Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Notice about accusations

All editors who either are concerned about Monsanto influencing editing of this page, or who have been accused of being influenced, please take notice. Please read carefully WP:ANI#Much heat, but little light, taking special notice of items 4 and 5 on the numbered list. If I see any editors here, from this point in time going forward, who go against what it says at ANI, I will file a complaint against them at ANI without further notice here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Control issues and self-appointed police have yet to aid our efforts here. But enjoy yourself. petrarchan47tc 19:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
We are a community of volunteers. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Items on Numbered List

Here, so that no one has to refer to the noticeboard, are the numbered suggestions:

  1. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:SOCK, please report it at WP:SPI.
  2. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:COI, please report it at WP:COIN.
  3. If you believe that we do not have an adequate policy for dealing with edits by PR accounts, please start a discussion about how to improve our procedures.
  4. But if you are not willing to do any of those three things, then please stop making accusations.
  5. Anyone who is unwilling to do any of the above, and continues to make accusations, should get attention from administrators, because throwing around accusations without being willing to back them up is just using WP:NPA violations to try to get the upper hand in a POV dispute.
  6. I would like to see some administrators make sure that the above is actually being adhered to.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC) copying original by Tryptofish

Media coverage 2

This section is tagged as being undue. As I see it, the second paragraph only is at issue. It airs the claim that "the mainstream news media were influenced by corporate ties to Monsanto". This is an extraordinary claim; as such it needs extraordinarily good sourcing. But here, it has rather thin sourcing. As such I don't believe this claim can be adequately supported and this paragraph should be removed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It also claims that the mainstream media ignored the protests, which is completely false. I asked above what made Hartmann's claim so compelling and necessary that it needed its own area, I thought what we came up with above was a more responsible option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
For the (what seems like) millionth time, Hartmann is a noted journalist and it does not matter whether what he said was true or false. Martin you need to quit entering your POV into this article. As for Alexbrn's concern, I agree. The Wisconsin daily and the other weekly are not substantial enough for their statements to be included. Gandydancer (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It absolutely matters. WP:V cares about verifiability and not truth, yes, but it also requires us to be sensible about the sources we use. We are under no obligation to give voice to false claims. This is not my point of view, but the real world. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hartmann seems like a reasonably notable commentator. His observations are obviously biased but that's fine so long as we clearly attribute them, I think. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Missing the point. His claim is false, not biased. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What, that the march got less coverage than comparable Tea Party events? Surely this kind of thing is in the realm of opinion (unless we have some kind of media-coverage statistics to draw on) ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That as well as the idea, which is the point of Hartmann's piece, that it was ignored by the mainstream media. We're better off putting that false viewpoint with the others, there is no justification for highlighting it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Hartmann might be wrong, but he seems like a notable-enough commentator and we contextualize his view with the preceding paragraph. Of the three commentators in this section, he is the one that can stay, in my view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't contextualize his view, we advance it and highlight it even though we know he's incorrect. It's our job as editors to look at the sources and their accuracy, and use a discerning eye. I am not seeing a good argument for putting his claims out there when they're false, when we can simply put them with the other false claims and nod to their existence. Seems like a reasonable compromise as opposed to eliminating the false viewpoints completely, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If those claims are truly false please back your assertion up with some sourcing since so far we have just your word for it. That would help the discussion about it being undue a great deal.TMCk (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The evidence of mainstream media coverage is in the article already. It's not my word. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please point out where the article states that "fact". Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Martin, this is not the UK--we have hundreds of news outlets here. The coverage was scanty in the US. Gandydancer (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What comment of mine are you responding to??? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Martin, my mistake. The culprit was Thargor. :-) Gandydancer (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That is untrue. Hundreds of outlets covered it, including many national mainstream sources. We have many of them in the article already! Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec)From what is in the article one sure cannot conclude it was widely covered. I myself found out reading a foreign news source and discovered this article while looking up something else.TMCk (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, we can list them all if we need to. I don't believe that's necessary, and would largely be just to make a point. It's simply a POV issue to be giving that much weight to such an incorrect viewpoint. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you mean Thargor. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me suggest simplifying and shortening the middle quote from "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right? It wasn't on CNN, or FoxNews? That's peculiar [...]" to "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right?" I think it gets across the same information.
Also, I'm not so bothered about the version that is on the page at this second, because there is actually much less quoting of stuff that was wild speculation by the commentators. It's really just their opinions, related to the page subject, and clearly attributed to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
We should just report what the media coverage was. Any implication of a media conspiracy (which your proposed comment is) is an unsupported extreme fringe view that has no place here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What's there now, particularly if improved by the edit I just suggested here, no longer implies anything about a conspiracy. It kind of implied that before, but it really doesn't now, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it you are proposing, "a global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy, right?". That to me implies that one would expect the march to be newsworthy but for some reason it was not well reported. What reason is there not to simply say, with a little more detail, 'the march was sparsely reported/averagely reported/well reported in the media'. Any suggestion that the level of media reporting was unusual in some way gives undue weight to a theory on a par with the moon landing conspiracies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Mainly because the statement isn't true. The March was heavily reported, by multiple organizations including major ones. This isn't moon landing stuff, but it is assuming that coverage didn't happen that clearly did. Hartmann's claims are not factual. I'm okay with including a statement that some commentators believe it was covered poorly as opposed to simply eliminating the claim as I would prefer, but the significant attention to a false viewpoint is what creates the undue weight situation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What is not true? I have suggested that we simply state the degree to which the march was covered by the media; nothing more. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What I proposed was to shorten the section of the page a lot more than what it is at the moment. But other editors have objected to that, and restored some of the three quotes. I'm now suggesting deleting some of the second quote. That's what I'm proposing, OK? What you quote indicates that the person who said it thinks that the protest must clearly have been newsworthy. It's hyperbole to compare that with moon landing conspiracies. We can (1) have an even longer set of commentator quotes, and leave you and some other editors unhappy, (2) shorten it the way that I tried and leave a different group of editors unhappy, or (3) try to find a reasonable compromise. I'm attempting (3). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the reason for including a quote which shows that one commentator thought that there shoulD have been more media coverage of the march?
The reason that some want to include it is that they believe that there was a worldwide conspiracy, orchestrated by Monsanto, to suppress media coverage. That is on a par with the mood landing conspiracy theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well, let's entertain for the moment the possibility that this is the reason some editors want to include it. Edit Wikipedia, you come across all kinds! But that doesn't matter, and there's no need to settle the score. What does matter is what content we have on the page. The content we have there, at this moment, is: a list of coverage, arguably showing a lot of coverage, followed by three opinions, two of which express the opinion that there should have been more coverage. Not Wikipedia's opinion, but the opinion of two people, with the opinion clearly attributed to them. Nothing on the page about a conspiracy. Nothing. It's two sentences on the page, low down on the page. Deplete this particular page of all the non-mainstream opinions, and there won't be much of anything left. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
@Thargor: I'd still like to see some proof for your claim "The March was heavily reported, by multiple organizations including major ones." And of course I'm talking about US media, especially cable news outlets. You keep repeating your claim yet it seems to be just your own strong personal view/opinion w/o any back-up presented as of yet. And again, the article's content doesn't support this extreme view.TMCk (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest looking in the article for the examples. You say that the article content does not support the "extreme view," but the content, in fact, details the multiple media organizations that covered the march, including major ones. If you claim the examples in the articles are not enough, tell me how many you need to see for you to accept the fact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Based on what's on the page, some major media outlets covered it, and some others did not. Different people have different opinions about whether there should have been more coverage. If one looks with fresh eyes, without worrying about what the page said in the past, at what that section of the page says now, it's really not bad. It gives three opinions from three people sympathetic to the subject of this page, and attributes their views to them. It doesn't imply anything conspiritorial. It's quite short, so it's not giving it a lot of emphasis. I don't think that we can shorten it further without getting to something that will be unable to have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What the page does now is gives more weight to the argument that it wasn't covered than to the reality of the coverage. It's why I was okay with the compromise language you and I spoke of above. I would love to hear from User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper and User:Gandydancer as to why they oppose that compromise language. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, if we have to get to keeping score by word counts, we are never going to get to any kind of compromise. As far as I'm concerned, it is not undue weight. And if no one tries to expand the section further, then I think it would be appropriate for those who wish it were shortened to drop it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's up to those who want to add information to justify it, so that's what I'm looking for. If they're going to insist on expanding a false claim, we need evidence for it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thargo. I have neither supported nor opposed anything in regards to that section. I asked you a legit question + clarified it further but you again refused to provide what was ask for. If the only answer you have is "because it is so" you missed the point of the discussion, thou I really can't imagine how this is possible. I ask you one more time to correct this and provide what was asked for.TMCk (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
To make it even more clear, if you can't or won't back up your so far only personal and strong believe by showing the march was covered by most major news outlets and in dept [cable news channels as a priority] and at a close time frame of the date the march took place you have no point here. Your opinion, valued or not in general, has no bearing at all in this thread and in regards to truth and due weight of reliable sourced and attributed opinions from those you want to exclude. Policies and guidelines are back stabbing you in this matter. The way I see it, you don't even have a "use common sense" argument here since you seem to refuse to back up your claims.TMCk (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe the claim that it was not widely covered is fully countered in the article's sources and in the section itself. My claims are backed up. You disagree, but you cannot tell me what it would take to change your mind, nor can you show any evidence to support the expansion. If you want the information included, it's up to you to justify it per our policies. Can you do that, or shall we simply remove the section? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thargor, I want to make a distinction between (1) Wikipedia saying that it was not widely covered, and (2) a commentator saying that it was not widely covered. The current language makes it very clear that it is the latter. In fact, what is written in Wikipedia's voice is what is in the first paragraph of the section, where we describe all of the sources that did provide coverage. Readers are free to read the objective information about coverage, then read the opinions of the commentators, and then finally reach their own opinions as to what they find credible or not. The WP:BURDEN that you are asking of TMCk really boils down to showing that there is a source for each of the three commentators, not that what the commentators say reflects mainstream opinion. If you want to make an issue of the dead link for one of those sources, then that's something that we might want to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not looking for Wikipedia's voice to say anything in particular here. My concern is solely about the amount of weight we're giving a claim that is clearly false. While I'd prefer we not place false claims in the encyclopedia, I'm on board with a compromise where we acknowledge that some commentators believe the coverage was lax. I don't see how we can mesh what's currently there with our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, so since you are not talking about a rebuttal in Wikipedia's voice, I think that brings us back to the word-count score. I'm trying to think of ways to further shorten the second paragraph of that section. Obviously, one way would be to go back to the summary that I had written, but that got reverted. Can we further shorten any of the quotes? Can we omit one of the quotes? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't actually seen a good defense of reverting that to begin with. I'm still waiting to hear a policy-based reason for it. If we need to include some sort of quote, Hartmann is the only really noteworthy voice we've included, so his line would be the sensible one to keep, but it doesn't really solve anything as much as make a bad situation better-but-still-bad. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
As with the cliché about glass half empty or half full, I think that you overstate "still-bad". It seems to me that "better-but-" is always an improvement, albeit not as big an improvement as you might have hoped for. Especially given the dead link for Joseph Bachman, let me suggest the following. We keep the sentences about Livingstone and Hartmann, as they are now. We delete the existing sentence about Bachman. Then we add a sentence, after the sentence about Hartmann, saying: "Joseph Bachman, writing in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, also questioned what he saw as a lack of mainstream media coverage." Would that be enough of an improvement? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't go with that. It still way outbalances the section. "Better-bad" is what we appeared to have agreed upon before. I'd like to hear from those still opposed as to why that's not tolerable. Looking at the two discussions, the most we have consensus for is just Hartmann's statement, and even then, it's 2-to-1 in favor of what we came up with above in terms of legitimate discussion. I'm willing to go with something that's along the lines of "Some commentators, like Thom Hartmann, have claimed that the mainstream media ignored the march," but we can't keep unbalancing the article this way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Then I'm withdrawing my suggestion, with the observation that you are unlikely to get anything you consider to be "better". Besides, it turns out that the link wasn't bad, just a paywall. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My worry is this: I mean, the Louisiana Weekly and the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune ... seriously? These are sources weighty enough to support implications of corruption and lack of integrity in America's mainstream media. I'm not an an American, but if this is all it takes to call your established media institutions into question I am, frankly, amazed! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is what we talk about when we talk about coatracking. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

