Talk:Jon Entine/Archive 1

Starting cleanup
This bio is in need of cleanup, the references are mostly primary sources. The content may not be neutral, and needs fact-checking, e.g. I could not substantiate that Entine was or is a senior fellow at the Center for Health & Risk Communication at George Mason University outside his own writings, esp. with the website not mentioning him. Fences &amp;  Windows  17:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Negative, Fences, he is listed in the Scholars page at http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars.html--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the "Genetic Literacy Project"? I can't find any discussion or even mention of it in reliable sources. Is it really affiliated to GMU? (a Google search of the GMU site for "Genetic Literacy Project" comes up blank). Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Negative, Fences, it is mentionned in the Scholars page at http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars.html under Entine's bio.--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As this article notes Entine possesses a BA degree in Philosophy and a "National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship" in Journalism. He has made his living primarily as a television news producer (as this page already notes). However, he does not have any training whatsoever in the field of genetics or in any physical science capacity whatsoever. Critics of him have noted this, and that he often is opining on topics for which he again has no training at all (making him merely what one could call a "hobbyist", without the relevant credentials again). As for what the "Genetic Literacy Project" is, it is merely a group the philosopher/journalist Entine made inside a very disreputable right wing think tank called "STATS" (or the "Statistical Assessment Service"). The statements about this group, the STATS affiliated "Genetic Literacy Project", show it seems to be wanting to speak on "the nexus of media and genetic issues" basically. Do they have anybody with any relevant credentials within this quite shady organization (that very little information is available about to start with)? I certainly do not see any, and Entine himself again does not possess any genetic training whatsoever (once again he only has a BA in Philosophy and a "Fellowship" in Journalism, that's it).

As for STATS, it is again a quite disreputable group (to say the least) that has already been profiled and heavily criticized and  and just to note some similar type of criticisms have been leveled at George Mason University (in particular its' sciences programs, which for example are full of global warming deniers) due to George Mason's extremely dependent relationship with the right wing Koch brothers. Some even refer to George Mason University as pretty much "a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch Brothers" (due to how much money they have given to George Mason and how much "influence" they are known to wield within the institution), , ,

These points should be noted in this article.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Human biology source list
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-helpful changes
The recent changes by Vikingsfan8 appear to me to be unduly negative. One example (from the Genetics section) is the sentence: "Although Entine himself (who made his living as a television news producer) merely possesses a BA degree in philosophy and has no credentials at all in the field of genetic research." Another example (from the lede): "senior fellow at GMU's conservative leaning think tank STATS (Statistical Assessment Service),[2] which is an organization that has received criticism in the past a front group for corporate interests". Also, I didn't find the change in the first sentence helpful with the stress on a BA degree in philosophy, but that may be debatable. Iselilja (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to provide rewording to certain sections okay, but all this information should be stated here. The point that Entine is not an actual geneticist (i.e. he has no scholarly credentials in the field of genetics whatsoever) and instead merely gives his own layman opinion on things (as a journalist it appears, often at places that have been accused of conservative bias. Such as STATS, Forbes, etc.). This should be clearly noted on his page here, because if one browses around online they can sadly find many forums and other places were uninformed individuals are listing Entine as a supposed "source" himself (as it relates to the field of genetics). Which couldn't be further from the truth, as I will say once again Entine is not a geneticist in any way at all and merely gives his own layman opinion; if one wants to be more charitable his own layman journalistic "analysis" of things occurring within the wide world of genetic research (meaning he's an outside observer from the start). More detail should be given to the fact that his current "Genetic Literacy Project" within STATS is merely a journalistic group, not some actual "genetic project" or something. This article already makes this somewhat clear by noting this group of his only seems to opine on "the nexus of media and genetic research" or something like this. I think it should be made even clearer that this group is again not a scientific group but rather a non-scientific journalistic group.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence "Allthough Entine himself"...." again because it's already said in the opening paragraph of the section that he is not a geneticist. And I think such a simple statement "not a geneticist" is more appropriate than a longer polemic sentence about how unqualified he is. As for the sentence about STATS, I don't mind it in the article, but it seems a bit out of place in the lede, unless it is a truly controversial organization, which the article about the organization doesn't indicate. Also I think having the BA in the first sentence seems a bit strange, since that is not his claim to notability. However, I am not going to insist very firmly on a change. Regards Iselilja (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely feel free to reorganize the information.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
