Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 9

RfC: Should the "Safety Consensus" discussion be moved out of the Controversy section?
Should the paragraph discussing the safety of GM foods continue to be housed within the "Controversy" section of this article, or should it be moved into a separate section per WP:NPOV and WP:YESPOV?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Background:


 * I asked about the use of the Controversy section to make safety claims in this section and was told that this was supported by an earlier RfC. Multiple requests for a link to said RfC were ignored.


 * I moved the safety claims into its own section, and was reverted by Jytdog here with the edit summary revert WP:POINTy revision while RfC on this very section is ongoing.


 * I asked again about the placement of safety claims here, and receiving no PAG-based response, moved the claims again.


 * The move was reverted by KingofAces here with the edit summary "Besides WP:SUMMARY, needed in controversy section per NPOV and WP:FRINGE"


 * Reasoning for the reverts was given by KingofAces on the talk page:
 * "With many fringe ideas being pushed by those opposed to GMOs, we need to be careful about presenting controversy and legitimizing some arguments. In this case, we can't be spreading around different ideas to different sections even if we were going to disregard WP:SUMMARY. In terms of organization, food safety is largely a non-issue outside of controversy topic, so the controversy section and article seems to be the best home for it the topic."

 petrarchan47  คุ  ก   23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

For clarity and comparison, the safety paragraph reads There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[4][95][96] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[5][7][97] The starting point for assessing GM food safety is to evaluate its similarity to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity and allergenicity are satisfied. Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries,[98] the US does not require this. The FDA's policy is to require a label given significant differences in composition or health impacts. They have not identified such differences in any food currently approved for sale.[99]   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For further clarity, it is a WP:SUMMARY of the lead Genetically modified food controversies article, which in turn summarizes the "Health" section of that article, per WP:LEAD Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey: Move or Remain