A sensible approach if we're concerned about balance between these two paragraphs is to beef up the first paragraph. In 15 minutes of looking, I've easily found two more national news articles covering the march in the days after it. That said, coming to this dispute with what I hope is a fresh and disinterested eye, I don't actually feel the balance of this section is too bad. The context on the dissenting voices (of which there were 3 as of my writing this) is clear from the names and sources as explicitly stated. I would even go so far as to recommend a purely descriptive leader sentence on this second paragraph, maybe: "Some commentators questioned the prominence of media coverage of the march in the USA." DanHobley (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with being disagreed with, but my issue with balance is that we're giving a clearly false claim significant airtime. I understand the need to note that the viewpoints exist, which is why I haven't outright removed them at this point although I believe it could be justified by policy. If there's a better way to achieve balance on this, I think we'd all like to see it happen and move on from this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
(PERSONAL OPINION- having just performed a news search on this, I half agree with the premise. There's less out there than you might expect.) Regardless of what I actually think on what the sources are expressing, though, IMO the nature of these sources is very obvious from the text, and a reader can draw their own conclusions on the weight they put on these voices. I guess I'm saying I favor leaving the 2nd paragraph be as-is. (that's a vote, not shouting, sorry!) DanHobley (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Dan, thank you for coming to the page, and thank you for finding the excellent idea of adding to paragraph 1. At this point, I agree with everything Dan said here, and I'm in favor of not cutting anything further from the second paragraph. Our readers are smart enough to be able to assess the sources in that second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me why the degree of media coverage matters so much and why it is contentious? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Which is a good reason to stop agonizing over the section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It matters to those who support the March because it sustains a "corporate media" meme where the media looks out for the big and powerful as opposed to the people. It's why it's so important for some to have it expressed significantly in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, despite my facetious reply, that's actually the real reason. The meme exists, and the meme is part of the subject matter of this page. But, per WP:RGW, Wikipedia is here to document the meme, not to settle the score or even to set the record straight. We don't have to purge it from the page to satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, that doesn't explain why some editors are so determined to argue for shortening the section. It explains why some editors buy into a meme, but it doesn't explain why other editors who reject the meme get so worked up about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Correct. We just need to give it the proper weight, which is not an amount of "screen time" higher than the reality. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Which we do now. I say that, keeping in mind that you rejected the idea of leaving anything more than a short summary on the page, and keeping in mind that we don't have to purge it from the page to satisfy WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
How is giving a false, minority viewpoint the majority of the media coverage space within the realm of proper weight? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
As I already said, because we don't determine that simply by word count, or by measuring the height of paragraphs with a ruler. (In fact, if you allow that the first of the three commentators is not quoted about the quantity of media coverage, then what we have about the other two commentators is approximately the same as the first paragraph.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Which means we're still weighted heavily in one direction. I understand what you're saying, but the weight of the section is being pushed very much to show a specific POV, and one that's demonstrably false. We can't be complacent. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you for understanding. I understand you, too. I guess this is something where I don't mind being complacent. I don't think it's a big deal at this stage. The earlier language bothered me enough to want to change it, but the current language just doesn't bother me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not the biggest problem here, no. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Boston Magazine reported that the bill 'protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks'."

