Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 11

RT?
RT has been brought up several times on the RS notice board:
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_140
 * and here is the criticism section from its wikipedia article: Russia_Today

My takeaway from all that, is that is probably fine for simple facts ("there was a plane crash on Oct 3..") as it is a news org, but that it should be taken with a big grain of salt on anything controversial. This article has four separate citations to articles at RT. note 2, cited 4 times; note 24, cited once; note 38, cited once; note 43, cited once, for a total of 7 cites. That is more than any other source outside the AP. Since this topic is controversial (clearly) how do folks feel about reducing our reliance on RT to make the article stronger? (I am not suggesting taking out any content, just using stronger RS for what is there) Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be off wiki/ the grid for > a week within a few hours.  IMHO the question is what are the statements that the source is being used to support, and does the source have sufficient actual expertise & objectivity to support it.  (and also meet wp:rs criteria which is unrelated to actual reliability).     Beyond that vaguery, your thought process sounds good,  although I don't have expertise on the source nor have I analyzed its use in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really not a fan of using it period, are we using it for anything we can't already get somewhere else? The press freedom issues in Russia alone should give us great pause in what we use from that area.  Thargor Orlando (talk)


 * I have a special request, that no one take me to the 3RR noticeboard. I did make a correction, but didn't actually mean to press "enter" as I remembered I may have a few hours left before I'm allowed to change this bit again. Oops.
 * The problem is that while it is true the NYT mentioned MAM in a wee blurb, we aren't giving the reader this information. The wording was such that one is left thinking both a high and low number were cited with somewhat equal frequency. However, the NYT article is standing up against a goo deal of WP:RS with its mention, which as you know probably came from Wikipedia, as this number is not be found anywhere else on the web. This is worrisome to me, because my warnings about the CVS source, which took 3 months and a noticeboard to get you all to agree with, were ignored long enough that this claim, this idea based on a bogus source became fact. The NYT picked it up, one must assume (pending a reply from the author with her source for the number), and now in a very twisted turn of events, we're trying to turn around and use the NYT source to insinuate that media in general was all over the map on the numbers. They were not. They all had no problem citing the organizers, which is sufficient for Wikipedia according to the rules. I think we have proper sourcing to claim: the organizers said 2 million - and - no independent evaluation was done. If we want to mention the NYT article, well, we can't say much except that one article about oranges mentioned the March and used a number 1/20th the size of all other media. It seems a bit awkward to mention that some barely-related NYT article that was published two months after the march mentioned a different number (but did not give its source). When we are trying to make a claim that is so fringe and using it to counter all other media, this particular article does not begin to meet the requirements. But this source and claim can go to the RS noticeboard.
 * Regarding RT, there is no question that RT meets the requirements of RS. And in the case of MAM, the only media outlet that is so far covering tomorrow's MAM happens to be RT. The last march had coverage from only a few large US outlets, and the coverage found in them and in RT was completely in alignment. The information and tone were no different, but RT did much more extensive coverage. Anyway, another noticeboard for RT is forthcoming, apparently.  petrarchan47  t  c   07:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Regarding RT, there is no question that RT meets the requirements of RS." There's no such thing as an "RS"; sources are only reliable in respect to certain claims. RT is a sometimes dubious publication, so needs to be used with caution, if at all. Alexbrn talk 07:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect to RT, I brought the discussions from the reliable source notice board on RT, which you are not acknowledging either. Jytdog (talk)
 * User:Petrarchan47, first, you can self-revert to avoid 3RR. Second, there appears to be a lot of question regarding RT and its use as a reliable source.  That the Russian government had wrecked the idea of an independent media so significantly in that area should give us pause of using any source of Russian origin in the short term. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a bit of this. Some of the RT cites were redundant (there were say 3 cites for the same bit of content) and added no independent value, so I was able to take them away. I didn't change any content. The article looks more credible and well-sourced now, at least to me. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Marchers--200,000 or 2 million?
