Talk:Séralini affair/Archive 6

Background section (and lawsuits)
This was repetitive and there were sourcing queries, so I've tightened it. Note that I only copy-edited. Most of it is unchecked, and I don't know whether anything important is missing. Before and after. SarahSV (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of this information is also repeated at Gilles-Éric Séralini. Moving and trimming was discussed above. I think it should just be a summary of his previous work on GM and responses to it by the regulatory agencies. I trimmed out a lot of the detail here, but was too bold in removing some info. The 2011 paper is up at RFC and I should not have touched that (forgot about that when editing sorry). Not sure why the lawsuit is relevant in the background section for the 2012 paper as I don't think greenpeace funded it (it is mentioned at Seralini's page and certainly applies there). It could be mentioned alongside the 2007 paper, but it kind of sticks out where it is now. AIR corn (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is about:


 * "In 2010 Séralini sued Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, for libel, after Fellous criticized Séralini's research, in part because it was funded by Greenpeace. The judge ruled that the charge about the funding was defamatory. Fellous was fined €1000; Séralini was awarded a symbolic €1 in damages."


 * This was at the end of the article with the 2015 libel decision, so I moved it into chronological place and shortened it. I left it in because it seems relevant that he has sued over some of this criticism. SarahSV (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Something that should also be in the article is that Fellous was found guilty of fraud and forgery for forging another scientist's name without permission in an effort to smear Seralini. This happened in 2015 I believe.  It is all related to discrediting Seralini because of his 2012 study.  I can look for sources.  Minor4th  03:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But he sued him in 2010, two years before the study was released. I think it fits in better at his bio article or if you can find more legal issues its own section. It seems out of place in among the previous studies. Did you have issues with the trimming up of the second and third paragraph. AIR corn (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with that the lawsuit against Marianne magazine and journalist Jean-Claude Jaillet that is currently in the article -and- the lawsuit won against Marc Fellous both should be in this article.  Both of those lawsuits should also be in the article Gilles-Éric Séralini. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Currently, the page has two sections in which lawsuits are discussed: the background section, and a subsequent section about Seralini's lawsuit following the disputed journal article. That makes sense to me. The lawsuit that took place before the publication and press conference belongs in the background section, whereas the lawsuit that occurred following the publication and retraction, based on the allegation of scientific "fraud", should be covered in its own section as part of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: On the other hand, if we can find ways to make the background section more succinct, that would be good too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is actually a little confusing - re: Fellows, there were 2 court outcomes: 1 finding he had defamed/libeled Seralini (in 2010 I believe) and an indictment for fraud and forgery related to a letter he wrote about Seralini (in 2015).  The libel suit against Marianne was definitely related to the 2012 study.  The reporting about this is difficult to follow.  Let me look into this further, and if anyone can shed light on this better, that would be great.  Minor4th  20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Better sources on the lawsuits would be very helpful. SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Break
I agree that the section is still too wordy. I copy-edited it in an effort not to change too much, but it would have been faster to rewrite it. I would like to remove:


 * "The HCB questioned the authors' independence, noting that, in 2010, the "body to which the authors belong" displayed material from a 2008 Austrian anti-GM study, the results of which had been acknowledged as mistaken by the study's authors."

The relevance of this is unclear. The source says:


 * "It will also be noted that the authors' absence of conflict of interest, which is mentioned at the end of  the  article,  might be questioned. On  5  January  2010,  the body  to  which  the authors  belong  continues  to  display  on  its  public  website  the  results  of  studies – including those of the Austrian study of November 2008 – claiming to demonstrate negative effects of MON810 on reproduction, even though those results have been recognised as erroneous by the authors of the study themselves."

SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is something of the non-sequitur about the source, possibly due to editing. Though I can fill in the gaps, it's not up to us. This is mostly a summary of Gilles-Éric_Séralini so copy what that article does: "The HCB also questioned the authors' independence".  137.222.248.111 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the study
The article doesn't mention quite a bit of the detailed criticism from scientists. The "scientific evaluation" section is incomplete and contains lots of quotes that don't mean much. There is a lot of good material on the retraction page in the letters to the editor. These are RS, particularly the ones from associations rather than individuals.