I don't think this sentence should be in the section regarding the Farmer's Assurance Provision section. It's verified that Boston Magazine reported this, but it does not appear to be what the bill actually does. NPR has an expert opinion, and Politifact supports that point of view. I think we should remove that line based on the facts of the case and language of the bill. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. SpectraValor (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not use the primary source in this case? Given this section is about the marcher's motivations, their own thoughts on the MPAct would surely be more relevant that this third party statement, which also has the problem of looking pretty WP:SYNTH-y. A direct quote that could be placed here would be "(The MPA is) ...a provision attached to a spending bill that would allow seeds deemed unsafe to be planted anyway, trumping any court rulings." (This would clearly need to be couched in language demonstrating this is their opinion, not fact) DanHobley (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That sort of statement comes two lines after the magazine piece. My concern is more that the line comes during a clear description of the law, not the opinion area. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of whether we replace it, I agree that not much is lost if this just comes out. As you say, third party, obscure journalistic comment doesn't sit right here. DanHobley (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I think that it is very clear that the passage on the page needs to be rewritten. The quote from Boston Magazine is, if not contradicted, at least shown to be misleading by two other sources, one of which, NPR, is undeniably mainstream and a reliable source. Knowing this, it becomes cherrypicking to simply use the Boston Magazine statement. We should delete the Boston Magazine material, replace it with an objective sentence in Wikipedia's voice, based on the NPR piece, and then, right after it, quote from the primary source from the March people, giving their views in their own words, and attributing it to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with outright removal. Boston Magazine is a reliable and prominent source, and removing it based on an editor's reading of the bill is WP:OR. Moreover it only semi-conflicts with the NPR and Politifact analyses. The appropriate solution is to explain all three sources and let the reader decide, per WP:BALANCE and WP:Conflicting sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This isn't removal based on "an editor's reading," but on the reading of reliable sources, fact-checkers, experts, and the bill itself. I again ask why editors insist on adding falsehoods to this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
A statement by a reliable source that isn't directly contradicted by any other reliable source can hardly be characterized as a "falsehood." You might want to review WP:TRUTH as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The statement is directly contradicted by the two links offered above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thargor, Wikipedia editor Thargor Orlando does not trump three US congress members (and others). Please be aware of this opposition to the bill:

An amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Merkley sought, unsuccessfully, to overturn the provision. Merkley's reasoning was that it "allows the unrestricted sale and planting of genetically modified seeds that could be harmful to farmers, the environment and human health".

After public outrage, Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski offered an apology for allowing the bill to be signed into law. In her statement, Milkulski said she "understands the anger over this provision", and that she "didn't put the language in the bill and doesn't support it either".

Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed to continue fighting for GMO labeling and for a defeat of the provision by not allowing it back into law after its expiration. In a May 28, 2013 interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Sanders claimed there were "about 27 states in this country that are moving forward on the labeling of GMO food", saying this showed the "momentum is with us". He went on to say, "Essentially, what that Monsanto Protection Act rider said is that even if a court were to determine that a particular product might be harmful to human beings or harmful to the environment, the Department of Agriculture could not stop the production of that product once it is in the ground. So you have deregulated the GMO industry from court oversight, which is really not what America is about." Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, none of these quotes support the claim being made in Boston Magazine shown to be false by NPR and Politifact. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to parse the sourcing based on policy and guidelines, as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc., and I think that Thargor is correct. Let's look at those members of Congress, one-by-one. Sen. Merkley says that the law allows allows unrestricted planting of seeds that could be harmful, but he does not say that the law "protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks". Those are two different things. Sen. Mikulski says nothing about lawsuits or liability, at all. Sen. Saunders does talk about legal liability, but he discusses only the ability of courts to stop the production of crops (injunctive relief), not the ability of courts to assess financial penalties against Monsanto (punitive or monetary relief). That's not to say that the Senators' views aren't noteworthy for a page about the bill.
It's true that WP:BALANCE is very applicable here, but let's look at what it really says: "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance." Here, we have reputable sources, including Boston Magazine and NPR, that contradict one another, but they are not really equal, in that NPR examines the issue in detail, and its analysis is backed by other sources, whereas the Boston Magazine sentence is a single sentence that an editor chose to pick. Thus, balance indicates that we should regard the NPR analysis as the more definitive, as opposed to doing what WP:VALID warns against.
I suppose we could present all this as a two-sided debate, with NPR's analysis on one side, and Boston Magazine's on the other, but that doesn't belong on this page. We should link, as we do, to the main page about the bill, and not have a WP:POVFORK here. We should delete the sentence about Boston Magazine, and replace it with the primary source that DanHobley found: what the marchers themselves maintain. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The NPR and PolitiFact sources don't directly contradict the Boston Magazine source:
  • The NPR sources says: "But a closer look at the language of the provision suggests it may not be granting the USDA any powers it hasn't already exercised in the past." Notice the key word "may." Moreover even if the bill doesn't grant the USDA any new powers that doesn't mean it doesn't protect companies like Monsanto from lawsuits. Protection can have multiple layers; the bill might give Monsanto extra arguments in court.
  • PolitiFact validates the concerns encapsulated in the Boston Magazine quote and calls it "Half True": "However, the language in the law saying the USDA 'shall' issue permits escalates that policy, with one expert telling us it 'compels' the agency to allow the use of disputed products while litigation proceeds. And now the USDA itself is now questioning whether that provision is enforceable. The Facebook claim rightly describes the effect of the new provision, but lacks some important context. We rate it Half True." Hardly a contradiction.
In my opinion the PolitiFact source is the most thorough and most reliable, and it does not directly contradict the Boston Magazine source; it merely says the debate deserves more context. As Tryptofish observes, a detailed explanation is probably merited in the bill's article. But here this section is about concerns. Whether they are valid or not is debatable, but they are still more than fringe concerns and merit description, just without misleading the reader. In light of this I would write the passage along these lines: "According to Boston Magazine the bill 'protects companies like Monsanto from lawsuits over potential health risks.'[1] Although NPR and PolitiFact have noted that this interpretation reads the bill out of context,[2][3] similar claims on Facebook have been used to promote the movement." Thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts are that it would be a lot better to simply source what we say to the primary source from the protest itself, and attribute it to them. And I think that a point-counterpoint between Boston Magazine and Facebook on one side and NPR and PolitiFact on the other does not belong on this page. I'm fine with regarding the differences between sources as something less than a contradiction. But "may" does not mean "is", and "half true" does not mean "true". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with your proposal is that it leaves out the very noteworthy fact that the protesters' concerns have been validated by at least one reliable source. The fact that other sources aren't in complete agreement is beside the point, except that we don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's no dispute at all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree per Tryptofish. The grounds for removal aren't anything to do with truth, but simply that a magazine's opinion of a law that is also criticized by the march's organizers just isn't relevant on this page (but would clearly be on the page about the bill). We could replace it with the organiser's opinion, which really isn't actually that prominent here! DanHobley (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Evidently you and Thargor have different reasons for wanting the Boston Magazine material removed. Regardless, the material seems highly relevant. According to the WFTS source the protesters want to defeat the bill and have called it the "Monsanto Protection Act" for what seem like the very reason described in the Boston Magazine article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm replying here to your reply above to me as well. You are engaging in WP:SYNTH when you say that the source "validates" it in a factual sense. The source agrees with it, but that's not the same thing. It's entirely appropriate to present the protesters' views, and I'm not seeing anyone trying to say otherwise. It would be one thing to say that someone at Boston Magazine agrees with the protesters' opinions, but it's another to present that information as demonstrating that the protesters' understanding of the legislation is precisely correct, when we have reliable sources that say that the quote in question gets the nuance wrong. Again, the right thing to do here is to present the protesters' views. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no contradiction of sources. Each source made their own analysis and decided where to put weight on in their conclusion. If we do it (as some try to) it's OR, but if the sources do we can use them, even more when added with attribution. It would be nice if we really would stick to policies and not try to misuse them for one or another personal POV. Going by the (real) book would be a start in making this article an informative NPOV entry. Maybe editors with to strong of a feeling should step away? That too would help.TMCk (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% and reject Thargor's line of argument... but I'm convinced by Tryptofish and DanHobley's. This paragraph should focus on describing the protesters' opposition to the bill and not on the validity (or invalidity) of the concerns. Still, if you take the Boston Magazine quote out you're left with a very weak explanation for the protesters' position. Best would be to replace the sentence with something like: The Facebook page for Grow Food, Not Lawns contends the bill would "require[] the USDA to approve the harvest and sale of crops from genetically modified seed even if a court has ruled against the crop as being dangerous to public safety or the environment.[cite Politifact]" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no issue with direct attribution. My issue is solely with using a news source incorrectly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Thargor. The sources do contradict each other. Arzel (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Great! It sounds like we now agree all around. I think that if we just work out the exact wording, we'll be all set. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes

Just a note to explain a few of the changes I've made. In the edit summary, I said that I had added detail about bees... don't be confused when you don't find it: I decided against it but forgot to edit my summary accordingly. I found this in the City Weekly article about Canal: "The company’s use of neonicotinoid pesticides on its crops has been challenged by numerous studies—including researchers with the Harvard School of Public Health—who argue that the pesticides imperil bee populations, which, in the long term, could jeopardize the global food supply." This could be used to flush out the minuscule mention of bees in the "issues" section. I am assuming that good deal of protesters supported this as an issue, given so many marchers are pictured in bee costumes.

There was a good deal of GMO science added that didn't mention the march at all. It makes no sense to include it here, as has been exhaustively discussed, so I've removed it. Let's stick to using sources about the march, and using the guidelines about sourcing appropriately from now on. petrarchan47tc 07:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If the principle is to have no "GMO science" in the article (and instead focus tightly on the protestors), why add the science about bees? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Because it was one of the main concerns of the protesters. Did you see their bee costumes? That kind of needs expansion, and the source was about the protest. Anyway, you guys enjoy yourselves. Have a nice life. Don't work too hard, and remember to step away from the computer screens once in a while and get some sun! petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The GMO science exists there to battle against WP:FRINGE. Previously discussed, yes, that we need to address it. I will re-add a source that directly contrasts the science with the march to fulfill policy for now. For the record, your changes did not improve this article, and increased the problems that already existed in it regarding balancing scientific views and claims against the prior discussions had. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
If I hear the fringe excuse to add OR to this article one more time, I'll take my life, I swear :) TMCk (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't, as you will be sorely missed. Setting aside the, um, f-word for a moment, consider also that we should not make this page a WP:POVFORK. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your concerns which of course are unfounded :)
If you'd like to use the "F" word just do so. I have no problem with that and spelling out can make things more clear and thus easier. Regarding the wp:POVFORK issue, that's my concern all along. It might be the only bigger issue where we disagree, mainly on how to not implement such fork.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Just in case it wasn't clear (darn that Internet, as a communication medium!), I did indeed see your emoticon that indicated that you were joking. Fair enough then, I'll soon tell somebody "Fringe you!". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Alexbrn and Thargor Orlando about these edits. Where, exactly, was the discussion about making these changes? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Further, although there has been extensive discussion about the science background, there certainly was no consensus to purge it to that extent. If anything, the consensus has been trending in the opposite direction. I also don't see an explanation or justification of many of the other changes that were made. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the effects of the edits, taken as a whole, was almost entirely to either reduce the amount of content that presents POV-balance to that of the March, or to move it lower on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Clean-Up Tags

The page March Against Monsanto is currently under page-protection due to edit warring over addition and removal of tags for fringe science and undue weight and name calling. This Request for Comments is being used to draw additional editor comments and arrive at consensus.