 * Move into its own section. Housed within the Controversy section, which has no coverage of the "other side", it reads as a rebuttal - expressly forbidden by WP:YESPOV.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   00:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Later note: This RfC seems to have been interpreted by some iVoters as asking whether GM food safety is controversial. The question was: does it belong in the controversy section of this article. I had expected editors to look at the section before making a determination. The section does not include both sides of the GM safety controversy (required by NPOV), it includes only the discussion of the safety consensus and of the reliability of the regulators. Many iVotes seem not to have taken this into consideration, and may assume that both sides of the controversy is (as one would assume) covered in this section, and that it would be left imbalanced with the removal of the paragraph in question.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * move agree should have own section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * remain food safety is the heart of the controversy over GM foods. it should be (and is) discussed at length in that article, and should be summarized here. Very open to discussing a general re-organization but that should be done thoughtfully. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain; food safety is the core of the controversy. bobrayner (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain and also mentioned in the lede: it's obviously a central aspect of the controversy, and indeed of the entire GM topic. (Coming here from the notice at WT:MED). Alexbrn (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Move This article obviously requires a section on food safety, while instead, material explaining the argument for GM food safety appears only in a Controversies section, rebutting, as it were, any claims to the contrary. Not having a "Food safety" section, and trying to include that information only under Controversies, in an article where food safety is both in fact and by common sense a central consideration, is in effect pro-GM food advocacy, loading the editorial to favor one position rather than presenting information neutrally. A well-formed article covers a topic in a logical, easy to navigate way, with sections developing the main subtopics; a controversies section describes controversies related to the overall substance of the article, not argues them. --Tsavage (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Move I will comment in the discussion section.  TFD (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Remain Moving the content out would require a fundamental reorganization of material across mutliple articles due to WP:SYNC requirements. Best left as is. Yobol (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SYNC "requirements"? What are these?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The ones mentioned in WP:SYNC. Yobol (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. In other cases, the detailed article may grow considerably in scope, and the summary section will need to be rewritten to do it justice." -- I see nothing in this that relates to the RfC.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposal is the inverse of the problem, moving material out of the summarized section leaving material that does not adequately summarize the daughter article. Yobol (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The daughter article is in terrible shape, please see discussion.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither the summary of the daughter article (Genetically modified food controversies) nor the lede of that article are WP:NPOV reflections of the content of the article, but are instead written in a pro-GMO slant, very similar the opposition writing found on ballot measures for mandating GMO labeling in California and other state (see page 57 of this PDF of the ballot arguments). The summary does not reflect the article but instead the goals of the industry to convince readers that labeling is unnecessary by convincing them that GMO's are "safe" and highly regulated, while poorly articulating the concerns raised by GMO critics found in the article. David Tornheim (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Get rid of separate "Controversy" section, create a "Health and safety section", move discussion of controversies in-line within the related topic.   03:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Until such a major change takes place, we still have a separate controversies article which does require a summary here, and is what this RfC is meant to address.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason that this article has to be suboptimally edited because of the existence of another article.   14:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Move per Tsavage, who makes an excellent case. Jus  da  fax   13:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain. For the time being the content should remain as is since it is summarizing the controversy article. It appropriately summarizing the scientific point of view with respect to the controversy itself, and moving it outside of the section would create undue weight. The health and safety aspects are inherent to the controversy, so it shouldn't be moved outside of the section per WP:SUMMARY unless a reorganization occurs first within the controversy article per Alexbrn and Yobol. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Move I think the article needs a larger re:organise than this but it's a good start to get the safety discussion out of controversy. (brought by bot) SPACKlick (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Move per Zad68 and Tsavage. Furthermore, I strongly believe the very nature of a "controversy" section defies NPOV. Atsme 📞📧 19:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Move Fix this article and then move onto the others. The safety of GM foods is probably one of the main reasons readers come to this page, it should be made to be easily found. AlbinoFerret  04:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain as long as this or a similar statement is there: Opponents such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.[citation needed] Some health groups claim that the potential long-term impact on human health have not been adequately assessed and propose mandatory labeling[100][101] or a moratorium on such products. That statement is describing proponents of a WP:FRINGE view and the mainstream view must be described in order to accurately describe this controversy and maintain NPOV. That said, the section could use some editing for flow. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain Agree with Jytdog, safety is the main controversy. Timeraner (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain Safety is a controversy, thus it fits. KieranTribe (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain. Others above are correct in my opinion. The controversy section is toothless without the safety claims. Very little controversy exists without the safety claims, and it legitimizes these WP:FRINGE views (those that believe GMOs are somehow more unsafe than mendelian-modified organisms) if we separate the sections. It should stay the way it is.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 14:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain. It shouldn't be a controversy, there is no reason to think that GM foods are more dangerous to eat than other foods. But we have ample evidence that it is a controversy. Maproom (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain. It seems to me that safety is the crux of the controversy argumentsSylviaStanley (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Move. The safety has been established, even if some fringe types want to make noise over GMO foods, unless we're now embracing WP:FRINGE.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remain A large part of the controversy is over ideologues on the fringes making bizarre health claims which have been refuted. It's important that it remains there. WP:NPOV requires scientifically invalid claims by ideologues to be put into the right scientific context. Second Quantization (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Move - This is not a vote on whether GMO food safety is part of the controversy or 'the core' of the controversy. It is a vote to acknowledge that statements about safety can be made generally and not just in the context of controversy or as a rebuttal. Moving the section does not preclude all mention of food safety from the controversy section. In any case, we have Genetically modified food controversies for the bulk of the coverage of the controversy.Dialectric (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Move - Uninvolved editor's opinion. The controversy section can make mention of the safety debate then redirect to that section.  Safety is not the only controversy associated with GM foods.  Other concerns such as cross pollination for instance have come up.  These non-safety topics could be discussed exclusively in a controversy section.  Safety is big enough to get it's own section.  First, it seems that safety is the biggest controversy so why should it be tucked away in the other section.  Second, it seems that there are a number of sources that say there isn't a safety issue and thus it seems odd to have those in a controversy section.  If, for instance, we could find 50 absolutely reliable sources that could prove that GM food was safe then it would be better to have that discussion in a safety section.  As a final note, my arguments are based around the flow of the article, not inclusion or exclusion of content.  I know this is a controversial issue but I don't mean to be suggesting content changes.  Springee (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Move per arguments of Tsavage, petrarchan47  and  AlbinoFerret .  As I stated above here, the summary of the controversy is not WP:NPOV or reflective of the daughter article and instead has a pro-GMO slant.  If it does not summarize the controversy but just argues one side of the argument, it does not belong in the controversy section.  