to be an activist. Doesn't this violate WP:SOAPBOX? And why does HR 933 need its own section when it already has a bullet point? Also shouldn't the "HR 933" in the bullet point be linked to the Farmer Assurance Provision? I just don't see how posting Murphy's opinions on the matter helps the article's balance. Sure, it's the opinion held by many of the protestors, but they seem to have opinions just as if not more detailed on the other bullet points - why were those not expanded too? Firemylasers (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are good questions. I'd like to hear from any of the editors who support the material where, in the sources, it is indicated that what it says in that section is sourced to material that is about the March per se, rather than about the GMO debate in general. Was Murphy speaking as a spokesperson for the March, or as a prominent participant in it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is totally unclear why you removed this section, so I've added it back. Are you saying the sources don't support it? That's strange, the sources appear to support it in spades. Can you please be more specific about your reasoning for removing it other than entertaining an SPA account who will shortly be CU'ed? Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is actually my original Wikipedia account, I do have another account but it is inactive and has no contributions to any pages. This is by no means a "Single Purpose Account". In fact, this account was registered over a year ago. Firemylasers (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You waited a year to make your first edit? If I was to assume bad faith, I would call that a "sleeper account". What made you wait a year to make your first edit to a contentious article talk page? Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was uninterested at first in editing articles, so I left the account alone. Firemylasers (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, "Firemylasers", and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm glad you decided to create an account and somehow found your way here on your very fist edit.[4] The HR 933 section exists because each concern has enough content to expand out into its own section. This expansion began with the HR 933 section, which is entirely sourced to material about the source and not the GMO debate in general. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and congratulations on finding this talk page on your very first edit! Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason for HR 933 to have expanded information when said information is not relevant to the overall purpose of this article, is a single opinion piece, and has no counterbalance. Furthermore I'm interested in hearing your reasoning as to why just one of the five listed concerns on this article has it's own little subsection but none of the others has one? Also, isn't neutrality supposed to be the main focus of Wikipedia articles? I don't see why WP:FRINGE theories should even be given that much attention in the first place, given how claim #1 goes against the scientific consensus, claim #2 is a conspiracy theory, claim #3 has no substantial evidence behind it, claim #4 goes against the scientific consensus, and claim #5 seems to be a misinterpretation of HR 933's purpose. To be clear, I am not contesting listing the stated concerns of the group, I am contesting your attempt to promote WP:FRINGE theories in this article. Firemylasers (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have answered all of these questions already, so I'm curious why you are asking them again. This behavior seems somewhat "familiar". Again, welcome to Wikipedia. I am so glad you chose this talk page for your first ever edits. Here are the answers once again to your questions in bullet form. Let me know if you have any further questions:

• The information is sourced to RT, Fox Business Network, and The Huffington Post. Many other sources are available to add or to reference. It is not a single opinion piece as you claim, and the sources indicate its relevance. Have you bothered to look at the sources?
• All five concerns should be expanded into subsections. This is only the first.
• For a new user you sure seem to know a lot about the names of our policies and guidelines! Could you point out the exact wording of our WP:NPOV policy you claim this violates? Please do the same for the WP:FRINGE guideline.
• The concerns about HR 933 are not a "fringe" theory.
• The other concerns raised by the protesters and supported by WP:V also do not fall under any "fringe" guidelines.
• The statement that protesters had "conncerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health" does not go "against" any "scientific consensus". As Wikipedia editors, we cite reliable sources for claims made by claimants. These claims are reflected by the preponderance of sources. Even if these concerns did go against some kind of consensus, we would still cite them as they are the foundation of the topic and attributed to the protesters.
• The "allegations of a conflict of interest between former employees of Monsanto who work for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration" is not a conspiracy theory in any way, and there are literally hundreds of reliable sources about the revolving door in Washington indicating that it is a valid concern. Nevertheless, regardless of its validity, the concern is well supported by the sources. Your claim that concerns about the revolving door in Washington is a "conspiracy" is demonstrably false.
• Whether there is evidence for "concerns about supposed economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and "monopoly" of the food supply" is not relevant. It is still a valid concern cited by the protesters and easy to verify. As an aside, there is evidence, particularly legal evidence cited in patent litigation cases. IIRC, Dan Ravicher and the Public Patent Foundation documented this evidence in their case against Monsanto.
• Regarding "concerns about GMOs and the declining bee population", this is supported by the sources. Whether it is "true" or not, has no bearing on including these concerns.
• I've already addressed the "concerns about legislation like Section 735 of HR 933". I do not see how this stated concern misinterprets its purpose.
• Finally, you say you are not contesting listing the concerns, you say you are contesting an "attempt to promote fringe theories". However, I do not see the promotion of any fringe theories in this article at all. As a new user, you may not be aware of how WP:FRINGE is used or applied. As I already requested, please quote the part of that guideline that you claim this article violates.