This page has significant NPOV issues and a review of recent reasonable changes offered suggests they are being systematically reverted without discussion or consideration. The lead of the article includes "allegations" and attributions which are not neutral nor do they appear to be accurate (STATS is not a "conservative" think tank according to their Wikipedia profile and review of their Website and other public references). Simply sourcing an allegation of bias to a commentary source which disagrees with the profiled subject does not make it relevant or appropriate for a BLOP - the Philpott allegation citing another advocacy group claims that a corporation tried to influence a sympathetic journalist doesn't mean that journalist has "links to corporate interests" and it certainly doesn't belong in the summary description of this article. If this cannot be responsible addressed here, suggest it be moved to the Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board CinagroErunam (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you read at least most of article, or did you just find a sentence or two you think are bad in the lead section and then jumped to conclusion? I think that because this man has quite an impressive life, reading about him may give the false impression that the article's tone isn't neutral. I fixed these two "issues" and removed the tags you inserted - you're welcome to point out any other issue if you find any. -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the entire article and background, completely inappropriate for you to have removed the NPOV tag without discussion. The question of neutrality and tone is reasonable here and merits consideration.  Please do not remove without discussion and input or, as noted, this should be referred to the BOLP Notice Board CinagroErunam (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So we should either have a vote here about whether these tag are needed or not, or take it to the BOLP Notice Board as you said. We need to find a solution to this, edit-warring won't help. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Only two issues have been raised in this discussion, both have been resolved. No additional issues have been presented. So it would seem both
 * 2.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
 * 3.In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * are the the case. So I am removing the tag. If a clear explanation, with specific examples of any remaining POV problems are presented, the tag may be replaced. Hopefully a suggested improvement would be proposed. IMO there is inadequate discussion here to lead to a filing at BLPNB, but that process remains available. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Issues tag
Is the Multiple Issues tag still necessary? The citations issues are addressed, the other attributes have been discussed at length here and addressed. The February NPOV tag addresses the concerns raised (perhaps it too should be reconsidered); however, the November 2014 Multiple Issues tag no longer seems needed. Any objections to removing? CinagroErunam (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones citation
Specifically regarding the Mother Jones article (): this article specifically calls out a tit-for-tat argument involving Entine and Mother Jones directly. The citation supported a sentence with a vague suggestion about "connections to corporate interests" which itself does not meet NPOV. Recommend specifying allegations from source not involved in the argument. Tad (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I found some time to dig a little bit, and added some sources in an attempt to make the controversial statements more objective. Tad (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Needs rework
Jon Entine (user:Runjonrun) is editing this page basically every day and given his history with removing properly sourced information that doesn't reflect well on him, i propose that he be immediately banned from editing this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.76.168 (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am just going to say this again after doing some more research: this article has been worked over time and time again by the subject to remove material which reflects badly on him. I think it is significant that his reporting on the Body Shop got him fired from the last position he held as a TV reporter in the early 1990s but this information was not on the page and one reading it would have the impression that he was the employee of the month. In addition he has also been fired from his position at Forbes.com effective January 2015, which i also think is significant given that most people who have heard of him probably have heard of him through his columns on Forbes. This information has been privately confirmed by Forbes.com.Masonpew (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

After learning a little bit more about your community here (as editors) I have realized that the way I have edit this page may constitute improper editing (not what I did, but the reasons for which I did it - you guys are picky here!) and I truly apologize. I would say that I would refrain from editing it in the future, but it seems that the article is still basically a disaster. I mean, it has been confirmed by reputable sources that most of the article was in fact written by the subject in a quest as to uphold his personal reputation. If this article were truly encyclopedic it would focus on the fact that he is a disgraced former journalist who has been let go from every good job he has ever gotten and on the fact that his involvement with Wikipedia has been solely to edit his OWN page and pages mentioning him using disruptive and disallowed methods. But I cannot be the one to put those things on the page given that I clearly have it in for the guy. I can however post a list of good sources here on the talk page. Right? If this constitutes harassment by me of him then I am willing to let it go immediately. It just bothers me that I can't look on his page and see the truth. That's what y'all are about. Masonpew (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The recent edits to change the tone of this article are not within the BoLP guidelines for NPOV or verifiability.  User:Masonpew and other recent users have removed entire sections of previously accepted, well-cited content.  