It should be in its own section and re-written in an WP:NPOV style.  David Tornheim (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This RfC is kind of a bad idea, with the other one still running and the focus on that. It is also premature as we have barely started discussing a re-organization. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to "the other one"? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * lift your eyes up the page. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While it is unusual to have simultaneous RfCs about a single article, I don't see a problem with it here, since the first (above on this talk page, Guy) is very specific, focused on a single sentence in the lede, and this RfC is focused on a different area of the article.Dialectric (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * dialectric that is not true. the consensus statement is in the lead and in this "summary" paragraph in several articles. its the same subject matter. but whatever, the OP is not going to pull it. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A blunt, piecemeal, and multiple editor-inclusive approach for this and related articles seems like the only hope for any but the most trivial editorial changes to have a chance of being made, against strong resistance that seems to ignore even the most basic and straightforward reasoning: for illustration, please see the previous sections, and browse the Talk archives. --Tsavage (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It is better to present controversies where they arise, rather than to group all controversies together. Certainly safety is a central issue to GMO.  The products had to be tested for safety and this testing was part of the development of GMO.  No one disputes that testing was required and carried  out.  The controversy, whether it be great or minor, is whether sufficient testing has been carried out or what conclusions should be drawn from them.  Suppose too that there were no controversy whatsoever on safety.  We would still need to cover the issue, but it would be absurd to put it into a controversy section.  TFD (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD so you are saying that the entire "Health" section: Genetically_modified_food_controversies should be in this article and not in that one? That is really what this is RfC is about - moving that section here. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally see controversy sections and articles as POV forks and therefore any relevant material should be here. The section "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" in the "Criticism" essay provides what I think is good reasoning.  We could avoid the neutrality issue by replacing the controversy article with articles on the anti-GMO movement and the pro-GMO lobby.  TFD (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I said earlier that the GM foods controversies article arose because the controversies tend to cross over among issues related to agriculture (ag itself - how has it changed practices, why do farmers use them, relationship with monoculture; environment - no till, gene flow, resistant weeds, increase/decrease in chemical use; ag economics - patent rights, contracts, market consolidation); food (safety, "corporate control of the food supply", labelling (goes here?), regulation (goes here?), food processing and tracing); regulation (for use in ag, for use in food and feed, controversies around 'revolving door' and precautionary principle)... there is more but that is already too long. Again, before we restructured a few years ago there was content about all these things everywhere - unorganized, unevenly updated, and even saying different things about the same topic.  there is solid reasoning for having the separate controveries article for this topic. I am open to a reorganization but it should be thoughtful and not hodge-podge.  Only Tsavage has even started attempting to grapple with the big picture. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When articles get too long it is correct to spin off sections. But in this case it would mean we would have articles on GMO safety, GMO labelling, GMO regulation, etc.  But certainly this article should say (depending on what editors decide is accurate) whether or not or to what extent scientists consider GMO products to be safe to consume.  If one thinks that all this article should discuss (and I apologize if I misstate your position) is technical information about how GMO are made, well that could certainly have a separate article as well.  TFD (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TFD please - that is not what i am saying. I am saying that the controversies touch on GM Food (about food which is mostly made from GM crops ), GM crops (this is about agriculture) and Genetically modified organisms (all GMOs - not just those used in agriculture). The controversies touch on -  bleed over to -  everything.  We need an organizational strategy to keep all the content clear. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, there are different editorial approaches for different situations that arise when covering specialized material for a general audience. More technical articles, like Genetic engineering, lend themselves to the type of organization you are describing: hierarchical with discrete elements that interconnect. More "social" articles, aimed at providing complete, high level (non-technical) overviews (for example, Genetically modified food), tend to be much more lateral in nature, and a certain amount of repetition - "bleed," as you put it - from related articles, is necessary and not a problem. Things don't have to be in only one place OR another. It's like rewriting an agreement, a Terms of Service on a web site, for example, in simpler, more accessible language, so that people actually read and understand it, compared to the more conventionally worded contract that means the same thing - both have a purpose and an audience (lawyers would likely find it more efficient to create the ToS in full fine print mode, and then have it summarized in plainer language). It is not automatically redundant to explain the same thing in different ways, to serve different purposes. --Tsavage (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not about "technical," Tsavage. Do you think the whole that the entire "Health" section: Genetically_modified_food_controversies should be in this article? Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I was replying to your previous comment, where you returned to tying specific content issues in this article, with a broad organizational problem you see with a collection of related articles, for no compelling or even clear reason. As for the Health section:
 * 1) Why would anyone want to import the entire Health section from another article into this one, when we're discussing the straightforward step of moving existing food safety content out of Controversies, to its own food safety section? IOW, I don't find that to be relevant to this RfC.
 * 2) No, I would not want to import that section, because it is quite long (3,500 words) for a section, it has numerous significant problems (which I will leave for Talk over there), and it is not written in a direct-to-the-point, succinct style that would be suitable here.
 * I'm continually trying to follow the specifics of your arguments - and I do get the gist of it - but you keep jumping to new details, and abandoning previous threads as you see fit, so that overall, we seem to get no closer through discussion to anything like actual article improvement by editing. It's like chasing a mirage. --Tsavage (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, you don't seem to understand how all these articles are knitted together nor where the content actually resides. The actual statement in the RfC above,  is from the Health section of the GM Food controversies article. It is summarized (with fewer refs) in the LEAD of that article, per WP:LEAD.  Per WP:SUMMARY the lead of the Controversies article is used as a stub-section in each of the related articles, like this one.  The sentence is then included in the LEAD of each of those articles.   That is how it is all knit together.   The Health section of the GM Food controversies article, is the discussion of GM food safety in WP.  That is the whole shebang, right there.  You are proposing taking the health section out of that article, and putting it here.   Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand perfectly well how the articles are connected, and your argument for that (and I'm not sure what would lead you to believe otherwise). You're promoting, in a very literal manner, the WP:SUMMARY guideline. My point is, no matter how logical and effective that guideline may be, applied to poorly organized content, as I believe is the case here, it will lead to editorially poor articles and a general mess. Genetically modified food controversies has significant problems, most importantly, the majority of it is in fact non-controversial material, presented under the unsupported banner that these are all "controversial topics." For instance, in the Health section, there is a 700+ word subsection on Substantial equivalence, with no mention of controversy. Also, every challenge to every study is not a "controversy," yet particular studies and how they were challenged or refuted are reported as controversies. That article should include only clear, named controversies, each in its own section with a defining section lead; instead, it contains just about every possibly contentious aspect of GM food, hidden away as it were from the articles where they belong. --Tsavage (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Arguments that "food safety is the core of the controversy" make no sense in light of the actual contents of the controversy section. If it is in fact the core issue, it should be stated in clear terms for the reader, not left to be assumed, and the details of this controversy laid out in full. The Safety paragraph is exceedingly detailed, whilst the proceeding paragraph says nothing beyond what a Table of Contents would. The third/final paragraph gives several examples of "opponents" and members of "advocacy groups" who doubt the claims of safety, and the methods and regulatory bodies behind them. There is no reference for this, just a citation needed tag. The Safety Consensus paragraph is very well referenced, and although the very first citation is to a paper by board members of the AAAS in an effort to block GMO labeling, there is no mention of "advocacy" here. The Controversy section should discuss the controversy in detail (with references). The Safety Consensus statement, in its current form, belongs in its own section (like a "health effects" section), as it relates directly the article's subject and is not simply a subtopic. The controversy section is being misused in that it saying "nothing to see here, folks. we're not sure what all the commotion is about, but it's just coming from a couple of advocacy groups, anyway". Meanwhile the section actually says nothing about the controversy. For instance, the vast majority of the US wants GMOs labeled, and that isn't mentioned at all.