  • Remove the fringe and undue tags. I'm involved in these discussions, but I think that the tags are WP:POINTy, and I would prefer that the issues giving rise to the tags be resolved through talk page discussion during the time of page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse per Tryptofish. The issues are under discussion and the tags serve only to create drama and derail productive discussions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove the tags when the issue is solved. The tags are there for readers and editors to let them know that the article runs afoul of policy and guideline. Removing the tags implies the issues are solved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse. Arzel (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse. Not sure if I would have chosen the exact same tags for an article that has been turned into a coatrack/soapbox/ trojan horse for the talking points of one side of the GMO debate. But it should have 1-2 top level tags until the significant problems are fixed. North8000 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Endorse. There is a genuine debate here, I see no use in making it appear otherwise. That's why tags exist. Anaxial (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove Fringe tags I'm not familiar with the issues surrounding the 'undue' tags, so won't comment on that. But this article is about a protest against Monsanto and GMOs. We have links to the GMO controversy article, we don't need to use this page to drive the point home about GMO safety, other articles on the Wiki have this well covered. This article is about the protesters and their beliefs, whether those beliefs are ridiculous (fringe) is entirely beside the point. I think editors who are hot for GMOs have been confused about the purpose of this article since its inception. It is not another place to discuss GMOs in a scientific sense. It is clear to the reader from the start that this is NOT a science-based article. The reader understands they are getting the views and the story behind a protest group. Does the Occupy Movement need huge caveats and tags to explain that no, the banking industry is not against you, they are indeed saving the world? No. It might be a good article to review when looking at this one, to help determine whether we've veered off the tracks here or not. petrarchan47tc 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd argue that, if the Occupy page actually stated that the banks are out to get you, we should have the real information next to it to ensure that the legitimate, verifiable viewpoint is put forward. That the page here actively promotes fringe viewpoints (against guideline and policy), a simple point as to what the scientific consensus states is appropriate. You seem to want to remove the tags simply because the fringe beliefs are "beside the point?" That's the entire problem with the article currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I would appreciate if you could point me to the guideline which covers a situation such as this. petrarchan47tc 20:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
        • WP:FRINGE, specifically "[A] theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." No one, to my knowledge, is looking to remove any claims, just present the proper context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
          • ADMIN ASSISTANCE PLEASE I am asking for a link to guidelines for this specific situation: an article whose subject is "against" something. Since this article is about people who question GMO safety, that idea shouldn't need a tag - it is essentially the topic, or a main one, of this article. Wiki must have dealt with similar situations in the past - I'd like to see the conclusions that were made. petrarchan47tc 22:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
            • If the article is not demonstrating the scientific consensus regarding those claims, then it needs the tag. When we solve that problem, we no longer need the tags. This isn't hard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Which claims? The article demonstrates the scientific consensus adequately without the original research by using sources about the march. Health concerns about GMOs are in the journals all the time. The World Health Organization says that GMOs could potentially lead to allergic reactions, gene transfer in humans, and crossbreeding with plants. Most scientists agree that better studies and tighter regulatory mechanisms are needed. Calling for more science is not fringe. In June alone, plant scientist Margaret Smith of Cornell University called for improved studies. And in July, Zheng Fengtian of Renmin University said, "More research needs to be conducted on GM organisms before putting such products on the market. With more attention from the public and media, greater policy control will be seen." And furthermore, there is no consensus in the marketplace. In the UK, for example, most consumers and half of all farmers are against growing GM foods. Barclay's latest YouGov poll conducted in June in the UK, showed that "only 21% of consumers are willing to support GM food" while "43% of consumers were completely against the idea of the government promoting GM technology and 67% would prefer to buy 'conventional' food." The numbers are similar in the United States and elsewhere. None of this is "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
          • FGS, this article is not about a mainstream idea! Repeated claims that it is doesn't make it so.TMCk (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Is it more important for Wikipedia to accurately convey the positions of "March Against Monsanto" or to downplay and qualify these positions lest a reader take them seriously? March Against Monsanto is not a "fringe" movement with "fringe" ideas (and this discussion is not settled on Wikipedia). But even if it were, we should not censor articulations of its core principles. We should feature them, so that readers understand what "March Against Monsanto" is really about. We don't censor the article on Nazism, nor does anyone suggest countless qualifiers to caution the reader against Nazi theories of Jewish inferiority. Also see Heaven's Gate (religious group), Million Man March, Arab Spring, Society for Cutting Up Men, and an enormous variety of other articles about protest movements. How would we have covered the Galileo affair according to the principles we use now? The flock of editors demanding that we describe GMO science of all things as uncontroversial doth protest too much, wethinks. groupuscule (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The subject is not fringe in the context of politics, society, and culture. The concerns expressed by the protesters are shared widely, especially in Europe, but other places too. However, the science is fringe. But I agree that we really don't need the tags simply because the page explains why the protest believes what it believes. And we clearly do need to describe what the protesters believe, because this is a page about the protest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Are we quoting science in this article? What science are you referring to? If it isn't in this article, we don't need to discuss it here. petrarchan47tc 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not at length, but according to WP:Summary style. Please see: March Against Monsanto#GMO controversy and the discussion above at #Issues about the science sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't need the tags at all, but until the article conforms to our policies and guidelines, I don't see a choice. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This article is about a mainstream idea: genetically modified food. The article topic, protests against that mainstream idea, thus needs to conform to our policies. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Nope. This article is still about a protest march. The "mainstream" article is Genetically modified food to which we link to.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
And that does not mean that this article can promote fringe viewpoints simply because it's not the main article in a topic. As noted in WP:FRINGE, "Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories." The context of the fringe points of view in this article must, per guideline and policy, have the proper context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This article is not promoting any "fringe" viewpoints, and you've been repeatedly asked to point to them. Your answer to each request has been the sound of crickets chirping loudly. If you can't provide the diff, then your argument gets tossed off a cliff. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry that, of your hundreds of small edits to this article, I'm not willing to go through them line by line to find the anti-scientific information you're adding without the proper scientific context. I've been clear about what you're doing, I'm not building a case against you right now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Note, this is one of many of your responses admitting that you cannot provide evidence for your claims about my edits. You've done this over and over and over again. Usually, when an editor says something they can't back up, we can attribute it to ignorance or a mistake. However, when they keep doing it, over and over again, we can safely conclude that they are lying. Do you agree? I've never added a single "anti-scientific" contribution to this article. The diffs show I've added more pro-GMO content than you or any other editor combined. Your confusion about how NPOV works and how we write for the enemy is clear. However, that doesn't give you the right to repeatedly make false claims. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, let's talk about mainstream ideas, such as the labeling of GMO products in 50 different countries except for the United States, where special interests work night and day to lobby the individual states and Washington to oppose the will of the American people, the vast majority of which support the labeling of GMOs. So, you have it completely backwards. The protest movement is mainstream and the position of special interests fighting against this movement is "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The scientific consensus is clear on this issue. This is not the place to fight that battle, the sources are clear. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. I did not mention a word about science, I discussed politics, one of the primary complaints made by the protesters. Furthermore, the most current, reliable sources indicate that the "scientific consensus" is not clear at all.[1] Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The source does not mention safety. Bravo, successfull twist of a source successful, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It most certainly does mention safety, and it doesn't need to use the word "safety" to do it. You must have missed the part about the movement of transgenes into Mexican maize and the use of more glyphosate and herbicides to fight resistant weeds. The article also links to Waltz's "GM crops: Battlefield" which was published in Nature in 2009, which, according to cell biologist David Schubert at the Salk Institute, shows that "People who look into safety issues and pollination and contamination issues get seriously harassed", and have their academic careers threatened. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Certain editors deny the current scientific consensus about safety (see above). They are using this article to have quotes attacking the safety of GM Foods without having the scientific rebuttals in. They've also edit warred to include the most credulous estimates of the actual numbers involved in the march (a source which did an analysis said 200,000, the organisers said 2 million and so people edit warred 2million in). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to accept or deny any science - this article is not about the science at all, and has linked to articles that do cover the science. This article is about a bunch of wackos who question the addition of Roundup into into seeds, among other things. Big deal. Why does it cause such drama to allow these folks to think what they think? We aren't promoting their view in wiki's voice, or in the voice of All things True and Scientific. Also, the ridiculous 200,000 quotation comes from ONE local news station and it was published whilst the event was ongoing, meaning they couldn't have done a fair count. All other sources say 2 million or roughly so. But, we have allowed you and the rest to use the 200,000 quotation at every mention of this event on wiki. I complained a little when I was taken to court for a bogus 3RR, but no one seemed to pay any attention. There is an obvious attempt to downplay MAM for some reason, the reason doesn't matter to me, it's that Wikipedia is being abused; out primary tenant here is NPOV and relaying untwisted facts. petrarchan47tc 00:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that Petrarchan47 is actually referring to people who question the introduction of Roundup resistance to seeds, not Roundup to seeds. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The 2 million figure has been questioned by several sources, the original source for it always leads back to the event organizers, and it's almost certainly inaccurate. Firemylasers (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Petrarchan, there is one thing that I agree with your on and that is that this article in not about science, it is about a protest movement. We should accurately describe the movement, including its motives, here. The problem is that the article went beyond that. Rather then just describing, in encyclopedic language, the motives of the marchers it effectively promoted those motives by having prominent and emotive quotes and wording that subtly promoted the anti-GM view. I changed much of that and I think the article is much better now, although some want to change it back;
We still have: "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled.[18] Canal was not only angry about the failure of Proposition 37 and frustrated with trying to find reasonably priced healthy food, but she was also concerned about the health of her children.
My complaint about this is that using a direct quotation gives "undue prominence" to the distinctly fringe view that GM food is poison. Also the statement, in WP's voice, that Canal was 'concerned about the health of her children' gives authority to her undue concern that her children's health would be harmed by eating GM foods. I would not want to remove her motives, just state them in a different way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Martin, you and I keep re-discussing this same issue. As I've said before, I don't think that it's WP:UNDUE to present what the main organizer of the subject of this page says about what she thinks, in her own words, so long as we distinguish her views from what we say in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose disruptive perma-tags. The editors tag teaming over these tags have never, ever been able to answer the question, "for what exact reason have you added these tags?" They cannot answer this simple question for one simple reason—there is no reason. The tags are added as a badge of shame intended to hold this article hostage to their POV. In other words, these edit warriors are saying, "I will hold this article hostage until you do as I say." That's not acceptable. Nowhere does this article violate the guideline on WP:FRINGE science, nor does it violate any known Wikipedia policy for that matter. This article is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say about the topic, which means significant content that is verifiable and found in multiple reliable sources about the subject, not what Wikipedia editors believe or want those sources to say. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • We have, you just refuse to accept the answers. When the problems are fixed, the tags come down. This isn't hard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You've never been able to describe a single problem with this article. Your entire argument consists of "I will hold this article hostage to my demands". Sorry, that's not how it works. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I was randomly selected to RFC however I consider myself a biased Editor on this subject so I will not volunteer a suggested resolution on the use of the tags for fringe science. I have an apriori dislike for the Monsanto corporation for all the usual reasons and could not give a dispassionate, full review of the issue in contention so I will refrain. Damotclese (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