I hope that addresses your concerns. Welcome to Wikipedia! Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am unaware as to what you are referring to as familiar. I reviewed the page archives and did not notice satisfactory resolution of the ongoing concerns over this article's neutrality and the fringe claims supported by it.

• The HR 933 source is an activist's claims, not a factual documenting of facts. It is biased, not neutral, and seems out of place. The quote "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment" in particular seems rather out of place in a section that is supposably on HR 933, and the statement "Murphy also took politicians to task" also seems to be worded oddly (shouldn't it be phrased "Murphy criticized politicians"?). To be clear here I am referring to what is currently reference number twenty-three. This opinion piece's quotes are used for most of the text in this HR 933 subsection.
• Again, why do we need to expand into WP:FRINGE and give Murphy a soapbox when we could simply list the concerns the activists stated? I don't see how this in any way makes sense.
• Furthermore, why are the other sections being expanded? For the same reasons as this one (see above), I don't see why we should go into detail on WP:FRINGE claims in an article about a single event.
• For WP:NPOV, I believe that quoting a single activist isn't considered neutral at all in this context. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but aren't even concern sections supposed to be fairly neutral, not a soapbox for activists? At the very least shouldn't the HR 933 section contain a summary of the concerns stated by the protestors? As it stands now it's hardly informative, with the exception of the first sentence.
• Are you disputing the fact that there is a broad scientific consensus, supported by the vast majority of reputable scientific organizations, that genetically engineered foods are safe? This is definitely a fringe claim, and while listing it as a concern isn't fringe, giving it a subsection in a similar fashion to HR 933 definitely is.
• The revolving door is exactly what I'm commenting on. The claim of conflict of interest is made in the absence of evidence. Many ex-industry experts work for the government, and vice versa. Nobody has ever demonstrated an actual conflict of interest. Again, my comment applies to the claim as a whole, I am simply saying that such a view is indeed fringe.
• Assuming you are referring to the OSGATA case, you should take another look at the case before making those claims. The case in fact established quite clearly that the claims made by the farmers were false.
• The claims relating to GMOs and bees are demonstrably false, a fact which can be quite easily proven with a review of the literature. This meta-analysis of twenty-five studies proves this point quite clearly: [5]
• As for WP:FRINGE, most claims fall under [6], and some fall under [7].

