Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1

IIVeaa aka 1Veertje removed a whole table of data
Objection!!! Dear IIVeaa, aka 1Veertje, Why removed the whole table of data in March Against Monsanto without giving people time to more complete it?

I spent 7 hours till 04:00 to do it and I　had to sleep. And other poeople sure have also spend many good hours on top.

Do you really want wikipedia work for the best of all people?

Or are you just doing it for your own rules?

Do you have stock or funds or interested or know anyone related to Monsanto & alike??

218.102.187.145 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If 1Veertje really want Wikipedia to work for good clause,

and if you see a table messed up by someone,

why not correct the table format as you are experienced?

Deleting hours of works by several other people is very inconsiderate, if not rude.

218.102.187.145 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a clue why you would mention my old username, but as Jytdog already pointed out: there are valid reasons for removing it. Oh, and stop accusing all and everyone of being a Monsanto pr person without having any foundation for such claims. Hint: PR people usually work during office hours, not on weekends. I came by this article after I transferred pictures of the Amsterdam event from Flickr to commons, so you really have no basis for saying that- 06:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * i started this page. i work for an organic seed company which is in a law suit against Monsanto.  i want GMOs banned and i want to put Monsanto out of business.  And i try hard to work inside the wikipedia format.  The data you were working on i am fairly confident is the table from the MAM website of all the cities which were organizing marches.  This is completely inappropriate for wikipedia.  First off, there is absolutely no way to verify that this was not just made up by the event organizers (i am confident it was not, but it does not matter).  Secondly, if you wanted to insert the table, you should complete it in your user space or in a sandbox and then when it is ready post it up, rather than working on the live version, especially of a contentious article like this one was likely to be.  Third, the time you spend doing work to put it up is irrelevant if you are formatting work is being done on data which is not verifiable enough for this community. It is not rude to take your stuff down, it is exactly how wikipedia does and should operate.  i agree with you politically completely, but there is no conspiracy here, you are not using this tool correctly. Paxus Calta (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow thanks for posting, Paxuscalta. First please let me thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with respect to this article. Hopefully you are aware of WP:COI.   And thank you as well for helping 218.102.187.145 understand what happened.  That was very kind of you! Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, you are most welcome. i am aware of the WP:COI and i strive to stay within the best practices to mitigate my COI effect.  In this case, with dozens of editors now involved in the entry, i take some pride in much of my original text still being included in the article.  And while my formating was a bit weak, as is often the case, other editors have come in and cleaned up after me and what started as a weak and messy article is now a somewhat robust post, with many external references.  It seems like we will soon resolve the call for deletion probably in favor of keeping the post. Paxus Calta (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto march
hello,

i just noticed that this page was scheduled to be deleted. I don't see a valid reason for a complete wipeout of someone's hard work to share information. If anything maybe a revising or something else. Deleting an entire entry which took place in many areas of the world is not only ignorant but bordering on malefaisance(sp).

this person may have sections which are incomplete, but i am certain people will be visiting this site. i have a large account on twitter and i posted a note on this because i perceive this to infringe on freedom of expression. i know that there are many countries which ban the freedom of expression, but as a military vet, i believe i have the right to learn about the multinational presence of monsanto.

all i know is that a march did indeed take place yesterday and i reiterate,i would expect a revision not so much as a deletion as i saw nothing majorly wrong with the article. i do not know the person who submitted this article at all by the ways.

show some integrity please. thank you! samantha a.k.a. Miibiiiiii (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Table of data are removed way too fast too fishy
The event took places in hundreds of cities.

It need time to let users around the world to help complete the data.

I seriously suspected that some people who did that are biased. WHY　someone removed data so fast? Monsanto-hired PR people? I know people have invested heavily in stocks or funds of bio-techs +/ food manufacturing conglomerates. Personally I have not participated or organized or know anyone in person related to the marches. Just a sense of justice. 218.102.187.145 (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the table several times, and have explained the rationale: the content was unsourced and promotional in effect. To be accused of affiliation with Monsanto--I voted 'keep' in the AfD discussion--is the wrong path to take here. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that your hard work was lost User 218.102.187.14 - I know what that is like! However user 99.149.85.229 is correct.   Content in Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources.  Please, please read WP:RS.  The table from the organizers' website is not a RS - secondary sources are necessary to support the data that goes in the table.  Users around the world cannot complete the data based on their own observations - that would violate one of the polices of Wikipedia, namely the one against original research.Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

lead/intro needs clarification
In the fourth sentence this phrasing " focuses on protesting genetically modified products made by the Monsanto corporation" is problematic because Monsanto does not make the products, as far I know, just the seeds used to grow the food in others' products. I would have changed it myself if I had a better version in mind. It may need to be split out as a separate sentence. El duderino (abides) 01:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are the seeds not themselves products? AIR corn (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, but as the protests are consumer-level and based upon prop-37 (labeling), the phrase is misleading. Why not actually say 'seeds' in the intro, along the lines of something like "focuses on protesting food grown from seeds which have been genetically-engineered by the Monsanto corporation" -- I know is somewhat grammatically awkward, which is why i brought it here for discussion first, especially since its in the lead. El duderino (abides) 03:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've been reading, the protest wasn't solely about Monsanto - it was against Monsanto and GMOs.  petrarchan47  t  c   04:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

List
Moving this from the article. If editors are able to list most of the locations, we would have a very long list, and it would not be suitable for this article. If people want to work on this, it should be moved to a new list-style article. For our purposes, it would be best to mention the major events or cities prose-style, and elaborate perhaps on the participants' messages. We've already got the numbers, a detailed list doesn't add encyclopedic understanding of the event, imo, and looks to be some WP:OR.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Attendance to local marches
This is not an exlusive list.

Work on this paragraph
There may be some usable content in this paragraph:

Crop contamination is another concern raised by the protesters, who worry that pollen from Monsanto's genetically modified plants could contaminate the crops of organic farmers and those not using Monsanto products. Unapproved GM wheat made by the company was found growing on an Oregon farm days after the march, bringing the issue into the spotlight. On May 31, 2013, Monsanto announced it would halt further lobbying for GM products in Europe. A Monsanto spokesperson said, "We’ve understood that such plants don’t have any broad acceptance in European societies". The announcement came days after the MAM protest, "amidst a series of recent public relations battles" for the company and during a "revival of opposition to genetically engineered foods".

I'm not sure how to incorporate it though. From the Syracuse.com piece, the journalist didn't really make the point that is claimed in the sentence. Rather, what the reporter said were the issues were: "MAM advocates for repealing the Monsanto Protection Act, independent research on the health effects of GMOs, and boycotting Monsanto products and companies." I'm going to include that in here.