200,000

See also: § Unsourced changes to the lead section

I hesitate to raise this, but if it's really only just CTV News citing this figure (with everybody else relaying the organizers' estimate of 2 million) we should probably take it out of the article as an outlier; it certainly shouldn't be in the lede. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes you hesitate to raise this? petrarchan47tc 06:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
A fear for the amount of time I may have to spend discussing it on the Talk page rather than doing the things I ought to be doing today :-) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I hear you! petrarchan47tc 06:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to point out an article from the New York Times "A Race to Save the Oranges." This article states hundreds of thousands, which seems to me more like the 200,000 number then the organizers 2,000,000 number. VVikingTalkEdits 06:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks - I have added this back in, but mentioning its "hundreds of thousands" verbatim ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I have been trying to stay away from hotly debated topics, as I don't really like the drama. I knew about this article because of my interest in Orange Groves in Florida and wanted to point it out since it was a more recent article.VVikingTalkEdits 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
With the preponderance of sources mentioning millions (evidenced below), this (wiki-wide) lowball does not properly represent RS. petrarchan47tc 09:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason both are listed is because relying on the organizers alone is not very good activity, thus the range between outside estimates and organizer estimates. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't we usually go with what RS says instead of second guessing and correcting them? Why is it different here? Why is this number such a heated source of contention? petrarchan47tc 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see:

This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times

Plus

As many as 2 million people ... may have demonstrated ... according to the Associated Press, which cited event organizers.

Organisers say that two million people marched

[No figure given in the body text here]

Perhaps we should adopt the NYT "hundreds of thousands" in the lede, since it is not incompatible with the other claims, and the NYT is a good strong source. The article body can go into more detail about the other figures. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The NYT article is not a good string source for this claim. It is not about the protest, only mentions it somewhere near the end of their article about oranges. I have a list of the highest quality RS right above whose very titles give us the mainstream number for the protest turnout. Editors are engaging in massive cherry picking to get this "range" - it is OR and a misrepresentation of the facts. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the actual quotes in above. All neutral reliable sources make clear that they are giving the organisers's estimates not their own. We must make this clear if we give this figure in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at my early edits to this article, you will see I did leave the "according to organizers" disclaimer - but that wasn't good enough. petrarchan47tc 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I realize this information is technically original research as well as synthesis, however I think we need to be intellectually honest with these numbers at least in the discussion. March Against Monsanto claimed 2,000,000 participants in 52 countries and 436 cities. This equals an average number per city of 4587. Realizing some rallies will be large and some small I searched for cities that had news articles on the number of participants. I was able to find information for 36 different cities in 3 different countries. Which I know is only 10% of the cities the March Claims.

The largest group of participants that I found was in Portland with 6000 also in the thousand range were Eugene OR which had reports of hundreds or 2500 depending on the source, Miami with 1500, NYC with 2400, Washington DC with 1000 and San Diageo and Ashville with “more than a thousand.”

On the bottom end we had cities with 50, 75, 80 and dozens; with the majority of the cities in the “hundreds.” After taking the rosiest outlook for the March organizers with every one of the hundreds rounded to 999 and the more than a thousand being rounded up to 1999. The average for the marches was about 999.65 per city. If we then took the claim of the organizers that 436 cities participated and we even gave that a rosy number of 450 cities participating this only will add up to 449,850 participants worldwide. On the low end again with 450 cities participating, the number was closer to 266,000.

The numbers just don’t add up. CNN makes the statement that they cannot verify the numbers and most articles that are making the 2,000,000 person statement are based on a single AP article or just taking the organizers number at face value.VVikingTalkEdits 18:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but wiki saves us from the work you've just done with their handy rules about going with RS and "no original research". What is wrong with representing the sources on wiki, and adding the "according to organizers" (even though most RS did not add that disclaimer)? petrarchan47tc 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am good citing with "according to organizers" I don't really care either way. I enjoyed the research and just thought I would point it out even though I knew it was original research.VVikingTalkEdits 19:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In the spirit of original research for the fun of it, check out these images from across the world during the MAM, it becomes easier to believe that millions participated. I figured since it was a Facebook-fueled protest, a link to these images would be acceptable, as you can see in the "external links" section of the article during the time I was building it. Now, only one external link exists. petrarchan47tc 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Those images don't seem to make it easier to believe millions participated, in fact the opposite. That said, while some offtopic discussion is may be tolerated, it seems to me this is starting to detract from the main point. Back to that, if there are so few sources mentioning alternative figures it may be best to simply mention the organisers figures in the LEDE, as organisers figures although the may be merit to mention alternative figures in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I would have to agree that sticking close to RS guidelines is the best way to go. (And steering clear of OR). I will let others make this change to reflect what sources say. And please be careful of getting trapped into the dreaded 3RR! petrarchan47tc 21:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Aha! Prior to the march, media was saying that 200,000 were expected. This makes me think that the source discussed above used the expected number rather than any sort of analysis. It seems obvious this is what happened since the number is identical. This is called lazy reporting in some circles. petrarchan47tc 07:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless we actually know that the sources used that number because it was a pre-event estimate, we would be doing WP:OR in concluding that those sources should be given less weight for that particular reason. I've seen those photos, and it gets awfully speculative to draw any editorial conclusions from them; we cannot even verify whether they are what they purport to be. We could potentially have endless back-and-forth about whether the numbers from some media sources are more reliable, or whether the numbers from the organizers are more reliable, but we won't get anywhere with that. I still think it's best to say some sources say this and some sources say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note that I added the photos "for the fun if it", in response to the OR just prior. I'm not a fan of OR and don't intend to use it, but rather the media sources like CNN and others who waited until the protest was finished to quote the turnout numbers. petrarchan47tc 08:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Million and how often it is reported