Other than the one source listed, do we have a lot of RS that reports the smaller number? The way it is written, On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000[5] to 2 million (according to the organizers)[6] makes it sound like the organizers are either telling porkies or are off somewhere in dreamland. I am aware of the blog post that said that 2 million was not possible and I am aware that several editors here believe the same, but as often happens here, we do need to go with sources. I believe that unless we have good RS that says otherwise, it would be best to just say "2 million according to the organizers".Gandydancer (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources give that range, so it seems logical to do the same. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I agree if the sources actually do say that, however our article says only " CTV News reported the total number of participants to be 200,000;[5] while the New York Times reported "hundreds of thousands" of protesters.[28", but I can no longer pull up anything from the NYTs. Do you have anything else? Gandydancer (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you cannot pull up the NYT article, the link is still active and I just clicked on it and the article came up. You also mentioned that you are aware of the blog post, which if it is the one from the Washington Wire is a reliable source. It also explains the AP changing its claim throughout the different revisions. If we are just quoting the Marchers even if we say that is what the marchers are claiming we are not being accurate to what the true numbers probably are, which is much lower than 2 million. We could also create a "not a list" of the of locations which have Reliably Sourced information on the number of marchers. I have a list of 50 such locations, with an addition 25 or so that are self reported from the marches at the specific locations.  VViking Talk Edits 00:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that there are a range of estimates, as that always seems to happens with demonstrations and crowds. We should report the entire range of numbers. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no range of estimates, all large sources say "2 million". There are literally TWO sources who mention a smaller number: the CVT report which came out WHILE THE PROTESTS WERE ONGOING, so could NOT have counted the final numbers, and happened to use the estimate of 200,000 that was being given out by media prior to the event. The second mention was in the NYT recently, at the end of an article about oranges - we CANNOT use such a source to determine that major outlets declaring "2 million" were wrong. I have been saying this for months, yet people continue to support this abuse of RS, OR and SYNTH at this and every page where the protest is mentioned to minimize the March size. We as editors do not have the right to change was is reported by RS.  petrarchan47  t  c   18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, it really comes down to what's out there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about reporting it as a range, but including all reliable sources as inline cites? That way, if there are only two for the lower number, and a lot more for the higher number, our readers can see that and judge the sources for themselves. Given how difficult it always is to determine the size of large crowds, I really see no compelling reason for Wikipedia editors to decide that there was only one possible correct number. Also, a question: do we have any sources for the higher number that attribute that number to someone independent of the organizers? I ask that, because it has a bearing on the significance of the numbers of sources. In other words, if there are numerous sources that repeat what the organizers told them, then that's something of an indication that numerous sources trusted what the organizers said, but it also means that there was no independent verification. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because RS does not report the range, and there is no RS that can be used to support the 200,000 number. This isn't rocket science. We say what RS says, and it says unequivocally, "according to protesters, 2 million". So that is what Wiki says. If you want to give the reader this source mentioning "200,000", you must also show that the CVS source was published a couple of hours before the March had ended, allowing the reader to determine if this is a source they want to trust, or not. As for the NYT piece, we cannot use this as RS for anything other than GM oranges (the topic of the article), per the most basic read of WP:RS. The number was mentioned in passing at the end of the article, it was not an article about the march or its size and cannot be used to counter claims by ALL the large RS about the protest.   petrarchan47  t  c   23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked whether there were any sources for the higher number that did not attribute that number to the protesters, and I surmise from the lack of an answer that the answer is "no". Yes, I understand that there isn't an RS that describes a range. We have some RSs that provide one number, and some RSs that provide a different number, and disagreements between editors about the relative reliability of those sources. Actually, I like the idea of describing the high number as "according to the protesters" and the low number as "estimated before the march was over", although I understand it to have been very much while the march was in progress. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no RS that can be used to support the 200,000 number. If you want to give the reader this source mentioning "200,000", you must also show that the CVS source was published a couple of hours before the March had ended, allowing the reader to determine if this is a source they want to trust, or not. As for the NYT piece, we cannot use this as RS for anything other than GM oranges (the topic of the article), per the most basic read of WP:RS. YES there is RS that gives the two million claim without crediting the protesters, but I will allow you to look through the rs yourself. Note please that the claim i am arguing for is: "according to protesters, 2 million", so I'm unsure why you are asking this question. And please don't ever again assume if an independent editor doesn't answer you right away, that you can surmise anything except that they have a life outside of Wikipedia.   