To sum up my concerns... I think that the HR 933 subsection is currently a soapbox, I think that subsections for each of the claims clashes with what this article should be covering, and I think that based on what HR 933 looks like right now, any further subsections will be even worse. I am also interested in knowing why you have acted so hostile towards every attempt to change the article from what you appear to think is correct. Firemylasers (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Virtually every point you've made up above has been repeated dozens of times in our discussions and addressed dozens of times. You also refused to specifically address my points, instead pointing me to links which you assure me address my points. That's not acceptable. For this reason, I am now going to ask you to choose one and only point from the above and address only that one point. When that one point is addressed we can then move on to the next one. Otherwise, this is devolving into trivial objections which is diverting our attention away from improving this article. Again, if you disagree with one thing in this article from your above list, we will address it, one at a time. You are free to take any one of these things from the above list and start a sub thread below about only that one thing. This way, we can address that one thing and move on to the next one. We are not hear to Wikilawyer over policies and guidelines, and for someone who just arrived here after keeping their account dormant for a year, I have to say this is beginning to look quite tiresome. So, only one thing will be discussed here at a time. I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Firemylasers, it would be easier if you would pick one issue and discuss only that one issue. Then, we can move on to other issues. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many issues to address though, and the ones I've been attempting to discuss are mostly related. Firemylasers (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Except, in order to have a productive discussion that addresses all of the issues in a comprehensive manner, it is important and necessary to discuss only one issue at a time. I specifically made this request, and you explicitly rejected it. Are you interested in actually resolving these issues? You didn't answer my questions nor did you specifically address them in your response. This is precisely why I said we must address them one at a time. Now, please choose the most important point you wish to make from the above and raise it below. Just one point. When that point is resolved, we will move on to the next one. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, you may wish to remember that you do not own the article, the talk page, or Wikipedia guidelines on consensus and sources. Demanding that everyone else follow your rules is unlikely to encourage others to tolerate your behavior, which I observe is of exactly the sort that often leads to topic bans or worse. Speaking for myself only, I wouldn't want to lose your valuable point of view on this article, so please review and adjust your behavior ASAP. Best wishes, SpectraValor (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, new user "Firemylasers" did not respond directly to this discussion, and instead of sticking to the topic he chose ("HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased") he branched out into many different topics making it impossible to resolve his initial concerns. Best practice on Wikipedia is to to address one topic, resolve it, and move on. This has nothing to do with "ownership" at all, this has to do with how we use talk pages. The user himself started this thread to talk specifically about HR 933, yet when his points were directly addressed by myself, he partly abandoned that subject and began talking about other subjects. Sorry, but we can't use the discussion page constructively in that kind of atmosphere. Asking an editor to stick to their chosen topic of the thread appears to be reasonable, not out of the ordinary as you are making it out to be here. 00:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viriditas (talk • contribs) 00:28, July 24, 2013‎

HR 933 source

The HR 933 source is an activist's claims, not a factual documenting of facts. It is biased, not neutral, and seems out of place. The quote "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment" in particular seems rather out of place in a section that is supposably on HR 933, and the statement "Murphy also took politicians to task" also seems to be worded oddly (shouldn't it be phrased "Murphy criticized politicians"?). To be clear here I am referring to what is currently reference number twenty-three. This opinion piece's quotes are used for most of the text in this HR 933 subsection.

I'm sorry, but you need to be specific. What source is what activist's claims? Please use names the next time you participate in this discussion. I will assume you are referring to Murphy. How is a quote about a response to HR 933 out of place in a section about HR 933? The section in question establishes the following facts supported by reliable sources:

• Protesters are critical of Monsanto's influence on the United States Government.
• Protesters criticized HR 933 as an example of this influence.
• One critic, Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, called the controversy over HR 933 a touchstone on this issue.
• Murphy called the March Against Monsanto an important protest to address the issue of HR 933.
• Murphy further criticized what contributed to HR 933, namely the relationship of Monsanto and the revolving door in Washington.

So, what is the problem with these facts and how they are used in this article? Note, the word "facts" here does not mean they are true, it means we can verify that sources said these things in reliable sources. I believe I have adequately addressed your concerns with how we represent "facts" and the issue with relevance you have raised. We can, of course, further break this down by looking at the actual sources, which is what I recommend. Additionally, we have secondary sources establishing that Murphy is a recognized critic on this issue.[8][9][10] Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is exactly what you would oppose if editors with a different perceived POV were to use the same technique: you're conducting synthesis. SpectraValor (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is no semblance of "synthesis" here at all, and if there were, you would be able to specifically point to it. The fact that you can't, and the fact that the cited sources above and in the current article specifically discuss this content in the terms of the topic of the March Against Monsanto, shows demonstrably that the sources are used appropriately and in line with policy. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rationale for merge?

I am totally unclear why this change was made by Tryptofish. I hope he will take me by the hand and walk me through it. Previously, the section said the following:

Section 735 of H.R. 933, formally known as the Farmer Assurance Provision, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013, two months before the March Against Monsanto. Called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by critics, Boston magazine reported that the bill "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". Protesters critical of Monsanto's influence on the United States Government, argued that the bill allows Monsanto to ignore court rulings and permits planting of GE crops even if they are shown to be unsafe. On the day of the protests, WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida, reported that protesters were "asking for a repeal of certain provisions in the recent bill nicknamed the 'Monsanto Protection Act' that could allow seeds deemed unsafe to be planted, despite legal action."

Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, called the controversy over H.R. 933 "the turning point in the debate on political lobbying and genetic engineering in the U.S." and he described the March Against Monsanto as "one of the most pressing issues of our time". According to Murphy, "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment". Murphy also took politicians to task, saying that "elected officials at the highest levels have become accomplices to the ultimate corruption in the writing of our nation's laws."

Now, for some unknown reason, the section was merged into a bullet point (terrible practice and highly discouraged) that reads:

Concerns about legislation like Section 735 of HR 933, formally known as the Farmer Assurance Provision but called the "Monsanto Protection Act" by critics, which prevents the U.S. court system from intervening to stop the sale of GMOs. Boston Magazine reported that the bill "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". On the day of the protests, WFTS-TV in Tampa, Florida, reported that protesters were calling for the bill's repeal. Protesters argued that the legislation allows Monsanto to ignore court rulings and permits planting of genetically engineered crops even if they are shown to be unsafe. Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now!, called the controversy over H.R. 933 "the turning point in the debate on political lobbying and genetic engineering in the U.S." and, calling the March Against Monsanto "inspiring", he described the "march to stop Monsanto" as "one of the most pressing issues of our time".

I am at a loss understanding these changes. First of all, why was this concern demoted from a section? All of the concerns have enough material for their own sections. Second of all, why was the background material about Obama signing the bill removed? This appears in multiple sources about the bill and the march and is an important part of the narrative. In the two months between the time Obama signed the bill and the time that the march ocurred, the protests gained steam. According to the sources, the protesters were very upset about the president signing this bill. Again, why was this removed? Third of all, why was Murphy's criticism of politicians removed? Murphy is recognized by the mainstream media as one of the primary critics of Monsanto's relationship with the government, and appears in sources about the march. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The comments at #HR 933 section seems out of place and overtly biased, above, drew my attention to the issue. Other editors had deleted even more of the section, and I thought at the time that I was actually adding material back. For example, I tried to restore material that you had added (Boston Magazine and the Tampa TV station), and I was actually adding back material about Murphy. So, why did I change it from a section to a bullet point? It was because of the discussion above. It's not as simple as any possible MOS concerns about "terrible practice and highly discouraged". (The bullet point format was here before I came to this page. But I'd be OK with changing all the bullet points into paragraph(s).) We also have to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. We already have a page about the Farmer Assurance Provision, so that's the main page for all the issues about it. What about the Obama signing timeline? That's a valid point that hadn't occurred to me. I'd be in favor of putting it back, but it should probably be in the background section instead, because it's a time sequence before the March. Now about Murphy. I went back and read the source carefully before making those changes. The page previously said that Murphy had written that the March Against Monsanto was "one of the most pressing issues of our time." Actually, that's not what he said in the source, and the sentence was WP:SYNTH. He wrote on the occasion of the March, and discussed the March among other protests. That sentence was about protests against Monsanto and GMOs generally, not limited to the March. So I corrected it, and added that he specifically called the March itself "inspiring". We can't go beyond what he actually said. The part that I left out was: "According to Murphy, "Monsanto is the tip of the iceberg representing the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment". Murphy also took politicians to task, saying that "elected officials at the highest levels have become accomplices to the ultimate corruption in the writing of our nation's laws." That wasn't about the March. It was a coatrack about the broader issues. If Canal or someone who organized the March had said it, I'd favor including it. But it was too much to include every anti-Monsanto argument that has ever been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You say it seemed biased, but I don't see any bias. The sources showed the timeline of the president signing the bill, the protesters getting more upset and demonstrating against his signing, and the protesters noting their anger at the march. Since you agree to allow for the Obama narrative to be added back, I suppose I can plan on that. The page previously said that Murphy described the March Against Monsanto as "one of the most pressing issues of our time". You deny that he was referring to the March Against Monsanto, and you claim that he was referring to some "other protests" and that this was synthesis. I'm sorry, but that kind of interpretation is just absurd.