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the content in the "controversy" section of this article should reflect the content in the lead of the main article. As such, the broader proposal would be to remove the safety statements from the lead of that article (though I doubt that will find consensus). Sunrise (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. A fundamental Wikipedia policy that supersedes most others is: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, Genetically modified food controversies is extremely poorly formed, and contains content that should not be there. It includes extensive sections on Public perception, Health, Environment, and Economy, none of which are represented here, and all of which contain basic information that is not per se controversial. Furthermore, the Controversies lead does not summarize the majority of the article's content. To literally apply SUMMARYSTYLE to connect this article to the Controveries article as it is now means including a large amount of general, non-controversial GM foods information under a Controversies heading, which is obviously absurd, and not in the interests of improving this article or the encyclopedia in general. --Tsavage (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, allow me to quote you here, as you said it so well (June 6):
 * "This proposed approach turns editing into a labyrinthine nightmare. Remember, a fundamental Wikipedia principle is, editors should not need to read any rules in order to edit. This throws common sense editing out the window. You seem to be arguing that, once a daughter article is created, its lead controls the content in the parent article, the tail wags the dog. So rather than keep the higher level, presumably more important, more consulted article, in the best possible shape through direct editing, we have to edit the content of the daughter article..."   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call a "labyrinthine nightmare" is what the rest of us call "work". Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call "work" is what the rest of us see as WP:SQS.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Tsavage, I don't think I'm missing the point. Assuming your argument is correct, then the standard approach is to start by fixing the daughter article (Controversies in this case) - for example, one advantage of this is that it provides a single place for discussion of content that may be replicated across many pages. It's the same principle as why we tell people to write the body of an article before writing the lead. I'd like to think I'm more receptive to IAR arguments than most editors, but I haven't seen any reasons given for why the standard approach is unsuitable. (If it's "obviously absurd," then there should be no opposition when you try to fix the Controversies article...) Sunrise (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sunrise: This line of discussion is starting to go circular. The logical priority is to improve the parent article, rather than make that article dependent on another article, yet you argue against that, based on rules rather than consideration of the case. Your argument fails to address the actual issues with the articles in question:
 * 1) If, as you suggest, we asssume my argument to be correct, then Genetically modified food controversies is not a proper daughter article, as the majority of the content is in fact non-controversial material that has been removed from where it is more logically relevant, and therefore shouldn't be treated as a daughter article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
 * 2) If material does not belong in an article, then removing it to where it is better suited is fixing that article.
 * 3) Even given WP:SUMMARYSTYLE/WP:SYNC, there is no rush and no set order, fixing one deficient article, and then dealing with SYNC, is perfectly fine.
 * 4) In addition to containing non-controversial material, Genetically modified food controversies is a poorly formed standalone Controversies article, as it is not about one or more specific, named controversies, most of it is about supposedly "controversial topics," the determination of which is apparently based on editor opinion (with uncited statements like, "Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods..." and "Scientific publishing on the safety and effects of GM foods is controversial..."), while entire extended sections cover item after item with no connnection to any controvery (like Environment).
 * There are significant problems with the Controversies article, meanwhile, we're discussing the article here. Especially in Wikipedia, it doesn't seem useful to argue abstractions, when a concrete case is at hand. My impression is that we do things article by article, not by arguing rules.
 * (This comment belongs in the Discussion session, in order to keep the Survey section easy to follow; unless you have a reason for keeping your original comment here, I will move the thread.); --Tsavage (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's more a miscommunication somewhere, since the content of your response is mostly either stuff I already agree with or stuff that I think I've already adequately addressed (and then there's the perception that I'm "arguing rules" without a consideration for the concrete case! - also remember that I didn't support or oppose the proposal). Feel free to move this section down, assuming others don't object. Sunrise (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tsavage's assessment of the controversies article as poorly formed, and raised the point above about public perception not being in itself a controversy. There do seem to be a number of sections to that article which do not fall cleanly under the heading or lede.Dialectric (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Sunrise: My last reply was specifically addressing your suggestion that the "standard approach of fixing the daughter article" is a useful course of action, which seemed to me to be ignoring the argument that it is a daughter article in name only, and does not in fact summarize controversies, but serves as a dumping ground for non-controversial material that belongs elsewhere. Therefore, why follow a course that would direct efforts away from improvement of this article, if it applies ONLY because we're calling something a daughter article, even if practically speaking it isn't one in the overall WP:SUMMARY editing approach? Improving the Controversies article would involve first identifying specific, verifiable controversies, it's a ground up job that can be done concurrently with improving this article if need be. One shouldn't have to wait for or depend on the other. (There was no intent in what I said to question you personally, your discussion throughout has seemed to me to be absolutely civil, open-minded and on-point, I was just disagreeing with you! :) --Tsavage (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the first article I've been involved with where the SYNC idea was touted as a prevailing guideline, so I'm frankly dumbfounded. It seems we are arguing in circles. There must be a resource for clearing this up. Where does one go with simple questions about application of PAGs?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P, why are you not engaging with the need for Wikipedia to present coherent, non-self-contradicting information to readers? Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why we're spending this kind of energy discussing which article to fix first. Are we using rules as a proxy for the real battles? I wouldn't fix either article until we develop a consensus on the substance of the fixes. Sequencing the edits is very much a second order problem. Lfstevens (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. We are not required to edit this article sub-optimally simply because a daughter article (of questionable quality) exists. The arguments against moving the safety information out of the controversy section have invoked SYNC, which supposedly requires us to treat spin offs as the higher priority, keeping us from making any changes here. And they have asserted that of course the safety of GM food is the biggest part of the GM controversy, however the controversy section doesn't mention this fact, nor does it cover both sides of this issue. This has created an incredibly biased section, and leaves us with WP arguing one side of the issue, a violation of WP:YESPOV.    petrarchan47  คุ  ก   02:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is asking anyone to edit "sub-optimally", just intentionally. Also if you look at the GM food controversies article, you will see that the Health section is the longest - it has the most weight. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, the Controversies article exists, so what is the objection to proceeding with editing it and this article independently, while keeping an eye on both? If there is indeed non-controversial material in Controversies that is better suited to being in this article, then simply moving that material, verbatim OR by rewriting here and, simultaneously or eventually, reducing or deleting corresponding content there, should reduce the chance of the "same" material being further edited in two articles.