Eliminatesoapboxing (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of attendees
I've removed estimates of how many people supposedly attended the march as I don't consider them reliable. CTV said 200k attended, but don't explain how they reached this. The organisers claimed that 2 million people attended 436 marches, but based on the numbers who attended individual marches this doesn't stack up. 2 million / 436 = ~ 5000 but I can't find any other than the Portland march which was anywhere near this. Unless we can find something that is realistic, I think it is better to leave it out of the article. SmartSE (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've used the RT article as a source for 2 million. Check the reliable sources noticeboard for questions regarding their standing, if you have further questions.  petrarchan47  t  c   19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also adding the Washington Post statement that organizers claimed the same number. The organizers' number was important enough to merit inclusion in the first paragraph of a WaPo story - to question it's inclusion here only raises red flags that there is some weird attempt at censorship, imo.  petrarchan47  t  c   19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's better, although I think it is clear that RT are only using the organisers' claims rather than reaching it themselves. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Think so? CNN just said unequivocally that "millions" took part in the march see?.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say. It a reliable source, so go ahead and put it in.  It is slop journalism (the 3 numbers old Jake cites are directly from the organizers, but unattributed to them and stated in CNN's voice) but is clearly allowable under the rules as far as I can tell - so if that is what you want your Wikipedia to be made of, knock yourself out and I don't think anybody can stop you.  Salon and others have handled this much more responsibly, as did you earlier today.  http://www.salon.com/2013/05/26/up_to_2_million_march_against_monsanto/   Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you're arguing the event was attended by millions, but you'd rather Salon were quoted rather than CNN? Just trying to get clarity on your stance. No one is going to stop you from adding the Salon article, if it meets RS. (I'd like to see proof that it does.) Jytdog, strange comments about no one being able to stop me are untrue and unnecessary, please stick to content and leave personal comments out, yes? Remember your stance on bullshit? What I want for "my Wikipedia" is that editors follow guidelines, whether they agree with them or not, that includes WP:RS, and refrain from trying to minimize or delete verifiable encyclopedic content.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I still don't know how many people attended -- no secondary source has reported a global estimate that appears to be based on their own work. As I have found 2ndary found sources for local rallies I have added them along with attendance reported by those 2ndary sources. (I have added them! I am trying to be helpful.) That is all I know. CNN took the 3 numbers (total attendance, cities, and countries) that the organizers have been repeating and reported them in its own voice, without attributing them to the organizers.  So, you now have a secondary source that has reported the 2M number in its own voice. Under policy you can use it, and under policy nobody can revert you, as far as I know. That is what I am saying. I am also saying that CNN did bad journalism, since they didn't attribute the numbers but reported them as fact.  But they did it.  I think it is reasonable for the article to state, "According to organizers, 2M attended" as the article said at some point earlier today.  I think it is bad for Wikipedia to state the 2M attendees as a fact until we have a secondary source that is actually reporting and not just repeating unattributed statements from the organizers.  But now you can do it, under the "letter of the law", thanks to Jake at CNN.  Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I understand. Well, the AP is using their own voice too to claim 2 million. I left the link after the first claim in the intro.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN must have changed their article: it now states that the "2 million" estimate comes from organisers. Maybe they're watching this page. (Hi!)
 * I agree with Jytdog that the 2m figure seems to originate an organiser estimate, and we should probably describe it as such. IMO our current system for establishing facts gives too much credence to sources in the corporate news. IMO we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. At the same time, I understand Petrarchan47's frustration, since editors elsewhere "get away with" reproducing claims that may be even shakier. An obvious example would be that "government estimates" are accepted as fact where "organiser estimates" are not, though governments also have incentives to misrepresent facts.
 * I imagine that better estimates will emerge as folks pick through the primary source reports from the different locations. groupuscule (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good points indeed, you've pointed out a major bias on Wikipedia - government stats are considered RS, and "activists" are just the opposite, regardless of track records.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * i agree with SmartSE, the math does not add up. If we assume that the number of cities have some protest is approximately correct at 436, then the protests would have had to be larger than have been reported, especially in larger metro areas like NYC, LA and Chicago.  i attended the DC march, there were perhaps 1,000 people there.  The 2 million number, despite being advanced by some media, is likely fanciful.  And as i have said before, i support the campaign against Monsanto.Paxus Calta (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Luckily WP:RS makes it simple for us, since we aren't investigators per WP:OR, we go with what sources say. I think using "estimated" covers our bases.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Paxuscalta, I very much doubt that the 436 number is correct. Looking at my state (Maine) they have three cities listed and the Maine capitol, Augusta, is not one of them--which would seem odd even if one did not know as a matter of fact that a very large crowd turned out in Augusta.  I also know that Bangor and Rockland had good turnouts.  I'd guess that almost every  sizable village in Maine had some turnout.  A friend tells me that Minnesota had a big turnout as well.  Facebook is a very powerful tool for organizers to use.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Gandydancer - Thank you for your insight. What i should have said was that the 436 number is a reasonable floor for the event and that there are quite possibly protests which did not organize using Facebook, which were thus not counted as these 436 were. Paxus Calta (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * sources dispute the figures as bollocks: and other sources give more realistic numbers. This figure should not be included, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Broad scientific consensus" and WP:POVFORK
A user removed changed "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food." to the weaselly phrasing "There is science showing that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food." and removed seven sources in the process. I assert that the original phrasing more closely represents the sources; to quote a few of them: And so on. I'm concerned that the tone of the article as it currently stands makes it sounds like a WP:POVFORK -- the character and the sourcing in this article needs to be held to the same standards as any other article on wikipedia, especially where it comes to statements of fact like this. Similarly, I would like to remind everyone to avoid WP:Close paraphrasing or identical language to sources outside of quotes. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Foods containing ingredients from genetically modified (GM) crops pose no greater risk than the same foods made from crops modified by conventional plant breeding techniques, the AAAS Board of Directors has concluded." The American Association for the Advancement of Science"
 * "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved." World Health Organization
 * "The overwhelming majority of publications report        that GM feed and food produced no significant differences in the test         animals. The two studies reporting negative results were published in         1998 and 1999 and no confirmation of these effects have since been published.         Many studies have been published since 2002 and all have reported no negative         impact of feeding GM feed to the test species." Meta-review of 42 PubMed articles
 * There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat." Review article in Genetics
 * This article isn't about science, it's about protesters. Every source I've used in the article is directly about (or at least referencing) the March. This is why I choose to leave the article about dangers of GMOs in the external links section, it didn't reference the March. Although you have decided the anti-GMO article is no good, and apparently decided references to GMO safety belong in the body of the article. If you wish to improve the article by adding information related to the protest itself, great. But this is not a place to try and disprove the protesters' contentions. We have links to those articles already. The 'claims' aren't made in Wiki's voice, but rather it is clearly stated that these words come from an anti-GMO advocate. Your comments about close paraphrasing are good, I'll keep them in mind.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Because there are dozens of articles that vigorously toe the GM industry's PR line, including even Genetically modified food controversies, where industry talking points have been frontloaded at the top of the first two sections. But Jimbo Forbid that a page about critics of the GM industry... should coherently articulate the arguments made by critics of the GM industry!
 * Now, I also disagree with the actual claim of "broad scientific consensus" of GM safety; especially on the question of whether Roundup will poison you and your dog just as it will wipe out nearly any species of plant. Maybe in the future we can centralize evidence on this topic. For now: what do you think about this letter, signed by 130 scientists, which challenging the illusion of "broad" pro-GM "consensus" and providing a detailed claims about how the GM industry has aggressively distorted the practice and dissemination of scientific research? Are these 130 somehow a drop in the ocean of 1000s more who think Roundup is totally safe? I don't see evidence of that. The grandiose reports from institutions with impressive sounding names are wearing thin. groupuscule (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree that this is not the appropriate article to discuss the science of GMO safety, one way or the other? I wanted to leave this link for the editor who continues to post about "broad scientific consensus" at this page using sources that have nothing to do with MAM. GMO safety is being discussed here. This article is just about the protest. Think of it as a controversy article. That's pretty much what what will be discussed.  petrarchan47  t  c   08:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not being discussed, only mentioned. :-) Without such a statement, the sentence "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" is misleading by omission, because we fail to state that these concerns are misplaced. Other parts of the article, such as the labeling discussion, make the same implication indirectly. Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As Petrarchan has said, this article is not about the science, it is about the protest. In the same way, for instance, the Occupy Wall Street protest article did not need a section to prove that the protestors were not correct in their facts and thus misleading the reader. The Occupy articles presented the views of the protestors, not the "opposition". Gandydancer (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If Goldman Sachs had Monsanto's PR team, the Occupy Wall Street article would surely inform readers that the protesters' concerns run counter to a "broad consensus of economists". groupuscule (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would require ignoring reliable expert sources that support their concerns as valid. Economics is a social science, and as such it is much harder to draw firm conclusions. If I were editing on that article and someone tried to refer to a broad consensus (especially one that rejects all the protesters' concerns) then I would have argued against it. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Either we leave out the organisers claims or we present them against the current scientific opinion. We can't say that they point to studies without putting it into context that these are very much in the minority. Actually I don't think it goes far enough. We have a sentence saying "citing connections between GM seeds and colony collapse disorder", when it has been shown tthat they have no effect. We can't use this article to push undue claims. AIR corn (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Where do you get that "we" are pushing their claims? I don't believe that GMOs cause CCD and I don't believe the health risk claims either.  You do not seem to understand the principal of NPOV policy.  Stating their position on issues is not pushing a POV. Gandydancer (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Belief isn't important; facts are important. For example, you could see how the Discovery Institute article is treated. Which part of NPOV are you referring to? Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I know MOM has no plans to use public money to force their views on children. If that day should happen we will have an article such as the one that you think this one should be.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not the analogy. Please answer the question. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any number of scientists signing a letter does not indicate consensus. I'm sure you can find at least that many who agree with the scientific consensus and are named Steve.  The consensus that the Seralini study is flawed is even stronger, as has been discussed ad nauseam on genetically modified food controversies before.  That being said, our personal views don't matter here.  Remember, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." (WP:RS) This includes not ignoring the mainstream view only to play up a minority one in any given article.   a13ean (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be good to get clarity in this issue. I would recommend an RfC for whether protesters' claims require a scientific debate.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit in question isn't about a scientific debate (there isn't one), but rather a statement of fact. This is an important distinction. I wouldn't object to an RfC, as long as it is clear in the question that the statement in question is factual. For example, we might ask "In connection with protesters' statements that GM foods are health risks, should the article mention the scientific consensus that GM foods currently on the market pose no greater risk than conventional foods?" If you want to dispute the existence of that consensus then we can discuss that separately. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A13ean's concerns will be met when a RS features the thoughts of a person or spokesperson saying that the protestors are "wrong". Then it can go in the response section. Gandydancer (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gandydancer, it's not a response but a factual statement on which the protesters are incorrect. If you want to dispute this, bring it to one of the GM food pages. You're arguing that we cannot say the Earth is not flat. The statements "Y is false" and "If X says Y, X is mistaken" are logically equivalent. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We violate NPOV if we don't provide the mainstream scientific point of view on these topics. Pseudoscientific and new age claims can not be added to the article without the scientific rebuttal. That violates NPOV and WP:FRINGE, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." It is not synthesis to state the mainstream point of view on a topic, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So then, if the protest would instead be a protest against abortion, the article that we present here must include a scientific rebuttal? Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it includes scientific claims empathetically yes. I think you make the unfortunate assumption that I am an American conservative or motivated by politics in some way. To be blunt, I could not give two shits about US politics, I only care about the science. Many US Republicans misrepresent evolution and climate change, and many US Democrats misrepresent Nuclear science and genetics. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."