The article would benefit from a section near the top with two sub-sections: a detailed description of the study followed by detailed criticism, point by point. SarahSV (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add more if you can find RS for it, I found a ton of blogs and and the like but not much usable that's not already there. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, the letters to the editor would be a good source for specific criticisms. Also, the VIB source did a really good job of breaking down the criticism and explaining it in a way that was not too technical.  I am on board with Sarah's suggestion to have a section with a point by point discussion of each criticism. <b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 01:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided a source below that talks about some of the main criticisms and how Seralini responded to them. Additionally, Seralini enumerated all of the criticisms and refuted them here (that response is already a ref in the our article). --David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I also like the idea of having more detail about the scientific design issues. (And we need to be careful about how we assign weight with respect to Seralini's "refutations".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That is the key issue: that several factors undermined the design of the study, so that nothing useful could come out of it. There is some interesting material about how it returned a few results that should have been a red flag to the researchers. It is hard to summarize without being too wordy and without simply quoting, but I think it would be worth doing. SarahSV (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

where are we on this? Are we ready to start pulling this section together? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Minor4th, speaking only for myself I'm not ready to write anything, but if others are, that's fine by me. SarahSV (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to work on this when I have time. It is clearly important for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not really ready to start writing either but I'd like to start thinking about structure. And here's a non-scientific source that lays out the criticisms and response in straightforward language: .  I'll try to gather some other good sources that will help us write the criticism section in better detail. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think a good structure would be:
 * Background
 * 2012 study
 * Study background (description of the study)
 * Press conferences (which needs a rewrite; currently called Publication strategy)
 * Response from scientists (summarized succinctly, not a list of quotes)
 * General reception (also keeping quotes to a minimum)
 * Officials
 * Media
 * Lawsuit
 * Retraction
 * Republication


 * Seralini's rebuttal to the criticism could be included in "Response from scientists," if there's space, or if there isn't, in a separate section directly under it. SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think maybe take out the "Lawsuit" section because the 2 lawsuits can be discussed in the background section and in the Response sections in context. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The background section is pre-study, so the later lawsuit doesn't really belong there. For now it's not clear where else to put it, which is why it stands alone. I'm hoping that, as the reception sections become clearer, it will be obvious where to place it. SarahSV (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think so too (about taking out the separate lawsuit section). The suit currently in the lawsuit section is the one over allegations of misconduct and fraud, and there is already material about Henry Miller's accusations of the same things in the section before, so it makes sense to combine all of that.


 * There is a closely related point that I have been noticing in looking at the scientific sources, and it's something that I think I should raise first here in talk. A significant number of sources written by scientists (as opposed to written by journalists) also raise, very explicitly, the opinion that the retracted study was not only incorrect, but outright fraudulent. I would be inclined to report this on the page (with specific attributions, obviously), if other editors do not object. In doing so, however, I also recognize the importance of noting, where applicable, any biases (such as industry connections) on the part of the scientists making the accusations, and also noting Seralini's rebuttals of the accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am ready to start tackling this if others are up for discussion and collaboration. I have just read through the article a couple of times and I have an alternate proposal for structure:


 * Background (include the 2010 defamation suit and victory)
 * 2012 Study
 * Background/description of study
 * Press conference and initial publication of study - this section should include a succinct description of the criticism to the press conference and news embargo
 * Reception
 * Media (initial media response)
 * Scientific community (list specific criticisms/support and the response to criticism; include Marc Fellows defamation lawsuit and 2015 forgery indictment)
 * Regulatory response (include initial reaction and follow-up conclusions)
 * Retraction (this should include the pressure on the journal for retraction, the retraction itself and stated reasons, and a brief discussion of the response to the retraction)
 * Republication - this should be very short; to the extent there is further response to the republication, that can be included

To me, this flows better and allows for a chronological progression in the article. Comments? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a good plan. Of course, we can make adjustments if needed as we go along. If I understand correctly, the material that is currently from "officials" would go into the "regulatory" section – right? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 19:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I am going to try to revise the "Scientific evaluation" section, according to the discussion here. I'm going to make it less of a quote farm, and to put more emphasis on the actual details of the science, as opposed to just quoting scientists saying how much they disliked the study.