 * I'm not sure what your "most weight" comment is intended to support, that Health is controversial and belongs in a Controversies section? Well, in this case, we can perhaps eliminate the Controversies section until if and when it is clearly needed, and cover common concerns and specific disputes in the topic areas, which is the more traditional editorial approach, and already suggested here (personally, Controversy sections, properly formed, I find a useful Wikipedia signature feature, but poorly handled they can also do more harm than good, as seems to be the case with the version here at present). IF strictly two-party heated dispute aspects (i.e. specific, defined controversies, like over labeling) start to become an unhelpfully large part of this article, or seem to be getting buried or minimized, at that point, a separate Controversies section presents as an option, as is daughter articles. But everything that is simply questioned, popularly expressed concerns, are not automatically "controversies," and can be covered throughout the article. --Tsavage (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P wrote "And they have asserted that of course the safety of GM food is the biggest part of the GM controversy, however the controversy section doesn't mention this fact..."  The GM food controversy shows that food safety is the biggest part by giving more WEIGHT; that is exactly what WEIGHT is all about.   I don't know what to do with the rest of what you write there.  I understand how it can be good to integrate controversies into the flow of content, rather than put them into a separate section, and I tend to do that on articles I work on.  I could not see how to do that in this article.   The heart of this article is Section 3 which describes actual GM food.  How would you propose to weave content about labelling or food safety into that section, especially in a way that still allows readers to see clearly what "GM food" actually is?  I couldn't figure out a way to do it.  Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to define what we're considering to be controversies. Everything about GM food seems to be hotly contested and controversial, so it's easy to pile a lot of stuff under that heading. But if we look at a controversy more formally as a heated dispute between two parties, a lot of that goes. On one hand, labeling is a controversy, there are pro- and anti- sides, consumer, scientific, business and government organizations that have spoken out from both camps, legislative battles in the US, EU, etc - the US labeling fight alone is notable enough for its own article if it doesn't have one already. On the other hand (and I'm not familiar with this area), what are some other equivalent food safety controversies? There are organizations publicly questioning GM food safety, but a lot of that (in the US) seems to be specifically directed for remedy to labeling. There are general regulations in place around the world, so GM food is presumably moving legally with some formal oversight to the consumer. There is pro-GMO advocacy, but there are always two sides to every issue. What are the SPECIFIC food safety controversies, where two camps are contesting a particular point, like banning, or labeling? If you could bullet point some, then we'd be a step closer to being clear on what a GM food controversy is for article purposes. --Tsavage (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