 * Definition of "In Depth" - extensive, thorough, or profound: an in-depth analysis of the problem/well-balanced or fully developed.


 * This is the extent of our coverage in the article: Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences meets no sensible person's definition of "in depth". To argue otherwise looks like sheer desperation to me.  petrarchan47  t  c   16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are providing fringe claims, but not mainstream context. It is a rather simple NPOV requirement. Go ask at an appropriate board. Try the fringe theories noticeboard, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Re User:Gandydancer -- this is a fairly good example actually, see the lede of Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis where it clearly states that scientific consensus has showed that there is no link. a13ean (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right, and well it should say exactly that because it is an article on the Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. Note that it is not about a protest against abortion where (mis-informed) participants would be carrying signs saying ABORTIONS CAUSE BREAST CANCER!!! and such.  That article would not need to include information to show that the marchers were misinformed. Really, some people here are really over-reacting to all of this...  Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I would make essentially the same comment as IRWolfie- above, as I think would many of the other editors here. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to clarify something - can we agree that the protesters here are misinformed as well (about safety)? If we know we have some common ground, then any policy arguments become easier to deal with. I don't think anyone has attacked this point much, but there hasn't been much agreement either. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

'mainstream science'
I'm seeing alot of hazy argumentation about the 'mainstream scientific POV' -- but what is this exactly? Should we not define it as a matter of heath science and not genetics or bio-tech? Why should this article be subject to the inherent scientific bias in those latter, secondary fields when we're discussing the health effects of GMO foods? I may have to post this on all relevant article talkpages too, seems like it's time to shift the debate away from those who wish to control it. El duderino (abides) 04:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any material about health-related claims has to be backed up with solid sources per WP:MEDRS. Any fringe claims have to be clearly and unambiguously portrayed in the context of the mainstream view per WP:FRINGE.
 * There are legitimate concerns about GMO products. For example, monopolies, monoculture, corporate welfare and increased use of herbicides are major problems, and are discussed widely in the scholarly literature. There are also scads of illegitimate concerns, such as most of those related to health and the environment, that boil down to simple scaremongering based on appeals to emotion and false authority. The article should not serve as a soapbox for anti-GMO activists to promote fringe views without putting them in the mainstream context. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right about WP:MEDRS, at least. But the unique problem in these GMO discussions is that many of the sources used to establish the so-called mainstream context are not actually medical or health-related experts. Geneticists and biologists are not necessarily qualified to pass judgment on human health matters. El duderino (abides) 11:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're claiming that what is clearly a reliable source is inadmissible just because it was published in Genetics rather than in Public Health? I guess it's good that the paper references a report by the National Academy of Sciences, and was worked on by experts in a broad range of fields.  There's numerous citations here from the WHO, AMA and others that say pretty much the same thing.  a13ean (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the journal source is at least suspect. If you guys aren't going to at least try to understand what I'm saying about the mainstream/minority/fringe distinctions, then we're at an impasse. Also, you're wrong about the AMA and WHO positions, which both seem to be more and more on the fence. I believe it's being discussed over at the GMO controversies talkpage. El duderino (abides) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: please see my comment in the later thread about 'fringe' claims which bears on this discussion as well. Schubert  may be in the minority, so far, but he is certainly not fringe. El duderino (abides) 07:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue is addressed here: Talk:March_Against_Monsanto. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dave Murphy source
If you look closely it says in large letters at the top of the page "The BLOG" and as a subtitle "Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors". This is an opinion column, and should not be used as an RS for controversial statements of fact, even if the source is identified. a13ean (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is Dave Murphey. HuffPost is considered RS when the author is, and in this case for this article, considering the call for expansion of the subject, his quotation fits the bill. In a recent discussion I was schooled on this very thing, and anti-GMO science was kept out of the Monsanto article based on two bloggers, one of them at HuffPo. This article is about the concerns of the protesters, in their voices. This is a not place to have a back and forth about whether they are right, it is about what they say, and the reaction to it. Don't spam the article with pro-GMO research, there are proper articles for that. I am going to replace the Facebook images link, since this is about a Facebook-inspired event, and quotations from a Facebook page are included in the article already, for this reason. This was a visual event, so a link to a giant page of images from around the world, especially when so many have questioned its true scale, help expand the article in a way text cannot.   petrarchan47  t  c   20:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect to the discussion linked to by petrarchan above, the reason that the Entropy article was excluded was not because of what any blogger said. The article made health claims.  When it was rejected under MEDRS petrarchan posted it on the MEDRS talk page and the source and article were rejected on their own demerits - in fact the bloggers' reactions to it were explicitly ruled out as being relevant.  That discussion is here. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There's not pro- or anti-anything science. There's only what science says.  In some cases it's clear.  There is broad scientific consensus that human activity has contributed to climate change.  The article reflects this.  In some cases it's unclear.  There's lots of different theories about what dark matter is.  The article reflects this.  In this case it is clear; there's broad scientific consensus, reflected in the quotes below.
 * The problem with the Murphy source is that it contains statements of fact. He's not saying "I'm concerned about ... because I think that ...".  He's saying "the fact that the products they produce, genetically engineered foods and chemical weed killers, are in more than 70% of the processed foods that we eat and feed our families everyday" and "Monsanto is responsible for some of the most lethal chemicals known to history, including Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT."  The first statement is inaccurate; it's based on an estimate by the Grocery Manufacturing Organization that 70% of products in grocery stores include genetically modified material.  It says nothing about pesticides or Monsanto in particular.  The second one is just as bad; Monsanto may have manufactured all of these, but saying they're responsible for them is a stretch.  They sure didn't get the Noble Prize that was awarded for the invention of DDT.  No public health expert would list any of these as the "most lethal" by a stretch (not to say that they're not bad).
 * This is why we don't use blogs as RS for anything but opinion. There's no editorial oversight, so we don't know how to trust them, although in this case it's easy to show that the gentleman who wrote this was imprecise with his words.
