Talk:Genetically modified food controversies

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabriellaroselobitz95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

POW notability
The POW has been destined to head the CoE since 14 November 1948. (Thanks. I wouldn't have learned that if not for your little quip there.) A quick trip to the page would have told you that his religious whims are constantly widely debated. "Defender of Faiths" doesn't mean that he's Jewish or anything like that of course, a quick rundown on him or his ancestry would suggest not, but he has obviously dialoged with various other peoples. Furthermore, he has had some awfully close experiences with assassination motivated by religion and ethnicity a few decades ago.

Your attempt to throw FRINGE around: Religious views on genetically modified foods exists. I was unaware. It is not linked anywhere in this article it certainly should be. Something that should be there or here is: "a new form of slavery" by a Cardinal and one of the most important advisors to the current Pope. Certainly the Catholic Church is also in the mix here and has a variety of opinions on what should be legal and not, what we should be allowed to eat, buy, do with our money, and not. Invasive Spices (talk) 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I was similarly unaware of the existence of Religious views on genetically modified foods. I've added it to the 'see also' section. With regard to content some editors view as 'Fringe' - if you have 2+ independent reliable sources covering a given statement / view, believe it is notable, and face 'fringe' objections, opening a WP:RFC can help to bring in outside opinions on whether the content should be included.Dialectric (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Invasive Spices, this is about a basic edit from over 2 months ago, so please watch the tone and slow down. Either way, the Prince Charles quote is from 1998 and not particularly due, even for a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. If there are areas where sources have dedicated some significant time to looking at fringe views associated with religion in this subject, that would be something to discuss, but none of these sources listed are doing that. It's definitely a subject where you'd want review-level sources pointing out what the major issues actually are vs. one-off quotes, blogs, etc. KoA (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hard to see how this is a reply to what I said, on GM & religion, and not just banging the same drum over and over. There is nothing wrong with my tone and hitting out because I attempted to discuss here on Talk: is a very interesting choice. Overall you're simply banging the same drum. As it stands I will wait for some time, gloss Religious views on genetically modified foods as a new section here, and add the same text there in stead of here along with the Cardinal's statements. If you want to revert again, against relevant, cited text, from some of the most prominent people in the world I cannot stop you. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England is mostly ceremonial. None of the "Religious views on genetically modified foods" are actually religious views. Charles' views on GMO are no different from his views on other intensive farming methods and are based on his concerns for the environment. Otherwise, objections to GMO among some religious leaders has been based on its effects on farmers. TFD (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ceremonial Yes but are his statements on this subject noted? Certainly. More so than his mother. As for pertinence this quote from this person is certainly relevant. If we have quotes from others whose position is relevant but their statements are not necessarily on that subject, I don't know. That would be something to debate. In the case of the Cardinal I quoted above it was part of an interview on his beliefs, with a newspaper owned by his employer, so I do think that example is also appropriate. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case everything that Charles, William and George said would be notable because they will have a ceremonial role as heads of the Anglican Church. Note also that they are heirs to the thrones of 15 countries and Charles is set to become head of the Commonwealth. Whether or not anything they say is relevant depends on its coverage in realtion to coverage of the topic. TFD (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

A section which could see some improvement, or additional information added under the environment section after the "resistant insect pest" subsection, to have a subsection titled "herbicide resistant weeds." This has been proven to be an issue with the usage of herbicides causing weeds to become "super weeds," making them difficult to deal with and the use of herbicide to become counterintuitive.

Public perception
Came across some interesting primary papers that may be worth chasing down secondary reviews that cite them for later content in the public perception section:


 * Examining the Gap between Science and Public Opinion about Genetically Modified Food and Global Warming
 * Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety
 * Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Mostly just leaving these in case I don't get to it later and someone else wants to craft content KoA (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Digital Humanities Spring 2024
— Assignment last updated by Prokope45 (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)