The entire article by Murphy is focused on and about the March Against Monsanto, and it was written several days after the March occurred, and the theme of the entire article is composed around...the March Against Monsanto! The header shows that it is tagged under the topic of the "March Against Monsanto", not any other protest. The introductory statement, "The march to stop Monsanto is one of the most pressing issues of our time" refers directly and explicitly to the March Against Monsanto. Since this is the entire theme of the piece, it is full of connecting, thematic statements linking the March Against Monsanto, and Murphy checks off each and every one of the protest points listed on the March Against Monsanto website. He connects this theme with phrases like "millions of outraged citizens" and specifically notes that "this weekend, thousands of people across the world are gathering in towns and cities" and "this weekend, thousands of everyday citizens joined together in more than 400 cities across the globe at an inspiring March Against Monsanto". The only march he is talking about is the March Against Monsanto. For you to actually argue that he is referring to some other march is demonstrably false. There is no other march under discussion. And there is no "synthesis" of any kind. In this piece, Murphy is speaking for the entire movement and reading off their list of concerns. It really doesn't get any more clear than this.

As for the critique by Murphy, a widely published critic of Monsanto published in mainstream sources about this subject, he proceeds to explain why the March Against Monsanto is so important in the context of HR 933, and his criticism of elected officials nicely encapsulates the criticism by the protesters. For some reason that I do not understand, you say this is a coatrack of "broader" issues. But there are no broader issues under discussion. This is the exact criticism voiced by the protesters in the context of the bill, justifying the reason for the March Against Monsanto. When Murphy says Monsanto represents "the threat that unchecked corporate power has in corrupting our democratic institutions, driving family farmers off the land, threatening human health and contaminating our environment" and when he says that "elected officials at the highest levels have become accomplices to the ultimate corruption in the writing of our nation's laws," he is repeating the concerns made by the March Against Monsanto movement.

For some strange reason, you claim this is not about the March, but a coatrack. Well the evidence shows that you are wrong. The movement is on record (on their website and in multiple publications) claiming that the reason they march is to protect the food supply, support local farmers, spread awareness about the danger of GMOs, promote organic solutions, expose cronyism between big business and the government, and to bring accountability to those responsible for the corruption.[11] That's the words of the movement. They are not a coatrack, and they are not broader issues. They are the issues.

I am certainly open to compromise regarding the quotes, so I don't see this as a major dispute, but I am concerned that each and every time I create a section to expand this material, someone like yourself interferes and removes the section for no reason. Again, I am in the process of expanding this topic. That means each bullet point will become a separate section and the bullets themselves will be merged into an introductory paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"You say it seemed biased": At first, I didn't understand why you said that, but then I saw that the blue link I used to link to the earlier discussion includes that word. The belief that it was biased is that of the editor who created that section header. I don't see bias as being a major issue in this case. When I said that my attention was drawn to the issue by that earlier discussion, I meant the discussion itself, not the section header. Yes, I agree with you that the Obama timeline is something that the page should cover, and I simply had not thought about that until you pointed it out to me, but please remember that I think the best place to add it back is in the background section.

"Murphy is speaking for the entire movement": My reading of the source was that he was indeed writing about the entire movement of people who have criticisms of Monsanto and GMOs, and not just the March itself. You make it very clear that you read the source as Murphy writing only about the March. Part of what bothers me about the "he described the March Against Monsanto as 'one of the most pressing issues of our time'" construction is that it takes his wording from within a sentence that, in my reading, is talking about a broader movement, and in a somewhat promotional way makes the role of the March more central than what Murphy actually says in the source, so I tried to correct that. We've both commented at length about it, and we clearly see it in opposite ways, so let's see what other editors think about it.

"This is the exact criticism voiced by the protesters in the context of the bill." Perhaps we should source those criticisms more directly to the protesters themselves. Can we get that from news accounts of the protest? The problem with those passages, at least as they were presented on the page, was that it was a person writing an individual opinion piece and not, apparently, speaking in any kind of spokesperson role (cf Canal), talking in general about the controversy. It sounded like a commentary after the protest, not part of the protest. And we still do have main pages on the legislation and the controversies about it, so I do think WP:Summary style properly applies.