 * If you have issues with some other topic or discussion take it elsewhere; here we need to abide by the standards of wikipedia no matter how we feel about the issues at hand. a13ean (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comments below, please.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @A13ean: First, I appreciate that you started this thread. I realize I should have been more specific in my edit summary -- as you must know there are different degrees of 'blog' and many news outlets now call some of their articles 'blogs' (ie, wp:newsblog) for their own marketing reasons. Murphy's piece is not a 'vanity blog' and thus shouldn't be dismissed so easily. I think it is appropriate for this article to include such a quote, especially since its source and author are attributed. I also disagree with your interpretation of 'scientific consensus'  as much of the scientific sources in related GMO articles are from Genetics and thus inherently biased, but I don't think this is the place to get into that. As Petrarchan says, this is an article about the protest and reasons for the protest. El duderino (abides) 08:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to just repeat the same thing, but I think the message is not getting across. This quote includes two statements of fact which are demonstrably wrong.  By uncritically including it, we are providing a WP:SOAPBOX for his views.  There's no reason to rule out a quote that says something like "I think we shouldn't genetically modify crops because...".  In Paul Ryan we don't quote him as saying he ran "a sub-three hour marathon" just because he said it.  It's a statement of fact, and requires a reliable source (and it turns out he misspoke).  a13ean (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The facts are not wrong, and repeating your assertions doesn't make you right. The "over 70%" figure is substantianted by an ealier statement in the same section (which you must be familar with, since it previously followed the HuffPo entry), and Monsanto is surely responsible for its manufactured chemicals, your spin notwithstanding. Furthermore, you should not remove it while under discussion. I am reverting. El duderino (abides) 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you misunderstand WP:BRD. Adding new material such as this is the Bold part;  several editors have objected to it and Reverted it.  The contentious material should be discussed rather than being restored until consensus is reached.  a13ean (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't misunderstand. BRD is a guideline. I disagree with your argument. Shall we wait for others to weigh in? Or do you and IRWolfie have to keep trying to control the discussion? El duderino (abides) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You reject a journal dedicated to the study of genetics (and presumably all the other many scientific sources which have been presented about the consensus) and instead favour a blog in a newspaper known for pseudoscience. Seriously? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * HuffPost has been upheld at RSN and what Murphy says has been supported by other sources. And yes I challenged the genetics journal, which you have failed to defend persuasively. Why should geneticists be trusted to be concerned with public safety? What training to do they have? Why should we assume they are experts in food safety? El duderino (abides) 11:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliability is always dependent on what you use it for. The Huffington post is reliable for some things, unreliable for science, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll have to make a better argument than the link given earlier (pseudoscience a.k.a 'allegations...') which has already been tagged for being one-sided. Yes indeed we judge each source on its own merit for RS. Murphy's claims are supported by other sources already in the article. You continue to deride the source as a blog despite the repeated distinction of wp:newsblog. I think it's fair to question your objectivity, as you have done with mine. El duderino (abides) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors are trying to insert fringe claims into this article
Editors appear to be trying to edit war fringe claims into this article without providing mainstream context, this violates WP:FRINGE. Per WP:BRD they should be seeking consensus for their changes, not the other way around, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about the views of people who are questioning things related to GMOs and Monsanto. What is the problem with elucidating on their views using sources that directly reference the MAM, which is what I have been doing? One of us isn't understanding the purpose of this article and related guidelines.  petrarchan47  t  c   02:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I dispute IRWolfie's characterization of mainstream context, and thus fringe here, since he and others seem to be referring to genetics, bio-tech et al, rather than science which deals with human health. I am removing the tag, this is not to be used as a 'badge of shame' in apparent reprisal for the AfD. El duderino (abides) 05:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The World Health Organization has a pretty clear statement above, perhaps if you think other public health groups have reached different conclusions you could provide RS for them here? a13ean (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the quote you gave in a previous thread, then no that's not representative of the W.H.O. which says, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." El duderino (abides) 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting here: "in recommending premarket safety testing, which is not now required, the AMA appears to be raising serious questions about the safety of GM foods." -El duderino (abides) 12:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be using newspapers to try and interpret position statements. They aren't particularly reliable for that, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And again you're selective quoting from the author of an opinion column, rather than the statements of of AMA which are contained therein: "The AMA adopted policy supporting this science-based approach, recognizing that there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety concerns in available bioengineered foods.". a13ean (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:RS policy prefers third-party, more neutral sources over primary sources. And again, "no evidence" of safety concerns does not equal "safe." El duderino (abides) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You dispute it based on your own personal opinions. Can you please take the time to look at the scientific papers. Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the sources, and I know much of them are biased towards the bio-tech industry which has a stranglehold on any studies done. You keep crying 'fringe' as if this is an established framework for viewing anti-GMO protests, but it is not. And this is not about my personal opinion. I'd like to ask you (again) to stop condescending and patronizing others here, and I will continue to respond in kind. Jytdog has asked you to stop. Is that possible? Are you not able to accept disagreement and discuss these things with civility? Or do you always think it's personal? Then maybe you shouldnt be working on a collaborative project. El duderino (abides) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * duderino, i don't agree that wolfie is insulting you personally here, but I am sorry that you feel offended. There are three conversations happening (here, on the Monsanto page (although that one may be done now), and on the GM controversies page) on your objections to the scientific consensus.  You have made it clear that you often are working on your mobile, and I imagine it is hard for you to track everything that has been said on all three pages.  The multi-location thing does not seem to be working for any of us.  On the GM controversies page I and others have responded to your descriptions of the AMA statement and the WHO statement, and I and others have also responded to your objections about certain journals being biased somehow.  On the latter point, I asked you to find a basis for your objection to using scientific peer-reviewed journals in policy or guideline;  as you have not done so (yet) that indeed means that your objection (at least for now) is based on your personal opinion;  wolfie was accurate in naming that.  I would like to suggest that we have the conversation in one place, in an orderly fashion, so everything is clear and we do not keep circling around. I think the best place for that is the GM food controversies page.  Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you're not as neutral about the dispute as you claim to be. And no, I don't think I will restrict my objctions to the GMO controversies page. I'm well aware of how those POV forks suit the purposes of the pro-GMO crowd. My basis for challenging the 'fringe' assertions is not personal, no matter how much you and others repeat that claim, and my objections remain largely unanswered. El duderino (abides) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you confused my efforts to have a civil conversation with a notion that I do not hold to the scientific consensus. I have been quite clear on that all along. I think your confusion on that might arise from the scattered conversation.  I and others have been making a good faith and careful effort to respond to each of your objections (really - each one!), but it does not seem that you are tracking that or re-responding.  Instead you bring up the same issue on another page or a different issue.  I am sorry to say this but it is just not productive to engage with you if you don't respond when you are responded to. (for example just two of mine here with respect to your claims about what the AMA and WHO and others say about the scientific consensus  (on that you responded to the tone but not the substance here - the substance matters and I still look forward to your response on that) and here with respect to your rejection of peer reviewed journals because you view them as biased )Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * petrarchan, what you have done is fill an article full of quotes and opinions from newspapers, and provided no actual encyclopaedic content, nor did you provide the mainstream context required by WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. This article is a mess in terms of neutrality. Just give a quick count of how many quotes you inserted. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IRWolfie and other users apparently cannot tolerate an article about the March Against Monsanto that accurately reflects the positions held by participants. I haven't seen anything like this since Talk:White privilege. groupuscule (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with giving their position, I do have an issue with skewing the article towards a position contrary to the scientific consensus by not providing any mainstream perspective, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your issue is not in keeping with Wiki policy, which states that this article should deal with the subject: the protesters beliefs. Wiki policy as you have pointed out, requires "mainstream prospective" be included whenever articles "cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." I don't see anything in depth coverage of any science or fringe theory in the article. It's so new, there isn't any in depth coverage of anything. But I'm working on it.