your definition of "controversy" as something strictly two sided seems...artificial and I don't know why you are posing it. Many things can be boiled to a black and white "yes/no" and that is often not particularly helpful. Anti-GMO advocates tend to take a FRINGEy stance on food safety safety and wildly overstate the risks, and generally discuss all imaginable GM food. I have not encountered anyone or any organization taking the opposite pole and saying that any imaginable GM food is absolutely safe. The other "pole" discusses the relative safety of currently marketed GM food. So there, you have a "black" stance and a grey one, not a "white" one. The other thing I should note there, is that when you read material produced by anti-GMO advocates, you consistently find the three sets of issues that are the core of the Controversies article addressed together - food safety issues, environmental issues, and economic issues. That is what the sources talk about. The shape of that article arose.... "organically", from the actual editing work. In any case, this is moving away from the topic of this RfC. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jytdog that a controversy can have more than two involved sides/positions, but the general question, 'What are the SPECIFIC food safety controversies?' stands. I think it would also be helpful to separate these clearly defined controversies into whether they apply to food or farming/ag production - in line with the Genetically modified food / Genetically modified crops distinction.Dialectric (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: You're confusing the point, which was: "We need to define what we're considering to be controversies." I didn't strictly define anything, I simply expanded on the basic definition of "controversy" - "a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views" or "dispute, argument, or debate, esp one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and esp one carried on in public or in the press" - to illustrate my point, that no specific controversies (or very few, depending on how one chooses to read the text) have been clearly identified, either here or in the controversies article, because the sides and their positions have not been explicitly presented. Of course, any dispute can have more than two sides, but that here is irrelevant. Unless you describe both (or however many) positions in a dispute and who is taking them, it's easy to include just about every aspect of this topic as being controversial, and put it under a controversy heading. We need a working definition of controversy, or we end up with Genetically modified food controversies, where all kinds of non-controversial information that belongs elsewhere has been parked, and I'm suggesting that clearly identifying the sides and their positions for each controversial area, is an obvious first step to limiting this problem. This isn't off-topic here, though it should be, because you're insisting that the Controversies article and section are the most important consideration in covering health and food safety. --Tsavage (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are specific disputes. Each section and subsection in the GM Food controversies article names a topic of controversy. The Public perception section that starts out the article lays out various positions.  After that the topics of controversy are:
 * Science - Is there enough (and, even) independent and/or valid science on GM crops and GM food?
 * Health - Is GM food safe enough to be on the market? (there are several sub-disputes here - Is "substantial equivalence" a reasonable starting point for a safety evaluation? Are animal tests of long enough duration?   Did the Pusztai, Seralini, and "BT baby" papers tell us anything important about GM food?  And see the regulatory section below - Is the regulatory process objective enough to keep us safe?
 * Environment - Do GM crops hurt the environment?  (there are many subquestions here, that I won't belabor  - again please just follow the subsection headers)
 * Market dynamics = economics. This reads on both agriculture (GM Crops) and food (GM Food) - you find there concerns about things like "seed market monopoly" and "corporate control of the food supply" - it is this topic in particular that concerns about ag, and concerns about food, almost completely overlap, btw.
 * Regulation - again this section has nearly complete overlap between concerns about agriculture and concerns about food.
 * at the bottom you will find controversies about Africa (having mostly to do with food aid - we have not been able to figure out where to put that, exactly) and about India, which recapitulate many of the issues discussed in other sections in the context of India, where issues have their own flavor in the Indian context (e.g. farmer suicides - which was somehow lacking there and I just added) Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part with Jytdog's above identification of major areas of controversy for GMO's (although it is possible with more brainstorming there are some missing, possibly e.g. the Precautionary Principle used by E.U.). But I also agree with Tsavage's claim that "clearly identifying the sides and their positions for each controversial area, is an obvious first step to limiting this problem" and that the controversy article definitely does not do this, and that the Lede's do not do it, and I agree with what Tsavage wrote below about the problem of being WP:NPOV in this regard.  I would support moving this discussion out of this RfC--I don't think it is relevant to the RfC. David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: A well-organized, clearly written article is self-explanatory, and doesn't need a tour guide. The Controversies article, as I've already noted, doesn't describe specific controversies, it instead sets up broad areas of concern (e.g. "Opponents of genetically modified food, such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace, say...," "Some groups say...," "Concerns include...") and then goes on a streaming, detailed rebuttal of these broad concerns. For example, the Health section lead opens with the familiar, "A broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food." and goes on to state, without once mentioning opposing parties or controversy :
 * the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
 * No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population
 * The American Medical Association, the National Academies of Sciences and the Royal Society of Medicine have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GM food have been reported and/or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.
 * The ENTRANSFOOD project ... concluded that "the combination of existing test methods provides a sound test-regime to assess the safety of GM crops."
 * the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation reported that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
 * This is the general tone and approach of the entire article, with no organized description of opposing views and their specific disagreements (let alone coverage of actions and events that made them public, heated, controversial disagreements), and extensive coverage of the support for safety across the various topics. (There are too many specific problem points to go into here; I will continue at some point on the Genetically modified food controversies Talk page.) Bottom line: it's not a Controversies article that follows a basic definition of a controversy, it's structured as a rebuttal article aimed at dispelling concerns and refuting criticisms. Meanwhile, in this article, you argue that a Health and food safety section is unnecessary, because it's all properly covered there. It makes no sense. WEIGHT has nothing to do with rebuttal. Information should be presented neutrally, and in the most logical, accessible place. --Tsavage (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Tsavage's assessments (immediate above) of the problems with the GMO articles. This is why I have continually identified them as lacking NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, the articles don't need a "tour guide". All I did above was walk through the outline of the article; it is currently logically organized.  As I wrote above, I'm happy to discuss re-organizing things in a different way, as long as it is something we can maintain per WP:SUMMARY and things don't get thicket-y and self-contradictory again.
 * The notion of writing a History of genetically modified food controversies is interesting. That article doesn't exist and could be interesting.  Not sure what sources exist that cover it from that perspective but it would be interesting to see what is out there.
 * Finally. you do find the opposing views in the article. It is true that they don't have much weight, but most of them are WP:PSCI and per that policy, giving them little weight is appropriate.  Some of what you propose is WP:GEVAL which Wikipedia doesn't do, and your assertion that WP gives all points of view equal weight is not what we do here. David, who wrote above, has suggested on multiple occasions that we need to give Jeffrey M. Smith's views much much more WEIGHT.  That should not happen in WP. Jytdog (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: You haven't answered my last post, only brought up new points. "History of..."? WP:PSCI? WP:GEVAL? You're defending a controversies article, but now it seems you're arguing that we can't do more than barely mention some of these supposed controversies in that article, because they contravene some other rule, like weight or the all-purpose FRINGE-iness. So if most of the so-called controversies in fact can't be fully described, how can there be a controversies article? Your description of this whole process sounds more like a safety protocol for entering a critical area of a nuclear power plant than simply editing a Wikipedia article, where a fundamental principle is that anonymous editors should be able to edit without consulting any rules - your approach presents a dense obstacle to editing (having created poor quality editorial, it is now almost impossible to improve).