"...someone like yourself interferes and removes the section for no reason": Please explain what you mean by someone like me. In what way are other editors like me, or I like other editors? Myself, I have provided clear reasons for my edits; just see what I wrote here. You can certainly disagree with reasons, but that doesn't mean that the reasons didn't exist. Remember, I said that I actually thought that I was adding back material that you had originally contributed and other editors had deleted.

At this point, I hope that other editors besides Viriditas and me will read the Murphy source, [12], and offer additional views about what the source does and does not say, in order that the two of us don't just get into an impasse. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Someone like yourself" means "any user who edits this article". The Obama content belongs in a section about the bill, not in another section. As for the quote, I can't see how it could be a coatrack when it directly addresses the primary concerns voiced by the movement. And I'm surprised you are still maintaining the strange position that the "march" Murphy refers to is a different march than the March Against Monsanto when it is the only march under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Any user who edits this article": If you feel that everyone else except you who edits this article "interferes" and "removes [content you added] for no reason", well, I can agree with you that sometimes other editors are just being clueless, but I have trouble believing that it's everyone, or that it includes me. Maybe what you call "interference" is just the normal editing process, and not everyone has the same opinions as you. As for the rest of what you said, you disagree with me and I disagree with you, and neither one of us has a consensus until we hear from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth and tell me how I feel. You seem to be more interested in speculating about my psychological frame of mind than addressing my point about your strange "coatrack" claims. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting you directly. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR version for other editors

The source we are discussing is: [13]. Please take a look at it. And please offer advice about the two versions of text for the page, quoted above (or maybe an alternative third approach). Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is someone calling this a source?!?! It is a rant by one of the participants.

And the shortened version is much better and much less biased. As an example, for me the previous version failed the "bogus badly biased" test when it was a soapbox for a description of the law via. it's effect on an implausible hand-crafted hypothetical situation instead of a straightforward description. North8000 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell for sure, but you (and possibly others) appear to be using the word "bias" in a way that we don't use it on Wikipedia. The "bias" of Murphy isn't under discussion here or anywhere else, so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Therefore, your argument for a "shortened" version isn't persuasive. As I have already said, I'm working on expanding this section, not shortening it, because we have a wealth of material to discuss. Again, I "get" the fact that you and others are ideologically opposed to the existence of this article. But please, don't come here to argue for deleting material based on IDONTLIKEIT arguments. When we attribute a quote, we aren't dealing with "bias", we are dealing with issues of relevancy, significance, and timeliness, all if which this source meets and exceeds. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

North can answer better than I could, but it sounded to me like he thinks the writing about it, on Wikipedia, came across to him as biased (him, not me). And I also can't speak for him about being "ideologically opposed to the existence of this article", but that's certainly not my motivation in any of this. If there were an AfD today, I'd be arguing for keep, because the subject clearly is notable and encyclopedic, but I'm arguing here for what I believe makes for the best quality page on the subject. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I have bad intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, North believes the source isn't reliable. We need to cross that bridge first. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a few follow-up questions to North or to anyone else who might be able to resolve the impasse between Viriditas and myself.

1. Setting "shortening" aside for the moment, are the extra sentences quoting from Murphy in the longer version due weight for this particular page?
2. And, in the language about what Murphy said about the March itself, which of the two versions is more accurate with respect to the source material? --Tryptofish (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution: "as" --> "as raising"

I got an idea. Viriditas would like to say, in part:

"and he described the March Against Monsanto as "one of the most pressing issues of our time"."

I wanted to change that part to:

"and, calling the March Against Monsanto "inspiring", he described the "march to stop Monsanto" as "one of the most pressing issues of our time"."

But my idea, instead is to write:

"and he described the March Against Monsanto as raising "one of the most pressing issues of our time"."