See also: § 200,000

That the organizors claim that 2 million people marched is unsupported by any reliable sources. If you want to state their claim, fine, but it must be attributed. Not included it as their claim is POV. As to how often and which media reported that number, this is pure Original Research. The fact that Jake Trapper, who apparently is strongly biased in this matter, reported it on CNN is not indicative that this is the most commonly reported number. Leave our the original research and the clear POV presentation of crowd statistics. Arzel (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote on the "200,000" section, we have indeed added that the numbers came from organizers, but even that was unsatisfactory to the editors here. Be careful about cherry-picking and unsubstantiated claims concerning Tapper.
Repeat:
This May, during a global day of action, more than 2 million protesters attended rallies in more than 400 cities across 52 countries.. From Miami New Times July 25.
I've never seen editors argue so much to exclude widely accepted RS such as Guardian, CNN and RT. it's baffling to me. petrarchan47tc 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:SODOIT? Sounds good to me. (Clarification - add the refs) DanHobley (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No thanks. I have enjoyed the 3RR noticeboard twice now, both in relation to perfectly justified changes to this article, but unacceptable to editors here. I have no desire to immerse myself in this again, but have at it!. petrarchan47tc 16:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've tried a new compromise phrasing, widening the refs we use as you suggested. DanHobley (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the highly POV Miami source and the sentense stating the obvious. I say obvious, because we couldn't even report the 2 million claim if some sources had not reported on it. Plus it was grammatically incorrect, because as worded it implied that those organization reported "their" own estimate, when they simply reported what the March organizers claimed. Arzel (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not comfortable the source used to make the "estimates began at 200,000" claim. This article was printed at 5:00 PM Eastern time, while the march was only half-way through. I think if we are going to base a claim on one single source, it should be better than some local newspaper that happened to cite the exact number that was previously estimated for turnout, rather than wait until the dang thing was over. How can use of this source be justified? Why don't we go with WP:RS in this, and as a compromise we can add the disclaimer, "according to event organizers"? petrarchan47tc 19:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We should just stick with who presented what numbers, where they are reported as explicitly coming from somewhere else, and if they made comment on them (redundant, as they didn't in the sources I read). Given how contentious this article has become, we need to remove as much editorializing as possible, as it does look very synth-y. DanHobley (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This change needs to be considered for the similar content at Monsanto in their section about MAM, as well as Genetically modified food controversies, in their "protests" sections - the same sourcing was used there for "range" claims. petrarchan47tc 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources are engaged in churnalism and just repeating claims from other news sources. We know that the organisers self-reported 2 million and then the sources covered that, and later sources reported just 2 million without any apparent verification. On wikipedia it isn't "Verification not truth", it's verification and truth. By the way the editorial stance of the guardian is Anti-GMO. I suggest you have a look at some of their environmental blogs. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I agree with everything of substance here - and I think this is what the article currently says, no? The 2M figure certainly needs to be there, as long as it's noted as self-reported, which it is. TBH, I've kind of lost track of what the problem now is in this section. IMO it's decent. DanHobley (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
None as of current version, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents in that I agree. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Name of Concerns Section

I am renaming the Concerns section to Concerns of Protesters. It isn't about concerns of Monsanto. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble, but WP:MOS generally recommends that section headers not repeat what is in the page name. I realize that "protesters" is not the same as "March...", but it's sort of implied, so I'm not convinced that this edit really helps. Spell it out when it's Monsanto's concerns, but it's implied when it's the marchers. Also, unambiguously, MOS says that only the first word should be capitalized. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"Motivation" would be another phrasing to consider, as it could only apply to the protesters. DanHobley (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "Issues" would be another. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
For reference, the original post on their site is entitled Why Do We March? They only use this phrase, so we can't just crib their terminology. DanHobley (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted "motivation", so I better explain. Seeing it on the page, it came across to me as sounding vaguely like ulterior motives. I don't think we want to characterize it as being about what was going on in the marchers' minds. I don't really have a problem with either "concerns" or "issues". We aren't saying that the concerns are Wikipedia's concerns, or that Wikipedia agrees with that framing of the issues. After all, this is a page about the March Against Monsanto. If we cannot present the reasons for the March, we are in a real pickle. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with not using Motivation, but the problem remains for me that almost everywhere else on WP, "Concerns" de facto implies "Criticisms of the article's topics". That's not what we mean here. Let's keep dwelling on this, but compared to other issues this article has, this isn't exactly a major problem. DanHobley (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
...another alternative might be to include the stated objectives of the protesters as well, then rename this section "Objectives". DanHobley (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it, and I came up with "Positions". Personally, I like that the best, so far. We are just stating the positions expressed by the marchers. How about using that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
good one! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"Positions" is ok just like "Objectives" or "Concerns"; As long as we keep the existing intro which makes clear that the points of concern are held by those who organized the march. My point: Protesters might have attended for one or more or even different concerns. The latter is just my own opinion but I think it makes sense, at least it does for me.TMCk (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that what you say is very reasonable. It sounds to me like maybe "Positions" is going to work. Does anyone see any problems with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason (including any MOS concerns) that "Concerns of protesters" should not be used. "Positions" sounds awkward to me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Even so I don't have a big problem with the other titles, I agree that "concerns" might be the best choice to go as it is precise and neutral. Referring to my comment above, I should've thought it thru which I didn't at the time. As I mentioned above, the protesters had different agendas and there is no doubt that all had certain concerns but that doesn't mean (and we have no source to confirm such), that all had a clear position in regards to the bullet points laid out. If we go by the organizers those points are their position but again, that doesn't mean that all protesters went along with the same. Basically I'm back to the point I've raised before that those positions need to clearly be presented as the organizer's stand. The other option would be to broaden the section in prose, which would enable us to provide a more comprehensive section for the in part different reasons (of the attending protesters). Any thoughts?TMCk (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In this very early version of the article, I had called it "issues". No one expressed any problems with the titling. Maybe it could be used again? (Sorry, I don't know whether this has already been discussed, I haven't been around much.) petrarchan47tc 04:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm puzzled why "Positions" sounds awkward to anyone. As in "these are our positions", it just indicates what the protesters stood for. Some editors have objected to "concerns" and "issues" on the grounds that those words make it sound like there were valid concerns or valid issues, although I personally think that objection is a stretch. But with some editors objecting to those word choices, and the only articulated objection to "positions" being that someone finds it awkward, I'd at least like to understand why it might be seen as awkward. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Although the analogy is obviously not exact, one can make a comparison to what it says at WP:SAY. Just as we should write "the marchers said" in preference to "the marchers revealed" or "the marchers claimed", it is neutral and accurate to say that "the marchers' positions were...".
Also, I agree with the idea of making it clear that various marchers had various things that they were most interested in. And there has already been talk about breaking out the bullet points into paragraphs, at #Paragraph formatting of the Concerns section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The only issue that I have with breaking up the bullet points into paragraphs is that some of them do not have their own sources, and are only taken from sentences on the web site of the protesters. If they are split out as unsourced paragraphs, they are likely to be tagged or deleted. If someone can find sources for each of the bullets, they can be split into paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Umh, pardon me, but bullet points or not, the content must be sourced either way.TMCk (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The bullet points all had one source, and some of them had other sources, and some of them were listed in the web site at the length that they were listed in the bullet points. Their expansion into paragraphs would require expansion beyond the length of the original source. If someone can do that, with new sources, that is fine, but I am not sure that new sources exist that will justify expansion into paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I really can't follow your rational. I repeat: Bullet points or not, the content must be backed up by sources. Converting those bullets into prose doesn't change that at all. Should the existing section/bullets not be properly sourced, (and I didn't check that b/c I have, maybe to much(?) trust in what is presented there), than it could not be kept as bullets or prose anyways. Are you suggesting/saying that we should keep it as is? If so please give a good and valid reason for it. Perceived lack of sourcing for converting the bullets into prose is simply ridiculous unless the bullets are not properly sourced with begin with. If you're still sure about the point you've made, please clearly explain the difference in sourcing we would need according to your rationale.TMCk (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
One more thing to clarify: Bullet-points can be converted into prose as we just say the same in a more encyclopedic way, no doubt about that. If there are more sources to expand the section, writing in prose doesn't make a difference besides being more encyclopedic. This is after all not a list of sitcoms' episodes or such...TMCk (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should probably treat the bullet points versus paragraph issue as a separate discussion, especially since it is somewhat speculative, in that the paragraph plan depends upon someone actually adding more content to the section. But I'd certainly welcome the addition of more sources. Anyway, the main topic of this thread is the name of the section, to appear in the section header. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why "Positions" is awkward. Absent such an explanation, my first choice is "Positions" and my second choice is "Issues". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I like "positions" also. DanHobley (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • At this point in the discussions, would anyone object to changing the header to "Positions"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be crazy. I'M DOING IT. DanHobley (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Per the discussion of sourcing of the concerns above, I don't see why we can't use the primary source: [2]. This seems like a no-brainer to me, and policy allows primary sourcing in cases like this. (WP:ABOUTSELF). I'm in the process of trying to beef this out at least a little. DanHobley (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing those things. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This may not be as hard as people think