 * At the edge of this discussion, I read one of the sources in Controversies (well worth reading), GM crops: Battlefield (news feature inNature, 2009):


 * "Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers. When a paper comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and journal editors. ... But some scientists say that this activity may be going beyond what is acceptable in scientific discussions, trampling important research questions and stifling debate."


 * Since scientific competency and the comprehension gap between scientists and "lay folk" have been brought up in the current discussions, and numerous references made to FRINGE, considering another side is equally relevant: science supporters who feel they have a public service right to zealously negate, by any means they can, anything they deem based on bad science that may influence public perception. Its merits may be argued, but IMO there is definitely no place for that sort of POV crusading in Wikipedia, any more than there is for FRINGE (and there should be equal note in policy about that approach to editing). --Tsavage (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * as usual Tsavage we don't see things the same way, and unfortunately as usual, you are larding in personal attacks with discussion of content.
 * yes the "Battleground GMO" source is really great and we use that extensively in the sections to which it is relevant - the scientific publishing section and the section on environmental effects of Bt.
 * I attempted to respond to what you wrote in terms of what it would mean to concretely edit the articles. You said that the Controversies article lacks "coverage of actions and events that made them public" - that is a discussion of history - which I directly addressed and said that would indeed be interesting content to include.   You also seemed to say that the Controversies article should give more WEIGHT to the "anti-GMO" POV, and I addressed that by discussing NPOV - you do seem to be making an argument under that policy.  Are you not? Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: Your tenacity (and presumably, conviction) is undeniable, however, you're mainly arguing rules, not the case at hand, and the terms of the discussion rather than its substance:


 * "coverage of actions and events that made them public" - that is a discussion of history Another arbitrary definition without explanation. If you are singling out the controversial aspect, you have to describe the controversy. A question, concern or differing view is not automatically a controversy. There is a heated, public aspect, and that's necessarily defined by some sort of action or event, or series of - a general description of such - as part of establishing the controversy, along with specific mention of the parties involved and the particular viewpoints expressed. Citing broad areas of concern, calling them controversies, then vigorously rebutting them (with extensive text, many sources, examples, description) is not equal to reporting on controversies. (This has already been said, and been ignored.)


 * You also seemed to say that the Controversies article should give more WEIGHT to the "anti-GMO" POV WEIGHT does not involve a literal scale, where you pile in words on either side and see how they balance out, e.g. for every word of FRINGE-y stuff, we'll have 17 words of scientific evidence. Context is all-important. If you want to cover controversies, in that context you have to give appropriate weight - i.e. coverage - to ALL of the aspects that make up the controversy, which means clearly describing all of them, and not arguing them. On the other hand, in covering those topics properly in the higher level article, and not primarily as controversies, the type of WEIGHT you are describing is appropriate, but that is the opposite of what is being done by segregating general information in a controversy category. Higher level coverage is what this RfC is pushing for, like, a "Health and food safety" section to cover health and food safety, not a "Controversies" section to cover health and food safety.


 * you are larding in personal attacks with discussion of content That's statement is a personal attack, a personal accusation, at least. In contrast, I am referring to editorial positions, in the same way you and others refer to FRINGE viewpoints, and name editors who want to include "bad" information, or in the way editors make distinctions between scientists and "lay folk." There's a fundamental difference.


 * Once again, you are arguing the argument, not the points. --Tsavage (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

i've been writing about very specific content, in specific ways. i am not making general statements, at all. I view your statement that " your approach presents a dense obstacle to editing (having created poor quality editorial, it is now almost impossible to improve)" as personalizing the discussion. The material is dense and takes a lot of work to dig into and understand - it entails agriculture, science, business, a few kinds of law, sociology.. all kinds of things. I didn't make it that way. It is that way. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * would you elaborate on your comment here where you say "create a "Health and safety section", move discussion of controversies in-line within the related topic."?  Are those two parts saying the same thing (e.g. there should be an extended discussion of health/safety in this article, for example by moving the Genetically_modified_food_controversies section into this article.... or is the second part different/additional, suggesting that controversies around, say Genetically_modified_food be added to that subsection?   (Sugar is an interesting example btw.  There was litigation around the introduction of GM sugar beets, but that was about environmental assessment of the crop, not about the food.  In my view that content shouldn't be in this article, as the litigation was not about "food" but about the crop).  You will find stuff like this on anti-GM Food sites, but nothing there actually identifies a health risk (and as far as I know, there isn't any health risk about sugar-from-GM-sugar-beets per se; sucrose=sucrose). Anyway, would you please elaborate? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not just safety is controversial
The controversy on genetically modified food is not just related to its health. It includes discussions on patents, sovereignty, awareness, etc.