petrarchan47  t  c   05:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is another argument that has dragged on and on with groundless blocks being put up to frustrate editors that are trying to write the article per what the sources say. As Petrarchan has been saying, it's hardly possible to estimate the number of protestors while the protest is still going on, so it should be obvious that the 200,000 figure is not useful.  As for the NYT article, it was not the intent of that article to make an estimate but to point out that hundreds of thousands recently publicly expressed that they don't want GMOs.  I think that this argument is done and I'm going to change the article to what RS states.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with your language in the section. Not sure why CTV isn't reliable, though. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Both the 200,000 and 2,000,000 numbers should be included with their contexts/attributions. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * North8000 +1. DanHobley (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that Gandydancer has rewritten it, largely in terms of "hundreds of thousands". I think that's an excellent solution. I like the way that the new language doesn't try to make more of the various numbers than the inherent precision allows. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, we can't change it to "hundreds of thousands" and literally ignore RS. Now we aren't even quoting the majority or sources which say 2 million. How did this happen? Oy vey. Changing it to what RS says. And will add the "according to organizers".  petrarchan47  t  c   07:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, if we are going to print a 'range', it must be one found in reliable sources, and in ones written with enough time between the march and publication to allow for some research to influence content. The CVS story was published while the march was underway, and in some places had only begun. I realize jytdog found this source and added it, changing all the information Wiki had on the march in 3 separate articles to reflect this number and to create a 'range' which, as editors have noted, is not actually found in RS. The NYT article is about GM oranges, and merely mentions the march at the end. According to RS guildelines, this article cannot be used as a source for march numbers, especially given there is no supporting RS and that the number goes against all other RS which state "2 million". I know that we are all here to give the reader our best information according to what is in RS, apparently some just need to refresh their understanding?   petrarchan47  t  c   07:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All the "reliable sources" in the lede now are newspaper reports which state "according to organizers." How reliable are organisers of this sort of thing?  This cannot be allowed to stand.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 07:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * From the [| International Business Times] "The furor over the “Monsanto Protection Act” and GMOs reached fever pitch in May, when hundreds of thousands of people participated in a global protest known as the March Against Monsanto." From the [|NY Daily News] "In May, shortly after Congress passed the original Farmer Assurance Provision, thousands of protesters participated in demonstrations dubbed the "March Against Monsanto." House Republicans passed an extension of the provision on Friday."  I personally thought we had a concensus and a compromise that worked.  VViking Talk Edits 08:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We did, but consensus can change. For now, I've added both, but I still think hundreds of thousands is a better representation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Count me as agreeing with Roxy, VViking, and Thargor that the wording we had as of yesterday was the best option (although I can live with a range, properly formatted and cited). That wording was written by an editor who has hardly been anti-March or pro-GMO in the discussions at this page, and I continue to think that it was an elegant way to report what we have to deal with from the available sources. Saying "hundreds of thousands" is not adopting the low-end number from the sources, but rather reflects the range of estimates, giving due weight to what the organizers themselves claimed. And we need to drop this ongoing error of equating "reliable sources attributing the higher number to the organizers" with "reliable sources reporting the higher number through their own independent reporting". What happened was the former, not the latter. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Something that is a problem with the current wording is that the placement of the phrase "according to the organizers" makes it unclear which numbers come from the organizers, and which do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How about, for para3, the following? On May 25, 2013, hundreds of thousands of people participated in the march. Organizers estimated that two million protesters in 436 cities and 52 countries took part. Canal said that the movement would continue its "anti-GMO cause" beyond the initial event. with cites as in that sentence of course?  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look carefully after MOTD ;) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Been drinking beer and shouting at the TV, and hence cannot get the citations correct in my sandbox. I'll try again tomorrow.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tried, and failed, four times to get those citations correct in my proposed version above, I'm not a very good editor! I'll keep trying though. It might be done by Xmas.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to offer a sympathetic link to WP:There is no deadline, or just to say LOL! { --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Job done. Not sure why I had problems, and lots still to learn. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 11:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Thanks for thinking of this approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The number claimed by the organizers is fine to include as long as it is clearly said that way. Then this is clearly coverage of a claim, not of attendance. It would be automatically known that such will be a wildly inflated number. But other sourced information about attendance estimates should CERTAINLY be included. Otherwise there is no coverage in the article of actual estimated attendance, which is an important thing to cover. And the sourced data on individual marches certainly helps. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * False. True that we must attribute the number to organizers, false that we have proper sourcing for a lower estimate. Please take any sources you know of to refute my statement to the ongoing discussion at RS noticeboard. Pending such sourcing, we cannot make the claim online - this is a most basic rule of wiki.   petrarchan47  t  c   18:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The promoted double standard doesn't fly. Setting a very low standard for putting in a high (certainly wildly exaggerated) number, and promoting a high sourcing standard to exclude lower estimates. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My friend, thank you for sharing your opinion but as you know we build articles based on RS. It would be best for you to join the ongoing RS discussion linked to above. The CVS source has been consensed as bogus for this claim, even by jytdog who found and originally entered it.   petrarchan47  t  c   18:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"[5] or "two million"[6] were variously cited." This is currently the lead, but should not be, for it gives equal weight to the obviously false claim of 2 million by the organizers to the reports made by non-partisan reporters. I suggest we revert the lead back to before all of Petrarchan's edits of October 11th and not edit it until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. Sepsis II (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Obviously false" is not the position of a reliable source&mdash;although I have seen some opinions/blogs expressing it, they are not sufficiently reliable for us to regard the figure as officially debunked. Because there is at least one reliable source that supports each figure, both should be cited and given equal weight without treating either as authoritative. alanyst 19:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A relibale source repeating the organizers claim does not give that number any authorization. It is quite biased to give that equal weight.  I have attributed the 2 million to the organizers as it should be.  Arzel (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just left the following note on the RS Board. the effort to temporarily settle this failed, as User:Petrarchan47 broke WP:3RR and reverted reference to the NY Times article in this dif with edit note "Removed false claim that "hundreds of thousands)" followed by a slight edit with edit note "Oops, didn't mean to press enter)" and a comment, out of place, (below) on Talk here continued arguing against citing the lower number at all, and asking "I have a special request, that no one take me to the 3RR noticeboard. I did make a correction, but didn't actually mean to press "enter" as I remembered I may have a few hours left before I'm allowed to change this bit again. Oops."  If Petrarchan had used the 2nd edit to revert herself I would be inclined not to bring 3RR but that a) she did not and b) continued the arguments driving her edit warring and made no acknowledgement of discussion here about the numbers in general, I don't see why that special request should be honored.  Looking for input from 3rd parties." P has broken 3RR in letter and most importantly, in spirit. If P wants to move her comment below, up here to this section that would be great but we should keep responses to it here, and the continuing discussion, to maintain some order. Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting now I'm going to be off the grid for 9 days. I have been just trying to keep this to a reasonable "center". Petrarchan has been badly out of line on this, and trying to take this to an implausible extreme, and this needs to be stopped. Tryptofish has been a dispassionaate moderator and if they get involved, while I'm gone I support whatever they say. Looks like Jytdog is also very moderate and I support their efforts. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North, since it's never a vote and since there isn't a cabal, that really isn't necessary. I've been watching this mess from a distance and will continue to watch it, but frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick question, P has been saying that the CTV source is out b/c it was posted at 6:30 PM, the day of the March and she wrote that marches in Hawaii would not even have started yet. However, 6:30 PM Ontario time is 1:30 Hawaii time, and marches in Hawaii started at noon in Honolulu and in Waikiki and in Waikiki it was already done by 1ish. So by 6:30 you have all of North and South America, as far out as Hawaii, and all of Europe too. With all the realtime recording that was going on, it would not have been hard to do a quick estimate. And that is what the CTV article says, "an estimated 200,000...." Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Pease see WP:OR and refrain from elaborate armchair investigations. Instead go with the way the sources talk about the subject. Saves us all headaches, time and trouble!   petrarchan47  t  c   06:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You objected to the source on the grounds that it could not be accurate based on its time and date since marches could not be countable yet; I responded to that argument, showing they could be. How is my answer to your objection any less OR than your objection? Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why I introduced that source in the first place, is that it was one of the few media outlets I found that even tried to come up with its own number, instead of using the organizers' number. It literally says "an estimated 200,000". Petrachn you have said elsewhere that you believe I like the number and source because it is small and that this somehow makes Monsanto look good or maybe less bad;  this is not accurate. I like the source because it appears to have actually tried to do some independent reporting; the number in it could be large or small for all I care. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:petrarchan47 are you aware of any reliable source other than CTV and the NYT that does not simply use the organizers' number of 2M or that appears to have tried to validate the 2M number? Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional sources stating "Hundreds of Thousands"
 * | Hundreds of protesters rally against Monsanto Event at WorldBeat Cultural Center, Balboa Park May 26,2013 "SAN DIEGO - Protesters in San Diego joined hundreds of thousands around the world in a march against genetically modified food on Saturday."