For example, User:Masonpew has added clearly defamatory in tone content, i.e., claims Entine was terminated from Forbes "as confirmed by the organization" and fired from ABC News and that his published articles were "found to be without basis." There is simply no valid reference/source for those claims.  Both claims about Entine being fired appear to be "sourced" to commentary attacks on Entine published by a Mike Adams in Natural News (a highly suspect source) which provide no basis for the claims they make. And the "found to be without basis" claim does not in fact appear in the reference provide, which only states that the Body Shop refuted Entines claims while Entine and ABC News stood by the report.  Additional unsourced claims disparagingly added include characterization of Entine's Genetic Literacy Project alleging, it "openly supports pro-GMO technologies. Although the GLP espouses that positions on GMO should be science-based it generally shows no original data supporting its positions on the advantages of GMO technologies.  Entine has no formal  scientific training and no formal schooling in the subjects the GLP typically addresses."  Which appears to be solely the opinion of the user or their own original research without any verifiable source cited.  This article, while in need of attention, should at a minimum be reverted to the March 11 version or referred to the  Biographies of Living Persons Notice BoardAliceStanley11 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AliceStanley11 (talk) I was thinking the very same thing. Why does the lede mention he has been fired? What? In the lede? The recent additions look slanderous and do not reflect well on Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board at all. Citations from Natural News? Really? No these have to go.Sgerbic (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking over this page again, I see that there are still some odd things left in, let me take a crack at it again. Please discuss changes here. I think I'm only going to be removing things I see that are not correctly cited.Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A Mother Jones source was recently removed from the article as a 'hit piece' without a policy-based justification for the removal. I have restored it. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone Mother Jones is considered a reliable source and one sentence of criticism from a reliable source is a reasonable inclusion in a BLP, even when that RS is partisan like Mother Jones, the Wall St Journal, or Entine's own project.Dialectric (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I want to thank the above for their work. However in my view the recent edits have left the page quite divergent from reality. I agree that having references to his firing in the lede was inappropriate but as it stands it is not at all clear on the page that Entine is a journalist with a history of disreputable reporting which has resulted in his termination from two well-known news sources. These are verifiable facts and I believe they are relevant and belong on the page, given that similar information features prominently on the pages of other journalists who have histories of lying in print (Jayson Blair, Judy Miller). I have a question which is: if Mother Jones is a reputable source but has a conflict of interest because it is involved (and therefore cannot be used), yet because Entine is not particularly well-known there are no other available sources, is it still unacceptable to include the details of the allegations Mother Jones makes on the page, with the caveat that it comes from a party who is in dispute with the subject? As known I believe Entine's actions as a journalist and as a wikipedian (editing his own page after warnings) are condemnable and as such I am not going to edit his page anymore because I cannot claim to be neutral; however it is obvious the page needs a lot of love. I can only hope someone sees a way to include important, verifiable information on this page without it becoming an unbalanced hit piece. if I wanted it to be a hit piece (he's written a couple) I would just use the wifebeater thing. also verifiable, probably not relevant. morsontologica (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Entine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102103403/http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars to http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussing whether ESG MediMetrics still exists
In response to a recent edit removing reference to Entine as a consultant and placing reference to his company ESG MediaMetrics in the past, I would like to draw attention to the company's current listing on Dun & Bradstreat: []. Notably, its current income is listed as $160,177, down from previous years but certainly not zero. Generalrelative (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything that those are to-date figures or that it's down from previous years. Where are you seeing that? Those types of aggregation sites generally aren't reliable either. Usually the types of sites that have "claim this business/profile." fall into bottom of the barrel directory sites. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Dun & Bradstreet is sufficient to prove that ESG MediaMetrics still exists or is still active. It wouldn't be usable as a WP:RS in an article, and I believe that somewhere on that site it says the revenue is estimated. Wayback machine / archive.org shows that http://esgmediametrics.com/ last had content on the consultancy in 2015, and has since been parked, then expired. Dialectric (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. Generalrelative (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How to refer to affiliation with Institute Food and Agricultural Literacy / UC Davis
I agree that this should be mentioned, however it's clear from his absence from the IFAL site [] that Entine is no longer affiliated with them. The problem is that I can't find any secondary source mentioning his dismissal / the end of his fellowship. So how should we phrase this? In my view, the current wording As of 2016, Entine was a senior fellow at ... is ambiguous. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording may be ambiguous, but it is wording that the current ref supports. If we have a better, more recent ref, we can reword more accurately.Dialectric (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'll keep looking. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)