First of all, that's more linguistically correct. The March is a march, a protest, or a movement, but it isn't an "issue". And there's no WP:SYNTH in writing that he said that it raised such an issue, as opposed to singling it out from amongst all the related protests within the broad movement. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a trivial objection to me. I'm not really concerned with minor changes like that, and we've got much bigger disputes to deal with here. Viriditas (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it ends up being a rather trivial change from the language for which you advocated, and more of a change from the language that I previously advocated. Given that I'm fine with it, instead of what I was advocating before, at least it's one specific thing where you and I may have found wording to which both of us can agree. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The HR 933 signing timeline

Above, one of the things Viriditas and I discussed was content about President Obama signing this legislation. Viriditas pointed out that this sequence of events played a significant role in motivating the March, and I was persuaded by that argument and agreed with him. I suggested putting it back on the page, as part of the background to the March. Viriditas said: "Since you agree to allow for the Obama narrative to be added back, I suppose I can plan on that" and "The Obama content belongs in a section about the bill, not in another section."

I'm thinking about ways to avoid having more editorial conflicts after the page protection is lifted, so I want to make a recommendation. The background section of the page currently has a section about California Proposition 37. I recommend expanding that section to be either "California Proposition 37 and HR 933" or "Legislation" or some variation of those titles. I'm saying this because I think it can avoid the concerns of other editors that a standalone section on HR 933 (about which we already have a main page, covering the controversies about it) would be WP:COATRACK, whereas placing it, accurately, as one of the factors that gave rise to the March would be self-explanatory. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because the Obama information concerns HR 933, which is one of the primary concerns voiced by the protesters. And these concerns are entirely separate on the timeline from prop 37. There is absolutely no coatrack here, and I've already addressed this point, so imagine my surprise to find you repeating it yet again. The section directly addresses the primary concerns voiced by the movement. It is not tangential, anciallary, or about a different subject. The movement is on record claiming that the reason they march is to "expose cronyism between big business and the government, and to bring accountability to those responsible for the corruption" in the context of HR 933. This is clear and easy to understand and the sources support it. There is nothing "coatrack"-like about covering the Farmer Assurance Provision in its own section. I should also add, that I am very flexible when it comes to alternate layouts and structures that improve the coverage of the topic. It sounds like you have a nascent idea for this structure, and I may be more open to it if you could discuss it further and if you can show me that it is an improvement. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we need more input from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what for. The Obama information concerns HR 933 and it is repeated in multiple sources about the march. We write about what the sources report. Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

For consensus. The alternative is that you will make edits that someone (and I'm not saying me) will revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section

Above, Viriditas criticized me for combining the material about Dave Murphy's commentary into the last bullet point of the Concerns section of the page. (Currently, that section is formatted entirely as a bullet list.) Viriditas described bullet points as "terrible practice and highly discouraged", and I said that I would have no objection to changing the format into regular paragraphs. Viriditas then said: "I am concerned that each and every time I create a section to expand this material, someone like yourself interferes and removes the section for no reason. Again, I am in the process of expanding this topic. That means each bullet point will become a separate section and the bullets themselves will be merged into an introductory paragraph."

Well, again, I am thinking about how we can try to avoid further editorial conflicts after the page protection is lifted. My advice is to avoid making the expanded concerns what several editors here have considered to be a WP:QUOTEFARM. Therefore, consistent with previous talk at #Regarding quotations and near the bottom of #Removec RFC on Genetically Modified Organisms, I suggest using a reasonable number of direct quotes from the organizers or official spokespersons of the March, but avoiding quoting people who were simply commenting about the March and the associated issues. I also think we should, wherever possible, source the "concerns" to reports about the March in the news media, rather than to commentators. There appear to be news reports along the lines of protesters said that they were concerned about..., etc. Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You've avoided the problem. The problem under discussion is that you removed a reliably sourced section for no reason, and then proceeded to merge it into a bullet point for no reason. Yourself and others have said that the section violates soapbox, coatrack, and appears biased, but none of you have been able to support that idea. All I'm hearing is IDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what you are hearing, because you are not listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be in prose to match the rest of the article, outside of any other concerns. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Moved from below by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why the Concerns section should, at present, be formatted as bullets. There isn't enough material in support of each of the concerns to expand each concern into a paragraph. The concern about genetically modified foods and safety in general could be expanded into a sourced paragraph, but several of the concerns only are listed as one sentence in the source that is given. If someone can find a longer statement of each concern, paragraphs would be in order. However, the section should either be all bullets (as it presently is), or all paragraphs (for which there is not enough material). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)