User talk:Geraldatyrrell

Welcome!

Hello, Geraldatyrrell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a ref tag error for you at biodiversity. You have added considerable content with citation needed tags, please continue and provide references for those. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vsmith, I'll keep an eye out for those Geraldatyrrell (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GMO stuff

Hi Geraldatyrrell - you are pretty new here. Please be aware that there is a community of editors who have been working on GMO-related articles for a long time. You are surely aware that there is some controversy around them.

I hope you are aware of WP:BRD - it is great to be Bold and edit an article, but if you are Reverted, Discuss. And do not edit war. Please come and Talk on the pages where you are working! Writing long edit notes is not the same as joining or starting a discussion on Talk - please see the article on tendentious editing]. I don't believe you have looked at the talk pages, but please know that we had a recent Rfc (if you don't know what that is, please see WP:RFC) about the consensus statement on the relative safety of GM food vis a vis conventional food, and the current statement and sourcing were accepted by the community. Editing against the conclusion of an RfC is another form of tendentious editing - the record of the RfC is here. I am writing to you here to try to help you not go down the wrong road - you are a newish editor and jumping into a controversial article and edit warring is not a great way to begin. More voices in the conversation are great - but please do join the conversation. Thanks. 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am curious about one of your edits in particular - this one - am asking you about on the relevant Talk page... Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your note on my Talk page! I am happy you are willing to talk - very grateful. Your Talk page is on my watch list, so if you reply here, I will see it. Likewise if you reply on the Talk pages of the relevant articles, or start a new section, I will see it too - those pages are also on my watchlist. Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, when you go through the Talk pages, you will find others who feel these pages are somehow not Neutral, and who have nasty things to say about me and other editors. That is what it is; the main thing is that we talk through it. My wish is that you will assume good faith. If you want to understand more about me and where I am coming from, please see my user page, here where I tell my story. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above all, I don't mean to be nasty, I appreciate the talk too. I do treat alternative ideas with care. What annoys me most is that there is clearly a body of literature in for but still sources in opposition. That makes for a nasty time of consolidating these topics. I see that you've been in the throws of this debate for quite some time so I am looking forward to your perspective. I do admit that I won't be able to read everything on this topic right away, but I will get to it. I'm not sure how to get this across in the article, but regardless of how safe/unsafe GMO foods are to eat, I still think they are bad for society. I think the distinction is important and one of my main concerns is that that isn't being represented in the articles fairly. Any thoughts on this (written now or sources from the past?)Geraldatyrrell (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, great. Thank you! I really appreciate that you are willing to do homework. Thank you. There are a couple different conversations here. One conversation is about stuff that actually belongs in Wikipedia. For that conversation, what we have to do, is describe the world as it is. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs (see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. This is probably the #1 driver of the really dark fights that have happened on the Talk pages. Wikipedia describes the world as it is. And in America today, over 90% of corn, soybean, and sugarbeet is GM. Entire bodies of law and regulations, and scientists and bureaucrats who implement them, and companies that work to create them, exist. And farmers who willingly buy them and make more money doing so, exist. That is the world as it is. So the article on GM food, describes actual GM food; the article on GM crops, describes actual GM crops, etc. There is page for Controversies, and that opens up pretty wide. However, mainstream science and regulators agree that currently marketed food from GMOs is safe. If you intend to try to get equal weight (see WP:WEIGHT) for a perspective that says they are not, you are making what is called in Wikipedia a WP:FRINGE argument, and that will not go far. But there is a place for that perspective, in the Controversies article. So that is one conversation. Another conversation, is whether it would be better if GM crops were banned, how we could possibly and sanely transition from industrial ag to some other kind of agriculture without the price of food worldwide going through the roof; it is a global economy -- when the Russian and Chinese wheat harvests fail, people starve in Egypt because they cannot afford bread. All kinds of stuff that is interesting and important, and we could do that in email or on the phone, or here on User talk pages too... but it has no place in Wikipedia article space (actual articles and their Talk pages), except in an article describing the visions of organizations that are trying to do that. Does that make sense? But let me ask you three user Talk page questions: a) on what basis do you make such a very broad statement that "they are bad for society"? (you must know a lot about very many things, to make such a broad statement!); b) what exactly do you mean by "bad for society?" c) when you say "the distinction is important," what distinction are you making exactly (I am guessing between whether eating a GM papaya would harm you individually, and on the other hand, some other aspect(s) that affect all of us (maybe concerns about glyphosate or formulation additives in the water supply, maybe what industrial ag in general does to the ecosystem, maybe concerns about "corporate control of the food supply".. maybe all that or none - I have no idea what you, gerald, actually mean. but i would like to know) Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just checking in. I remain interested in the questions above, if you care to answer (if you don't, then fine!) but with regard to content in article space... I had asked you in the Talk page of the GMO article the following: "I don't know if you understand what the main 2 genetic modifications actually are (Bt and glyphosate resistance) - do you? real question." I asked you that, because the literature written on the food safety issue, is written by people who understand what was done and how it works, and how it is the same/different from a) the "parent" plant and b) other things we eat everyday. I suspect that one reason the scientific community has formed the consensus, while the public remains so divided - a key part of the whole "seeing different worlds" issue - is that scientists do know, and the most of the public doesn't. I can explain them to you, if you don't know what they are.... hope you are having a good weekend! Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) I am having a great weekend, its a great fall day here in Michigan. I hope you're having a good weekend too! Geraldatyrrell (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about some of these questions, and others I thought were rhotorical, but let me just check if these are all that you had for me:

On what basis do you make such a very broad statement that "they are bad for society"?

Lots of reasons, but many you noted earlier. Environmentally, I think certain gmos promote herbicide use and the loss of agricultural diversity. Economically, they breed a consumerism and reliance on big business which. Socially I think the resources spent developing and promoting gmos could be put to better uses. Gmos aren't the only culprit here though, it might be the whole notion that pests must be eradicated (instead of controlled) and nitrogen/nutrients must be paid for (instead of managed). Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

herbicide-resistance GMOs definitely promote the use of the companion herbicide. that is for sure. one thing you have to look at, however, is how industrial ag took care of weeds before this technology started to be used.. right? Loss of diversity is more a question of monoculture, which existed well before ag biotech, right? Don't know what you mean by "breeds consumerism"? as we discussed earlier, farmers had already been relying on hybrids for many crops since the 1900s, which they got from companies that generate them. When you say "resources could be put to better uses", again I am wondering how much you know about the systems that GM crops replaced. I don't know if you are aware of the book that came out pretty recently that is Wikipedia-like in its effort to have a NPOV and use reliable sources - this one: Blair, Robert. (2012). Organic Production and Food Quality: A Down to Earth Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK -- a couple of days agoI found the whole thing available free online and read it here - it is just great. It discusses what we know, and we what we don't know, about organic farming and organic produce, good and bad. Some of the bad things - like increased greenhouse gas production - were surprising to me. All I am trying to say, is that as far as I have been able to determine, little in this world is pure good or pure bad, when you dig down and look at things in detail. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the book. I'll check it out Geraldatyrrell (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I realized that I wrote badly above - what i meant to write was "...again I am wondering how much you know about the systems that GM crops replaced. As for current alternatives to GM crops, I don't know if you are aware of the book that came out pretty recently...." sorry for the bad writing. the first sentence was looking backwards, the sentence introducing the book was focused on looking at current alternatives. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thant makes more sense. I'll still check out the book, but I am more familiar with current alternatives than what we did in the past. Do you have any good sources for agricultural history? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I have not made a study of, and an area where we could learn together and share sources. I will start looking tonight. Most of what I understand about farming techniques, I have gleaned here and there from the websites of university agricultural extension offices which exist to provide farmers with useful information to help them thrive. Because that is their purpose, stuff on their websites is really practical and direct, and clearly discusses advantages and disadvantages of various things, to help farmers make well-informed decisions. But I would like to do a more systematic study of the history of farming techniques and technology to understand this better. I'll let you know what I find, source-wise, and would be happy to hear what you find.Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great, I'll do the same Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "bad for society?"