So this discussion shouldn't be about whether to rename the section, but how to split the different aspects of the controversy. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And those are almost all issues that are equally if not more about GM crops, which is why we have a separate Controversies article. exactly.  The "awareness" thing - if what you mean by that is "awareness of what foods are GM" - is exactly why it is essential that the current clear layout is really important.  Before we re-arranged things there was actually no clear discussion in WP of exactly what food is derived from GMOs and how.  Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Talk of renaming the section can be held on another thread - this RfC is to remedy the POV in the article by taking one small, immediate step: move the safety paragraph. It's not a big deal. It takes one second. The section can be renamed, it could be expanded to include actual controversy about safety, or it could be demolished altogether, with criticism added throughout the article(s) rather than sectioned off. But none of these changes have anything to do with this RfC. It is simply distraction. If the entire suite needs to be reexamined and reorganized, fine. But that is no reason to hijack this RfC to discuss meta issues.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with re-organizing things - what do you propose as the new organization?  Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I still do not see why all these important aspects of GMO should be isolated in a controversies section. How GMO is patented is important to GMO period, whether or not it attracts controversy.  Same with how it is tested, how it is labeled, how it is grown, how it is created.  TFD (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Patenting applies more to GM crops than it does GM food - transgenic seeds are patented and what patent holders care about is their use in agriculture - they don't restrict the sale of crops into the food market. The genetic construct used to produce Chymosin via industrial fermentation was probably patented, but chymosin is not food - it is just used to make cheese. GMO critics talk about "corporate control of the food supply" so it bleeds over into this article - this is again part of the reason why we came up with a separate Controversies article.  Open to a re-org, as I keep saying, but these crossover issues need to be managed somehow.  Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * TFD - what you say is 100% correct.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Readers expect that articles about food will say something about how they are grown. While I agree not all GMO enters the food chain, it's no reason to exclude information about GMO in an article about GMO food.  As you wrote last year, "when you leave the ivory tower and deal with actual people and their stories, bright lines fall away. When you come back up from the weeds to reconsider broad categories, it becomes clear that while categories can be very useful, bright lines between them are not sustainable and are dangerous to rely on."  Instead of trying to hide information that may prejudice people against GMO foods, it is better to present what is known and let readers decide.  TFD (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * no one is hiding anything; please do not personalize this - please discuss content.
 * so now you are proposing that we merge GM Crops, GM food, and Controversies into one article? If not, how are you proposing to divide the content among articles? Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. I am recommending that this article contain sections on all significant aspects of the subject and avoid the bad style approach of having a controversies ghetto.  If there are controversies about safety, they should be mentioned in the safety section.  Obviously there will be overlap between GM food and GM crops.  In the same sense we mention in the article about opium production in Afghanistan that opium leads to addiction, even though we mention it in the article about opium.  And I have always argued against separate "controversies" articles.  TFD (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog: You say you're open to reorganizing, but you're arguing that it is too complicated to reorganize, a detailed plan is required. Not necessarily so. Here is a perfectly effective starting point, with simple, incremental adjustments to this article, to put in place logically basic sections covering information most readers are likely to be looking for here. If this article starts to become more informative and well-rounded, then its relationship to other articles will also become clearer. Multiple editors are now saying about exactly the same thing, and it is not concerning the inclusion or exclusion of content, it's all about disagreeing with a particular view of "how things should be." Editing should not be made to be this difficult. --Tsavage (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never said anything like "it is too complicated to reorganize." I am just saying that the content is vast and overlaps in multiple ways; it is complicated and needs organization. It has it now.  If folks want to re-organize, that's great. What is the plan? Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You say it has organization now, but what editors are saying is that the content is lacking and the coverage non-neutral - both issues trump "organization" by a long shot. "If folks want to re-organize, that's great. What is the plan?" - You may have missed Tsavage's comment: "Here is a perfectly effective starting point, with simple, incremental adjustments to this article ". Incremental adjustments are the method used to edit every single article on WP to which I've been privy. Do you have a problem with this "plan"?   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a plan. and every single article you edit already has structure. and many articles are part of "suites" as it were - as I recall, as the BP article expanded, several splits were done with discussion, and care was taken to update daughter articles appropriately. this is not a freak thing, by any means. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the daughter articles in the BP suite get updated, it is done organically, not with a militant page-owner watching over the process. The experience editing the BP suite is in no way comparable to (attempting to) edit GMO articles, and indeed your MO was not appreciated at that page by anyone; you are well aware of that.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   21:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

While labeling is controversial, it is treated in the regulation section, so we don't only treat controversial subjects in the controversy section/article. For that matter, I'm not sure why the fact that GMFs are banned in various jurisdictions is not treated in a bit more detail than presenting a map. I also see no reason not to have a safety section that presents the consensus view and mentions that there is a controversy. The details can remain in the separate article. Lfstevens (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If Safety is "the biggest GMO controversy", why don't we tell the reader?
Arguments that the Safety paragraph belongs in the Controversy section ignore the fact that we haven't told the reader anything about the controversy, let alone that safety of GMO's is the most controversial element of the story. I don't get that impression from the Controversy section. In fact, numerous 'controversies' are named in a single, content-free sentence that doesn't indicate any particular order of importance. It is then followed by a very detailed paragraph telling the pro-GMO side of the safety issue. If we do not include details about the controversy, then (even if claims that safety is the most controversial element are factual) we CANNOT house this paragraph in the Controversy section due to WP:YESPOV. Either we inform the reader about the controversy, OR we move the Safety paragraph into its own section so that we aren't violating NPOV. Per YESPOV:
 * Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.

I have been disallowed from adding the well-sourced fact that the majority of Americans want GMO labels, and there is no discussion of the groups and scientists who assert that there is no consensus on GMO safety. The Controversy section is being used to promote an industry viewpoint by virtue of the fact that those who question it are denigrated ("advocacy groups") or simply missing from the conversation. To use this section to discuss only one side is not an option within our existing guidelines; any iVote supporting a violation of the guidelines is normally ignored.  petrarchan47  คุ  ก   05:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Notices

 * WP:ProjectMedicine
 * Talk: GE
 * Talk: GM Crops
 * Talk: GM Food Controversies
 * Village Pump (misc.)
 * NPOV NB
 * WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard


 * Think it is clear based on the weight given in section. Topics listed in controversy section are labeling, role of regulators, objectivity of research and publication, health, environment, pesticide resistance, farmers and on feeding the world population, contamination, regulatory process, control of the food supply. Think majority of those fall under safety without having to note that safety concern is fringe contention in each one. Giving arbitrary weight to fringe side by delving into specifics or relocating outside of section doesn't make much sense. Mainstream scholarly opinion is rightfully default context to section. Controversy article explores fringe opinion in more detail. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)