One thing that I want to point out is that much of the material that is currently in the section does not really fit there, because it is about recommendations made to government agencies by scientific panels, primarily advising governments not to make policy or legal changes based on the study. The material there also needs some serious rewriting, but it really belongs in the section on "Regulatory response", instead of in "Scientific community". I'd say that everything starting with the paragraph that begins "Many national food safety and regulatory agencies condemned the paper", through to the end of the "Scientific evaluation" section, would be in this category. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding your plan to make it "less of a quote farm", could you please be WP:CAUTIOUS and show us a before and after of each individual paragraph you plan to change, rather than making a huge change that includes moving sections of material around so that we cannot easily figure out what was changed? I do not see a problem with having a number of quotes that gives a sense of the diversity and agreement of the critics and any subtleties that differentiate their concerns, rather some grand generalizations that could end up being more like WP:OR. The same applies to Seralini's response and Seralini's defenders.  However, I think the number and length of some of the quotes of the critics is a bit much (such as the 3-line quote for one professor (Paulette Goddard) in a mainstream newspaper), especially when so little space is devoted to Seralini's defenders and specific defenses to the allegations his group raised.   --David Tornheim (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the material that you say does not belong in the "scientific evaluation", I agree that it should be moved to "Regulatory response". There are some in the list in that paragraph that I believe should be removed.  I will make a separate section on that. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I'm the editor who has been saying all along that we should take things slowly, so of course, I'll be happy to do just that. It's why I'm describing things in talk before actually making edits. Since you seem to have concerns specifically about the quotations, what I was talking about was the section that is called Scientific evaluation, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th paragraphs. If there are any quotes in those paragraphs that you want to preserve, please indicate them here, and I'll be happy to cooperate. But I'm really referring to just that part of the page, and those particular quotes all go in the same direction, so it's not really a matter of diversity. The main thing I had in mind was to decrease the amount of Scientist X said "Seralini was awful", and increase the amount of explaining the actual scientific issues. (A good example is that long quote from the professor, who is Marion Nestle; her title is named for Paulette Goddard.) And yes, I intend to include Seralini's responses. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin JzG/Guy removed the reason for the retraction of the study which is the scope of this article. A rather on point info, but some think otherwise.
 * Include the Reason for the withdraw (per Journal explanation https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology ), currently this info is entirely absent.


 * Suggested edit: "In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), retracted Séralini's paper after the authors refused to withdraw it, because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While the bit after the dash is correct, yes, the use of "not for any scientific errors" is completely unfounded. The choice of rats and small sampling size were what caused the journal to deem the results "inconclusive." They simply ruled out INTENTIONAL deception, not poor science. Parabolist (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed that part. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And to be pedantic, they did not rule out, they just said they found no evidence of intentional dodginess. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Per journal explanation. prokaryotes (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously not Because we don't misrepresent sources for the purpose of advocating a POV. To repeat: retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose That information can be summed up later in the article, the fact that it was withdrawn is the key takeaway for the opening paragraphs. Parabolist (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you do agree to include this key info? prokaryotes (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC is on your (incidentally ungrammatical) wording, which is not a really neutral expansion of the reasons for withdrawal. We can include the "no fraud" stuff but need to accompany it with an accurate account of why the article has retraction imposed: the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No change needed, as stated by Alexbrn above, so oppose this proposal. The reason for withdrawal was: "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology." In other words, the conclusions were not supported by the data. I have no objection to including a qualifier along the lines of "while the editors found fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data", but the reason for withdrawal was that the data did not support the conclusions and we don't water that down. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The journal makes it very clear, quote: "A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached", and quote: "Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." What you and Alexbrn are concluded does not match up. prokaryotes (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. We are not going to say otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sources show there were scientific errors (i.e., inconclusive results and improper conclusions), so I would be inappropriate to remove the struck phrase. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is hugely critical to the article. It's well sourced. Just mentioning it was retracted without showing the circumstances and reasons why is grossly misleading to the reader. LesVegas (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The editors withdrew the paper on the grounds that the data it presented did not support the conclusions it drew. It is important to make this clear. Maproom (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The way it was worded. The fact the paper was retracted is a hugely notable and the reason (being inconclusive) need to be made clear and should not be in scare quotes. Also cherry picked statements chosen to lesson the impact of its withdrawal should not be attached straight after the main reason. It could be mentioned later, but in its current form it is written as if the paper only had minor faults (if so it would not have been retracted). AIR corn (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not voting here until I actually see the wording of what is the proposed change, however aircorn, you did bring up a good point. You said, "if the paper only had minor faults (if so it would not have been retracted)" and the fact it was retracted when it shouldn't have been retracted is really part of why this is called the Seralini "affair" and not just a controversial paper. The normal way for a controversial paper like this to be falsified would be another independent study attempting to replicate results with whatever minor? flaws that were found corrected. If it can't be replicated, then the flaws were obviously not just minor, and if it can be replicated, then the flaws were minor.Redddbaron (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was called the Seralini affair and was notable as such well before the paper was retracted. The retraction and subsequent re-publishing are really just additions to the story. There were lots of flaws in the studies design (all mentioned in the article), which ultimately culminated in a collection of statistically insignificant data. Why he chose to draw the conclusions he did we can only speculate, but it was these erroneous conclusions that eventually lead to the paper being retracted. I would classify this as a major fault in any paper. There is no need for a study to try and replicate the results because the results are not really the problem, it is the interpretation and presentation of them. In any case, there have been other GMO feeding studies and none have made any cancer claims (the vast majority finding no differences between those fed the control feed). AIR corn (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation to republication in Lede
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The reference has been reinserted as as a reference for the text "In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed."