 * | Montanans March against Monsanto May 27, 2013 "Hundreds of thousands of people across the country and the world joined together over the weekend to protest the use of Monsanto products in big-brand food companies."
 * | Hundreds march against Monsanto in downtown Bremerton May 25, 2013 - posted before the end of the day on the 25th, however at 7:20 PM Pacific Time most if not all marches were completed. "The event was planned as part of a global initiative called Millions Against Monsanto, in which hundreds of thousands of protestors gathered in more than 400 cities around the world." VViking Talk Edits 12:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera also uses the protesters number, and gives no indication of any range, which in keeping with other major media that covered the march.

Activists from around the globe participated in a global ‘March Against Monsanto’ Saturday, calling for the permanent boycott of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This was the second global, anti-Monsanto protest — the first took place on May 25 with over 2 million participants, organizers said.

I think this is good enough for Wikipedia. We need to drop the idea that adding OR, however subtly or popular the practice, is acceptable. RS does not give anything but this number. Can we go with RS and move on from this matter?  petrarchan47  t  c   02:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera also peddles the myth about farmer suicides. I don't know if we should be relying on them for factual statements in this article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Off-topic aside: the farmer suicides are themselves not a myth. That they are more Monsanto's fault than the Indian government's liberalization, which left farmers out to dry (without access to good advice and without reasonable access to capital) is a myth. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On topic - al jazeera (english) is generally considered a reliable source:


 * 1) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_45
 * 2) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1
 * 3) Al_Jazeera_English Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the suicides in the context of Monsanto certainly has mythmaking qualities. That Al Jazeera is generally considered reliable is one thing: that they've shown themselves to peddle myths about this specific topic should give us pause about using them in this specific article, as their journalism appears to be trending toward advocacy rather than information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you on the propagation of the Monsanto/suicide tie. However, the quote that P provides above seems reasonable - they were careful enough to attribute the 2M number to the organizers, which is better than some others that repeated it without attribution. It doesn't bring anything new to the table with respect to the number question for the May march, however.  And I noticed too that they shied away from giving any total number for the October march, and with respect to numbers saying with respectable (if somewhat ambiguous) carefulness: "Photos appear to show hundreds of marchers taking to the streets in cities around the world including Vienna, London, Chennai and Sydney. Rallies have kicked off in U.S. cities as well including Los Angeles and Denver." Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Non Al Jazeera related comments

 * How would you summarize the results of the discussion on the noticeboard that you started, especially from previously uninvolved parties? Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How can you justify adding "figures of a few hundred thousand...", insinuating plural sources, "were variously cited" when you are citing only a little blurb at the bottom of an article that wasn't remotely about the march? I have been consistent, all articles I've used in building this page were directly about the march. If you could justify using this source to say anything in this article, it could go no further than "In an article about GMOranges, the NYTs mentioned the MAM, and became the only source to cite a turnout number of hundreds of thousands, rather than (what all other sources say)." If you went beyond this, trying to make a claim about a range of numbers, you cannot insinuate that these sources are equal in terms of weight or frequency. Sources directly about the march are more highly valued, and sources not about protest should not be used at all, particularly to cite an outrageously fringe claim. I think to mention this one source serves no purpose and the idea is silly. I would like to know why the people at this page have such trouble with this? Go with the sources! No fringe theories,  but if you must mention that the oranges article mentioned the dang number, realize this is the epitome of a fringe statement for which the author cited no source, and that fact must be conveyed to the reader. This is so that no one misreads the statement, which sounds like we've got an equal number of equally-relevant sources on either side.    petrarchan47  t  c   06:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks like WP:HORSEMEAT rather than an answer to Jytdog's question. The advice from RS/N seemed pretty clear. Alexbrn talk 06:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On my Talk page the other day Petra, you pointed out (politely) that I had misread your question. From your response above, it looks like you have misread Jytdogs question. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 09:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Petrarchan47 I find it unfortunate that you separated my question from your remarks about al jazeera by adding the section header (which I did not add and which I find nonsensical), as it now looks like I did add the header, and more importantly, it looks like my question was not a direct response to your post, and it was. In any case, I have my take on the RS/N outcome but I am interested to hear yours.  Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