See above. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the distinction is important," what distinction are you making exactly (I am guessing between whether eating a GM papaya would harm you individually, and on the other hand, some other aspect(s) that affect all of us (maybe concerns about glyphosate or formulation additives in the water supply, maybe what industrial ag in general does to the ecosystem, maybe concerns about "corporate control of the food supply"

You're right, I was referring to the distinction between safe for human consumption and safe to use in general. The distinction is important because it helps us decide where that information is presented. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to beat this horse to death now, i hope we can not talk about "safe" in any kind of absolute terms, but rather in relative terms. Nothing is "safe" - not even the purest water. It can still drown you. Real world, "safety" is always a question of "safe enough" or "as safe as"... and even more accurately what we are really talking about is risk, and relative risk at that. How does the risk of using X compare to alternatives to X? Those, I think are useful, and answerable questions. They are the kinds of questions that regulators ask, too. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do I know about Bt and glyphosate resistance?

I don't know all of the details, but we use GE techniques to add genes to the target crop's genome. In the case of Bt it is a gene from a soil bacterium that causes the crops to synthesize a toxin in their tissue that kills pests like the corn borer. I'm less clear on the roundup-ready varieties except that it allows us to spray glyphosate all over without killing the crop of interest. Do you have any other info on this that I should know/or errors I have made here? Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yep that is pretty much it. the more detail you know, the more it becomes clear that it is extremely unlikely that any of the changes would do anything that would cause health problems to people. basically, in order to work, the Bt protein expressed by the inserted gene needs a) an alkaline environment to denature (bugs have alkaline guts, and we have acid guts); b) a protease that we lack and that some insects have, to cut off a pro-domain that is exposed when the protein is denatured - once that bit is cut off, the protein becomes active, and c) a gut receptor that some insects have and that we lack, that denatured and snipped Bt binds to, in order to form the pore in the gut wall that leads to insect death. Three things that some insects have, that other insects and no animals have. on the glyphosate-resistance... the gene codes for a protein involved in synthesis of tryptophan and similar amino acids - plants and bacteria have these proteins, and we don't (there are 'essential amino acids' that we only get by eating plants or animals that have in turn eaten plants). The actual modification is adding a version of the gene from a bacteria that codes for a version of the protein that is different enough from the plant version to be resistant to glyphosate (which specifically inhibits that protein) but similar enough to be able to carry out the synthetic step so that the plant can still make the relevant amino acids it needs. So - glyphosate kills many (not all) unmodified plants by preventing them from making essential amino acids, and the modified plant isn't affected. (And neither are most animals because we don't have a protein like what glyphosate targets - glyphosate is really specific for that protein (kind of like Gleevec is specific for a certain protein involved in cancer) and it breaks down pretty quickly, and that is why it is so much less toxic than herbicides that come before it. There is stuff mixed with glyphosate in glyphosate formulations that is much more toxic than glyphosate itself is... as is true of most herbicide formulations) But back to the GMO itself... what you experience when you eat food derived from Bt or herbicide-resistance GM plants, is protein and DNA that your body sees as no different from thousands of other proteins and DNA sequences you eat everyday. They are eIther digested and the parts reused, or they get pooped right out. There is no plausible hypothesis that can explain how currently marketed GM food could hurt you. It is kind of a crazy idea that it could hurt you, when you look at it from inside the science, instead from a 10,000 foot view. Anyway that is the quick version of it. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there others?Geraldatyrrell (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's it! The group of 3 are non-article oriented, just between you and me, and I posed them only here, in response to what you wrote here. The other question, about Bt and glyphosate, was just yes/no - do you understand the modifications that were made or not? And I offered that if you don't, and you would like me to walk you through them, I would be happy to do that. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw, i never ask rhetorical questions :) too confusing in a written-word only environment.Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AAAS