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's start from somewhere. Do you dispute the scientific consensus? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you arguing is the "mainstream context," specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Thargor - the main point of scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as (no more risky than) food from conventional organisms. This is not a statement that "all GMOs are safe" (which no sane person would say since it includes all kinds of imaginable GMOs that would be dangerous for one purpose or another);  however a statement that "all GMOs are dangerous" is definitely fringe because that broad statement includes GMOs that are currently used for food production. I ~think~ that a statement in the article along the lines of "Although the scientific consensus is that currently marketed food from GM crops is no more risky than food from conventional counterpart crops, protesters believe that the risk of harm from currently marketed food from GMOs is too high." may be acceptable under FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment with italicized words as per wolfie's statement below, which is what i meant! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Current GMO foods are safe, and unknown future food products are unknown for obvious reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, no source says that "current GMO foods are safe." Not even your framing of the 'mainstream scientific' body has said that -- lack of evidence is not evidence itself. Stop repeating your falsehoods. El duderino (abides) 06:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * duderino, that is not true. You have been directly responded to on this, with sources, on the Controversies Talk page already.  I am not repeating that discussion or my efforts there, here. Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So here is where your comments reveal a double standard when you say "nuance matters.". Mainstream (industry-backed) science basically says there is no evidence that GMO foods are unsafe, so you and others interpret that to mean "current GMO foods are safe" -- this is not the same thing, and you and others admitted as much at the Controversies page. El duderino (abides) 03:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, duderino, it would be much better if you didn't make comments that go to intent like "double standard". It is an improvement that you now are including got the "current" part now.  But there are two parts -- currently available, and compared to conventional.  it is always 1) "current food from GMOs" that are 2)  "as safe as food from conventional counterparts" or "as risky as food from conventional counterparts" which do mean the same thing.  Glass is half full, half empty -- the comparative statement is essential. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not about intent, but rather editorial bias which is fair to bring up here when you apply different standards to articles on subjects you like, apparently, versus others you don't. Your parsing of the scientific consensus is not accurate. Yes, the comparative is important -- yet it wasn't included in IRWolfie's assertion above that "current GMO foods are safe." (I've put a bullet there to draw your attention to it.) Can you still not see that distinction? Because now you seem to be contradicting yourself. El duderino (abides) 07:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:Jytdog the phrasing is a bit cumbersome, but no complaints here as to the sentiment. a13ean (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, just wanted to make sure we were on the correct side of the issue here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not fringe
Salk Institute biologist David Schubert may be in the minority, but he is clearly not fringe. As he says, "There is no credible evidence that GMO foods are safe to eat and no significant safety testing is required by FDA" I think this source as well as a piece in Nature  could be used in this article as well as at the GMO articles, which need reworking to better reflect the growing criticism. El duderino (abides) 07:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have confused a claim with a fact. You claim his views are not fringe. As I pointed out when I showed the nature source, it says his is a different perspective precisely because it is in the minority (see the editorial on the same issue: : "Scientific panel after scientific panel after scientific panel has concluded that GM foods are safe to eat."). Discovermagazine is not a scientific source. Use the scientific literature. Ask your self "would a scientist cite this source in a peer reviewed paper for the claim?". Sources like Nature (journal) and Science (journal) are some of the most reliable sources, and they even publish material from non-consensus positions as I have shown, they aren't trying to suppress dissent. Try this:, which is a summary of publicly funded research in the EU. Don't buy into what Viriditas is trying to preach, he views all editors who disagree with him as shills. He may seem friendly to you now, but once you disagree with him he will stomp on you (that's from my own experience), IRWolfie- (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You've cited shills connected to industry front groups and you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being on the "fringe". That's complete nonsense.  The sources show that the concerns highlighted by the protesters are not fringe at all, but based on solid evidence supported by solid sources.  Plant pathologist and former EPA regulator and adviser to the FDA, Doug Gurian-Sherman says "it's a myth to suggest that there's a scientific consensus supporting genetic engineering and agriculture" and his opinion is shared by many scientists. According to Gurian-Sherman's experience as a regulator, GMOs are not rigorously tested, there's no approval process, it's entirely voluntary, Monsanto controls the testing, and there have never been long term human testing to determine if harm has ever occurred.  Gurian-Sherman and other scientists have identified risks associated with GMO's, such as allergies and  toxicities, but nobody has ever studied these risks.  Further, the risks of herbicide use, the economic impact on small farmers, the exaggerated claims about crop yields, the continuing patent litigation against conventional and organic farmers, and the revolving door in Washington allowing private industry to write their own regulations while public policy is destroyed—these are all very serious and real concerns—none of which could possibly be considered "fringe".  Finally, biotech shills have been at this for a very long time.  You may want to start with the short introductory piece by George Monbiot called "The Covert Biotech War".  You may recognize some of the names. :) Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the exact argument given by global warming deniers. They find one or two people out of step with the consensus and then claim that, because these people are dissenting from the overwhelming consensus, that there is no consensus.  They try to poke holes in the argument, claiming that certain things aren't actually measured or the measurements are off, try to move the goalposts with economic arguments, and finish with ad hominem attacks against those who are part of the consensus.  Why should we treat these claims any differently? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have it completely backwards, and I'm convinced at this point that you are reversing the facts deliberately to confuse this discussion. It's a well known fact that the same people who are pushing GMOs are the same people and organizations who are pushing global warming denial.  IRWolfie himself proved that when he cited on Jon Entine of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) on this topic.  AEI is well known for supporting global warming denial as are most of the pro-GMO front groups.  Again, you have it completely backwards.  Feel free to read Monbiot's "The Covert Biotech War" linked above to see who is poking holes in arguments and moving the goalposts and making ad hominem attacks. The name starts with an "M" and ends with an "O".  They are very active on the Internet, and even on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Viriditas - -thanks for joining the discussion here! It will be most helpful if discussion stays focused on current and proposed content of this article, and current and proposed sources. I am trying to be responsive to comments on content and sources, but there is nothing in your remarks above that I can respond to.  Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That some who engage in global warming denialism are also somehow found on the same side as the science on GM food is not something we can address here, it's far beyond the scope of this specific article. What is not beyond the scope is addressing the science and ensuring that we do not promote fringe viewpoints, period.  We mention their claims, we deal with the fringe points of view, and we'll be all set. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no "somehow" about it. The same biotech companies pushing their products on the public use the same PR companies to sell their wares. Your claim that arguments by GMO skeptics are identical to arguments by global warming deniers was false.  