IMHO one person was warring and dominating, and everybody else has been just trying to work this out. With that IMHO one person now under a longer term block, I'm thinking that those remaining may be willing and able just get this worked out.

IMHO there appears to be (only) two large debates which might in fact be one debate:

  1. Assertion that there is either too much or an imbalanced amount of anti-GMO "talking point" type material in the article, or assertion that such is not the case.
  2. That some or all of the anti-GMO talking point material is wp:fringe and should be handled( deprecated) as such. (This might be just another way of asserting /dealing with #1.) Or an assertion that such is not the case / should not be done.

Is "these are the (only) two large debates" an accurate description? Are the debates accurately described? If so can we settle this? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas is only one of the more outspoken editors who wants to include the actual perspectives of March Against Monsanto at this article. It's completely outrageous that they have been blocked.
Please stop asserting that the science is settled when it is not. Numerous studies have linked GMOs to cancer and other health risks. Editors should not be allowed to disqualify these studies simply because they don't like them. As we have outlined at this page, there is no consensus on the safety of genetically engineered foods. groupuscule (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
(added later) I did not assert any such thing above. I was jut trying to define (both sides of) the big questions. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources show that the scientific consensus is that GM food is as safe as "traditional" food. Your essay is just that, and does not reflect the consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the concerns of the protestors should not be "blocked", but you are quite wrong to state the science isn't settled: it is. There is no evidence, fit for use on Wikipedia, that GM food poses a risk to human health. The guidance for biomedical information is WP:MEDRS and we have nothing in line with that that supports the protestors' concerns. Until and unless we can get consensus that the protestors' health claims are unscientific fringe views, there is no prospect of making sensible progress on fixing this article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a fair summary, North. DanHobley (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

From a recent peer-reviewed literature review in Environment International:

Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. A harsh response to that review was recently published in the same journal (Rickard, 2010). This is indeed only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs, which remains completely open at all levels.

And many more sources here. groupuscule (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

...which, if you'd read WP:MEDRS, you'd know were not reliable sources for biomedical information. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This source and many others available at the userpage I linked conform well to the MEDRS guidelines—more than any that you have presented. Which sources do you consider higher-quality? groupuscule (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The ones cited in the ongoing RFC. The consensus on this is solid. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thought: We may be able to cut the gordian knot here if we can find an appropriate, notable, 3rd party (i.e., not Monsanto!) source criticising the protesters' aims specifically. This would remove possible objections that attempts to counter FRINGE are SYNTH in themselves. I'll see if I can find something, but who knows if such a thing exists. DanHobley (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The dailyinterlake.com piece (which we use) takes care to quote an oncologist stating "there is no real mechanism in GMOs that could even cause cancer" ... but even that isn't RS for medical claims. How about we get some expert input here by taking this specific issue (of health claims) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The Reason.TV link does this specifically.Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My compromise idea is to dial back on the amount of anti-GMO talking points in the article, and use more "attribution" type wording on those and use more neutral summation type wording on those. And in exchange, the folks advocating classification/handling/deprecating handling those views as fringe would end that quest. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a plan, but the risk is that by "dialling back" we present an untrue/unsourced image of the protest. Some of the views expressed in it were pretty extreme ("Monanto killing millions" says the placard at this source we use), and Wikipedia should not get into a situation where it's spinning their views into more reasonable positions than in fact were taken. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Good points. I was speaking only in vague terms. What I intended was less coverage of anti-GMO talking points, and doing so in a way that is more "reporting on what they said" and less looking like the article is used to actually make the anti-GMO case. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh yes it's hard! I'd prefer to discuss these things in terms of specific items of content, instead of broad concepts about the page, and I've done so in the section that Dan created above, with the numbered questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm always looking for shortcuts that move things forward. My main effort here was just towards a good process rather than any particular end. And IMHO the main person who was warring/dominating it away from a good process is now gone, and a normal process appears in place, albeit mired down. So what I was doing is not so needed at the moment. Secondarily I was giving my advice/ outlook on the article. Third I was trying to find a shortcut to resolve the toughest issue (in general terms). So I was trying to help out but really not interested in the article. Certainly not enough to match the level of participation of folks willing to have substantial discussions on individual sentences. So I might step back from active participation here, but still watch it in case the barn catches on fire again or if someones feel I can help on a particular issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean that as a criticism of you, and I certainly don't want you to scale back your involvement here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course I didn't take it that way...we know each other better than that. Other than a teensy influence from being an indicator that my vague compromise idea probably isn't going to go anywhere, your post had no effect on what I wrote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Just clarifying, in short I'm reducing, not eliminating my involvement here. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_7&oldid=1136988877"