A third front - jimmy wales' talk page
Just so folks here are aware, User:Petrarchan47 has opened a third discussion about the topic of number of protesters and sources, now on Jimmy Wales' Talk page, here. Petrachan, it is good form to notify interested parties when you open discussions. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and please folks: reply there (or take it to WP:ANI or whatever) and not here. Let's try and keep this Talk page at least vaguely focused on content issues. Alexbrn talk 13:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Numbers note
This morning User:Thargor Orlando removed one of two instances of the "numbers note" I wrote, explaining the numbers provided for the number of protesters in this dif, with edit note "rm strange footnote. Numbers are well-cited." (the initial note which Thargor did not delete, appears in the lead; the note was re-cited in the discussion of the numbers in the body). I wrote the note due to the extended and difficult discussion we have had on this page, expressing what I understood to be the consensus view from the discussion above and the discussion of the RS board. I think it should stay...  Note - let's not turn this into a discussion of the numbers themselves! Let's concentrate on whether an edit note is useful. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's abnormal to have an editorial note like this. Regrettably, this article has been the focus of some excessively dramatic past disputes, but we should not let that manifest itself in the article text. Alexbrn talk 13:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was wondering where that text was. I think the footnote in both places introduces unnecessary doubt into the sources.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that edit notes are unusual. Disputes of this intensity, discussed in several different places, are unusual too. Part of the intent of the note is indeed to say that neither number is very reliable - that there is no reliable source for a statement about reality here. I am big fan of being clear about ambiguity when ambiguity is all you have.  If consensus forms to get rid of the note i will not object. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here, I didn't check to see who put it in and I'm less inclined to see it as a passive-aggressive attempt to discredit anything now than I was before. My preference is still for the note to not be there, but not as strongly as other sustained issues. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The figures we use are reliably sourced, though the attribution is incomplete. We say they are estimates; we say one figure is the organizers' estimate; but we neglect to say the lower figure is an NYT estimate (or an "independent" estimate). Whether the figures are true or not is a separate question which we should not editorially speculate about. Alexbrn talk 15:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am ok with it being removed completely. just wanted to discuss a bit so it was clear why it was there and why it is coming out. thx! Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, we don't know whether the NYT figure is indeed an estimate (implying some mathematical process produced it), an unattributed reference to a number found elsewhere, or simply something the reporter pulled out of their hat. If it's to be described at all, "figure" or "number" is probably as far as we can go. alanyst 17:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The NYT number is indeed called a "figure". I just removed the numbers note. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GMO controversy and Monsanto
User:Petrarchan47 recently made a change to the GMO controversy and Mosanto section. His edit summary said it was to move away from weasel words and go with the Washington post phraseology. I felt it odd we moved to the phraseology of the least scientific of the three referenced articles so I changed the wording to more match the Scientific American I did not just want to modify and run so I am adding this to the talk page for other editors input. VViking Talk Edits 05:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't find User: Petrarchan47's change to be a big change in meaning, and I think that WaPo source is a really great discussion of the issues and the difficulties we as a society have when it comes to rational discussion of these issues. I don't understand P's edit note (what words did she consider to be weaselly?) and I don't think it is a good thing, that language that was the product of a lot of discussion and achieved a fragile consensus, was changed without discussion... and there is already a discussion underway above about the sync tag. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the wording, from a grammatical standpoint, was worse than the change, which waters down the scientific consensus somewhat and provides some openings into the topic that weren't there previously. My preference would be to go back to what it was initially, where the scientific consensus was clearly stated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, since we're referencing the GMO Controversies article using a template, we really ought to be in WP:SYNC with what is said there. Alexbrn talk 12:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I am hesitant to change that section... I was hoping more contributors would weigh in above but it seems that not too many people are interested in this article anymore. Not sure what to do... sorry. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)