Gerald, please read Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Failure_or_refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 and reflect on that. Please ask yourself, when you opened the discussion and asked "Why is this the flagship source?" -- was that a real question? By "real question" I mean that you actually wanted to hear the answer and consider it - that you wanted to learn something (which is the reason we ask real questions) It is becoming clear from how you are conducting yourself, that the question was rhetorical - that you had already decided the AAAS statement was not a valid source, and you intended only to argue against it. Please, please start actually dialoging - hearing what folks are saying and engaging with it. Wikipedia is not some internet chat board where it is OK and normal for people to just talk past each other. We are a community that engages with one another. Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you send messages like this to Tryp when he makes false claims about peer review and the editors of science? I am reading everything you write and responding to each point individually. There has been some misunderstanding of my main point which is why you and tryp keep bringing up the rfc, but don't accuse me of WP:IDHT. I asked the question (why the aaas report) to get an answer and the answer that was offered wasn't that great, so I'm pressing the issue. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerald. I did not send this message to User:Tryptofish but your behavior is not the same as his. It is fine that you don't find the responses to be great, but you are not addressing them, but are rather just a) repeating your arguments and b) denying that anyone is even trying to respond to you, when I and others are indeed trying to talk with you. That is the IDHT behavior that led me to note on the Talk page that I am getting frustrated and to leave you the note above. I have no sense that you are trying to reach consensus or have a real conversation, but rather that you are trying to win. You'll notice that I made adjustments to the structure of the sources used, and acknowledged that I did so in response to some of the concerns that you have been raising. I am trying to talk with you and work with you.Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It is fine that you don't find the responses to be great, but you are not addressing them." I find the responses to be wrong and I point that out (eg: peer reviewed, approved by editors of science). I am addressing them, repeatedly. I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to get answers and reasons, and I am getting some. The adjustments you made to the sources don't solve the problem. The aaas source doesn't belong in the lead or following the consensus statement in the health section. Now I don't even feel comfortable changing the page because you and tryp act like gatekeepers. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPETENCE matters. If you are going to make an argument to exclude a source and push it this hard, you better be very solid on the policy/guideline you are applying. Even here you are continuing to misclassify this source and policies that apply.Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am capable of identifying a poor source. You are holding to the aaas report as if it were scripture. Please keep topic discussions on their relevant pages. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you will. 17:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry this interaction went south. unfortunate. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog linked my username, so I was notified of this discussion. Gerald, I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, and I've been in a lot of discussions such as these. It's pretty clear to me that you and I are at an impasse. You probably think that I am not really understanding or paying attention to what you say, and I'm sorry that you think that. Going forward, I am going to continue to read what you say on the article talk page, and think about it seriously. If you make an argument that persuades me (you haven't yet), I'll change my mind. I promise you that. But there is no point in my continuing to reply to everything you say there. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeepers

Above you wrote "Now I don't even feel comfortable changing the page because you and tryp act like gatekeepers" and I didn't address that. Now I mean to. This is a tricky thing. First, I reject completely that I or anybody else working on these pages WP:OWNs them. I and others are committed to these pages remaining NPOV, well sourced, and well written. The "community" part of Wikipedia is very present in these articles, as it is in many articles in controversial areas where lots of people watch. So yes there is going to be lots of negotiation. And negotiation can make people uncomfortable. Some editors have refused to own their own feelings of discomfort and have instead projected them into big conspiracy theories or even exalted them to self-images of martyrdom; it is hard to watch people twist themselves up that way, as those negative feelings become a heavy albatross around their own necks. Going that route also takes them out of the game - whatever contributions they could have made are lost, or become extremely difficult to implement. (we went through two weeks of hell with a guy who had a great point but was such a dick that it was hard to see that he had a good point) What it comes down to is one's ability to keep one's head and heart steady, and remain in honest dialogue with people who think differently. Civility matters a lot in controversial articles. Being strategic - picking your battles - is really important too. And when you put a stake in the ground and argue hard that a point is "right", you want to make sure that you are on really solid ground, policy- and guideline-wise, and are not just arguing a preference. Nobody who is consistently active on the GM suite of articles will flout a policy or guideline; an argument that is solidly grounded will be accepted. But if all you are doing is arguing a preference, it is really important to know that, and to know that you may need to persuade others that your preference should be accepted. There are tactics for successful persuasion in a negotiation among equals; they are different from tactics involved in making claims about right and wrong. In any case, I fail sometimes to persuade; it happens. It is part of what it means to be part of a community. So, with regard to your discomfort - I am sorry you feel it but am glad you recognize it. But please don't project that onto me or others as our fault. I do hope you stick around and join the community to keep improving these articles. There is so much still to be done! Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I didn't mean to say you were at fault, you and Tryp have been the most vocal and I was not really frustrated with the 'I didnt hear that' and 'competence' notes I received. I'm still hesitant to make changes to the pages, but I won't let that stop me. Let me know if you disagree and I will consult the talk page when I'm unsure. Thanks for getting back to me on this. Geraldatyrrell (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. great! Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]