There are no fringe viewpoints in this article, and you've failed to show that there are any. Scientists have shown that there is a major conflict of interest at work, with industry-linked studies more likely to conclude safety,while  independent studies are more likely to find problems".  There have been no controlled long-term studies nor any epidemiological research.  This is not "fringe", this is a fact. And as far as the patent litigation against small farmers and the threats to conventional and organic crops go, we have lots of problems with GMOs.  As an example, GMO canola destroyed the entire organic canola industry.  That's a crime against nature, and against the livelihood of the farmers who have been impacted.  To make matters worse, Monsanto sues these farmers when competing GMOs take over their farms.  This is not fringe in any way, it is a part of the historical record. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What's fringe is the continued false claims about the safety of GM foods and the distortion of the scientific record. Once those are solved, I'll support removing the tag.  Not before.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. The only "false claims about the safety of GM foods" are coming from the GMO companies themselves, not the protesters.  The non-Monsanto, non industry-distorted scientific consensus on GMOs is that 1) there is no signficant scientific research on human health risks from GMOS, 2) current safety testing fails to assess harm, 3) there is a risk of toxin exposure, and 4) there is a risk of allergic reaction.  Beyond this, the risk posed to conventional and organic farmers from patent litigation is well established in the legal literature, and the risk to non-GMO crops is also well proven, with the almost total destruction of non-GMO crops, such as organic canola.  Finally, the risk posed to biodiversity, to increasing pesticide use needed for GMOs, and the economic risk to farming communities is well established. There is nothing "fringe" about these concerns, and therefore, no reason for the fringe tags. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't confused anything, and though I don't consider that a personal attack along the lines of what Jytdog mistakenly cries foul, it is more of your condescension which we can do without. Are you able to disagree without being disagreeable? El duderino (abides) 07:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a fringe viewpoint that they're not safe to eat and that there's no credible evidence. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers about the safety of the foods. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Y'all talking about the genetic modification process itself, viewed in isolation? Or are you including the safety risks associated with the Monsanto herbicide Roundup, which is sprayed on crops and kills most organisms not modified to resist? Here is yet another example of a distinguished scientist who doesn't think Roundup is safe. Of course Monsanto has started to attack this guy ... just like they attack seemingly every person who takes a prominent stand against their methods. Jytdog claims to respond to everything everywhere but has done nothing of the sort to my detailed comments at Talk:Séralini affair. The response stops short when things get uncomfortable for Monsanto. groupuscule (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You know there are some very real concerns that should be addressed with GMOs and their potential effects on the environment. Gene flow is known to occur and will have some consequences. But this all gets obscured by people clutching at straws to find health reasons to oppose the technology. You throw mud at something hoping it sticks, but in the end it just makes everything look dirty. AIR corn (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That the protests reflects those concerns is something that needs to be noted in the article. That the concerns lack scientific basis must as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice comment aircorn. And I will add that there are also valid concerns about industrial ag and sustainability.  To answer groupuscule's question - the consensus statement is focused on food from the GMO itself.  The question of what levels of residues of glyphosate formulations on food are safe enough, is a separate one, which we can also address but should be done separately.  But I will say that Huber is waaaaaaaaaaay fringe. He has never been able to publish these "findings" in any peer reviewed journal and his entire department at Purdue disowned him on this stuff.  He resorted to sending a letter to the EPA and then doing a press release about his letter. Really - an organism detectable only with electron microscopy that somehow thrives in glyphosate?  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and he doesn't bring it. I believe I have responded to everything you have brought up on the Seralini page.  Please let me know what you think I have not responded to on the Seralini Affair page (doing it there would be better than here). Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not an improvement
I recognise that some people are keen to use this article as a platform to say bad stuff about Monsanto, rather than merely describing the March Against Monsanto; but that enthusiasm really should stop short of repeatedly inserting text which liberally copies from a copyrighted editorial whilst also misrepresenting that editorial in order to make Monsanto look bad. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob, your attempt to improve the article by minimizing the statements of protesters is not helping the article at all. You removed one of the main reasons the protests were so large, saying in the edit summary that the addition was "not an improvement". Then you claim that it was the wording that bothered you. Now you are accusing editors of POV, saying our intent is to bash Monsanto rather than build an encyclopedic article. That is a huge accusation for which you have no evidence, and indeed your own edits here show a certain POV, so please be careful about pointing fingers. Thanks.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Pick a random featured topic. How many large quotes do you see in that article? Do we have more quotes and opinions in this article? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relevant statements will be added back, and other quotes will be paraphrased or moved to Wikiquote. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[outside opinion
I was asked to comment. I'm somewhere in the middle. I think there's sufficient new coverage to justify an article. But the article should be about the protest as such, not about genetically modified foods. Our articles on he subject provide enough coverage. With that done, the article need carry no fringe label &there is no need to consider whether the opposition to genetically modified foods is fringe.  DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you DGG. The article was saved from the "delete bin" a few days ago. The only mention of GMOs in the article is this: "Anti-GMO advocates believe GMOs can lead to serious health consequences." It was reduced from "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" in this edit, because even this wording was considered "too much". We can barely share information about the protest because we aren't being allowed to quote the protesters or say anything disparaging about Monsanto. I am confused as to the boundaries here. It is proving a very difficult article to build.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I reduced it. The biggest problem I had was that the article was misleading in suggesting there were reliable studies proving health consequences when their are none. It is similar to a saying "Anti-climate change advocates point to studies they believe prove climate is not caused by human activity". Just because protesters cherry pick or misinterpret studies does not mean we should do the same here. AIR corn (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's been reduced even further in this edit. Every one of these claims is sourced to an article about the protest itself, and tells what the protesters are saying, and what they believe, contrary to the edit summary which claims the articles are not about the protest. One source tells the % of GMOs in the US, and is not directly about the protests, but was added to give clarity. The other sources and claims should not have been removed for the reason given.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I was looking at the wrong text.   petrarchan47  t  c   22:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And now a single purpose account created moments ago has removed "Anti-GMO advocates believe GMOs can lead to serious health consequences.". Un believeable.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And you replaced it with a link to truth-out? Seriously? Arkon (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that and the Guardian.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Truthout isn't reliable for anything. You are also omitting the counter arguments from the Guardian article where what "some people" are saying is refuted by just about every acronym you can imagine. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So we'll go with the Guardian. My friend, I am simply trying to record the protest and their reasonas, their beliefs are imperative. I'm not sure what wording you would prefer, but we need to record the reason people showed up in the streets - they obviously have some strong beliefs and those are a very important part of this article.   petrarchan47  t  c   23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are still cherrypicking. Also, the part you quoted is about "some people", not even specific to the people at the march. Arkon (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what I have added:

According to a Guardian article entitled "Millions March Against Monsanto", in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment.

This article is not discussing GMOs, as the above is the extent of the discussion - limited to a reference about the protest and the reason people are concerned about GMOs. It makes no sense to describe a giant protest about GMOs and leave out why people are concerned - or that they are concerned in the first place. We are simply describing the views of some environmentalists and food advocates - allow the scientific discussion of GMOs to take place at the allotted articles.  petrarchan47  t  c   23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And you cannot leave out that the mainstream view is that these people are incorrect, which also exists in the same reference. Arkon (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is rather missing the forest for the trees. The Guardian source is fine for explaining why the protestors wanted to protest, and I edited it accordingly. The sentence proposed above, however, is too vague in that regard. There is no reason to explain US agricultural practices and what anti-GMO activists who may or may not have been at the protest "say". The thing to do is explain why the protesters protested. That's what I found in the article and changed the text to read. Eliminatesoapboxing (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is very good reason to explain US agricultural practices, as they are directly relevant and responsible for the protests. I'm surprised that this specious argument hasn't received any rebuttals.  Monsanto has filed 140 cases against farmers and their claims about patents, food safety and yields have been questioned by attorneys, former regulators and plant pathologists, and other experts.  This forms the basis for any claims made by the protesters and is topical and encyclopedic. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW I am happy for the article to assert the protesters claim, as long as it doesn't say scientific evidence supports them, with out the mainstream scientific POV being presented. I don't think this version needs the fringe tag. AIR corn (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that version as long as it makes clear what the mainstream view is (see the text of the Fringe tag). Of course we need to present the claims of the protesters, but we also need to point out that some of their assertions disagree with the scientific consensus.  It doesn't need to be any significant portion of the article, but we do need to mention it.  a13ean (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fringe is not the right tag. You, IRWolfie and BlackHades have failed to provide convincing argument that all anti-GMO protest is based on fringe science. Some of the protest may be, but not all of it. I've changed the tag to one for POV. El duderino (abides) 15:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That reasoning doesn't make sense, the reason the tag is there is we give "appropriate weight to the mainstream view" and instead let fringe claims stand without defining the mainstream view. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We should summarize reliable sources. If the sources report protestor's claims in a notable way, we should report them with due weight. If sources criticize those claims in a notable way then that should be included also, again with due weight. We need to be careful though about bringing in unrelated sources that have nothing to do with the MAM organization and avoid WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL research. If there is a controversial sentence or two we can discuss and gain consensus here. Also, WP:TC says: "This page in a nutshell: Add template messages to inform readers and editors of specific problems with articles or sections. Do not use them as a badge of shame."  and I would add: or to create drama. With this in mind, I think the tag should be removed since the issue is getting plenty of attention here.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm against removing the tag until we resolve the issue. The tag is just as much for readers who come here and need to know that there's issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Keithbob, I don't feel that mentioning the scientific consensus is bringing in unrelated material.  Most mentions of this in the news were based in part on the AP wire story, and include the line "The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe."  As it stands now our article reflects the first part of the sentence, but not the second half.  The best way to reflect this in the article, however, is not to cite a single line from a news article, but one of the many reviews or statements from the WHO, AMA, etc which say the same thing.  I agree with the sentiment about the tagging, although I have always considered the fringe tag a special case of POV, the template for which states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved".  I'm more concerned about the lack of progress made here and in other talk pages.  a13ean (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a lack of progress because you and the,other pro-GMO editors are stonewalling rather than collaborating. Have you made any attempt to compromise? To work out specific wording here on the talkpage instead of slow revert warring?... El duderino (abides) 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no one is looking to remove information at this time, but rather insert the proper information to ensure that fringe viewpoints are not treated as legitimate in the article. Why is that not a good way to do it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The last time I edited the article was a week ago, to prevent the removal of a tag without sufficient discussion. I've made a number of discussions on the talk page.  The continued personal attacks such as this are starting to grate on my nerves, however.  a13ean (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another false claim of personal attack. What I imagine is really getting on your nerves is the legitimately growing opposition to your previously comfortable POV pushing on all things GMO. El duderino (abides) 12:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Duderino, what would be really productive, would be if you could bring objections to specific content or sources based on policy or guidelines, or, if you want to introduce new content or sources, to bring that. As far as I can tell we have responded directly to every specific point about content or sources that you have raised. If you feel we have missed a point you have raised, it would be helpful if you could bring that up again, ideally in a new section so we can all be sure to see it and respond. It would be great to talk about content. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, Jytdog.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I dont think I will do your reading for you either nor play your increasingly transparent game of trying to wear down those who dare to disagree. El duderino (abides) 12:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOAP
It is fine to talk about the issues that reliable sources have directly linked' to the March Against Monsanto. But a general airing of grievances should be left at other articles. Thus, a lot of soapboxing in that regard (and likely coatracking as well) was removed with this edit:



Please only include material that can be directly sourced to being about the March itself. General commentary on Monsanto, GMOs, or food politics is not what we're supposed to do in the article about this narrow subject.

Thanks,

Eliminatesoapboxing (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not OK to remove sources directly linked to the subject of this article. You may have missed it, but one article you removed was entitled "Florida rally says: "Buzz off, Monsanto" and the claim added to the article came from this text "Polls conducted by MSNBC, Reuters/NPR, the Washington Post and others show that more than 90 percent of the American public want labeling of genetically modified foods. Up to 75 percent of processed foods include GM ingredients, according to the Center for Food Safety."


 * You removed "Protesters rally worldwide in march against GMO giant Monsanto" that used the following text "Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States today have been genetically modified. But critics say genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment." to support mention of GMOs in the US. Please replace these sources and claims immediately.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the sources, only the text. The text absolutely must connect to the MAM or it is essentially irrelevant. If you want to include some sentence that MAM was trying to make a point by saying "Buzz off, Monsanto", that's fine. Adding sources back to support existing sentences is fine too. What's not okay is to have large swathes of content that are about things other than MAM itself. The reason I removed the sentence you cite is because it is not about MAM but is rather about farming practices in the US and what critics of those practices say. If you can find a way to rewrite the text to link it to MAM, I'm happy to work with you to reinclude it as I worked below. 22:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliminatesoapboxing (talk • contribs)


 * I think you are missing the point. The reasons behind the protest, when they are given in an article about the protest, most certainly belong in this article and do not fall under "soapboxing".  petrarchan47  t  c   22:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the reasons behind the protest need to be in the article. But the reasons behind the protest are best explained by the organizers and the attendees. The previous wording and included sentences was trying to frame the backdrop for the protests which is an analysis that is not encyclopedic. Putting in large amounts of text that explains other controversies related to Monsanto (such as legislation that Bernie Sanders introduced) is not about the protest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliminatesoapboxing (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I just spent the last two weeks pouring through the sources and reading through the relevant scientific and legal background. I find this material to be highly encyclopedic and directly relevant to this subject. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage section
Right now, we have a bit of an undue weight situation where Thom Hartmann's claim that the media ignored the protest is the key point in the section, but does not reflect the coverage given by the mainstream press, especially in the United States. Has anyone found a counterbalance to this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Thargor. I spent a little time looking into this today and I couldn't find a source that talked about coverage except ones complaining about the lack of it.  My own OR - nothing on BBC or NPR, nothing in NY Times, WSJ.  Which is pretty huge.   On the other hand, you have CNN, NBC, CBS, NY Daily News, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today... but I again I found no source that says all that.  SO I don't know how to address your concern. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick additional note. March on Monsanto site lists only bloggy media reports (sigh): http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/p/in-media.html bubbles inside of bubbles.Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So, that said, how can your concern on this be addressed, Thargor? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure. How should we handle a claim that is a complete fabrication?  This is somewhat rare. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree about the "complete fabrication"... when I tried to work on finding sources to add content to the article, I had a hard time finding any real reporting on the marches. The AP stories were picked up (most of the outlets I mention above are the AP story) but, for example, the only source I could find that even tried to provide its own number for total number of protesters was the CTV article - everybody else just repeated the number given by the organizers in the AP story (some without attribution).  In contrast the Occupy movement and its sitins got major original coverage in MSM, and really huge protests (where you had thousands marching in a given city), like those against the Iraq war, have also been directly reported on by MSM.   My ~sense~ is that most march against monsanto protests were  smaller, say 500 people or less, and this is why there was not widespread original reporting by major news outlets.   So - while I agree that the quote is silly in claiming the march was not widely covered because "corporate News" suppressed the story, I think it is accurate that the marches were not covered by MSM.  To be clear, I think the quote is silly because pretty much any news organization is a corporation - Truthout is a corporation, and really major stuff like Occupy and the Iraq protests are covered in MSM.  More concretely, I would be satisfied if we just deleted the quote which has the claim about the reason in it.  Would that satisfy you? Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The occupy movements were also a more major protest than this was, so it received plenty of coverage as a result. When we can point to multiple major mainstream sources that covered the march, as you and I have found (you cite CNN, NBC, CBS, etc), it's important to make sure this fringe viewpoint that it was not covered is refuted.  I know we need to be careful of synthesis here, but I'm sure, with some effort, something exists.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you please make a suggestion of what exactly would satisfy you? Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hartmann's statements have nothing to do with undue weight. It is not for Wikipedia editors to try to correct the statements of anything that a notable person says when it is quoted in a RS.  If a WP guideline that states otherwise cannot be furnished I'm going to remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They specifically give undue weight to a point of view that is not supported by the factual record. If we're going to talk about "response," we cannot allow the only point about media response to be a falsehood about the coverage, thus the undue weight tag.  User:Jytdog, I missed your reply earlier: all we need is to get something in there about what the actual coverage was.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can find RS that challenges the statement it should be added to the article. In the meantime editors are required to not attempt to discredit a statement by tagging it. Gandydancer (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not trying to discredit anything, merely highlighting the point that we're giving undue weight to a claim that is not actually true. Part of the discussion here is to work to try to find something that reflects the truth. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been unable to find RS to back your assumption--tags are not meant to just sit there forever. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears discussion is ongoing, as of just yesterday. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)