It is my view that this paper does not support the statement. I have no issue with including a link to the paper within this article, since it's clearly relevant, but as I think I have made clear, that is not the place. To include it as a source for the fact of republication is technically WP:OR and in any case is unnecessary as the existing secondary source covers it. To include it where it is, as a source for the review process, is simply wrong, as the paper itself does not cover this.

The options appear to be:
 * 1) Include the reference as a source for In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed.
 * 2) Include the paper within the article, but not as a reference fir this para.
 * 3) Include the paper within the para as a reference for the fact of republication only (i.e. after the journal name).

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

 * 2 (first preference); if this is absolutely unacceptable then 3. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 or potentially 3. There are secondary sources describing the republication without peer-review, so the only thing this citation really should be used for if anything is to document the republication event. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3 I see no problem including it to support the statement that it has been republished. It is a WP:Primary source, but this is allowed (don't quite follow the technical OR interpretation). I can't support 2 without more info. Do you mean as an external link or for an as yet unwritten statement? FWIW, if I was new to this article I would expect to see that source attached to the first mention of republication. I agree it can't be used to cover the whole statement. AIR corn (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the current layout, with the paper in External Links? I think that makes it a lot easier to find. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw that after I read the below section. I am fine with it in the External Links. AIR corn (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinion I got RFC'd yet again, though by now the situation is so confused that I can no longer be sure what I was to comment on. I think probably this section; if anyone disagrees, let me know and I'll try again where indicated. Meanwhile: this article is about the controversy and not primarily about the substance. Accordingly it is altogether proper (as long as all is in context and in good sense at least) to mention any publications, criticisms, retractions etc. Generally I agree with User:Aircorn in this section. As for OR, it gets trotted out whenever anyone disagrees with anything they cannot refute, such as a citation of material as evidence. In this connection any such objection would be ridiculous, though I accept that there is plenty of pious precedent for even more tenuous invocation of OR. But that is pretty ignominious as justification goes. I have no axe to grind in this matter, but as the article stands, I wouldn't bother to change it. But if there is a strong move to banish the link to External links, I am not much exercised. JonRichfield (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regulatory response
In the paragraph dedicated to Regulatory Response, two entities are listed which I do not believe are Regulatory Agencies, and should not be in that paragraph:  the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie and the Technical University of Denmark. Is it okay if I remove them or move them to another section? If you have a specific place they should be moved, I'm all ears. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mention of their support should remain in the article, but I don't see any reason to move them either. The paragraph context is currently not claiming they are regulatory agencies, but rather that they are agreeing with the regulatory agency conclusions mentioned earlier. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the question here is a continuation of what is being discussed above, in, where I think there is a growing consensus to change the "Officials" section into a broader one about regulation, and that's where the paragraphs about scientific advice to government agencies should go. Thus, there would be a part about scientists responding, and a part about governments responding. I agree with Kingofaces that they should remain in some form, but I also agree with David that they don't really belong among the regulatory agencies. The Danish source gives me a dead link, so I'm not sure about it. The Vlaams source links to the full report, and in other talk sections, editors have agreed that that is a particularly good one for sourcing scientific criticisms, and I'm planning on making heavy use of it when I revise the scientific criticism part. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the indictment of Marc Fellous by the High Court of Paris on 25 November 2015 for “forgery” and “the use of forgery” be included here? He was the former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption. It certainly is part of the controversy and was part of the trial Seralini won recently.Redddbaron (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to be careful here due to WP:BLPCRIME: this is just an indictment, not a conviction, of a relatively unknown person. So prima facie it shouldn't be included. Finding a reliable source for this is also eluding me, could you provide one? (Google is returning pretty hopeless sources -- including Prison Planet -- presumably because I'm in an english language bubble) shellac (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice example of WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

New study
There's a new review out that gives a statistical critique of Seralini's retracted study that Sunrise found. I'm not quite getting around to incorporating it yet, so I figured I'd leave it here for others to look at. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The reanalysis critique of Seralini's work did not rely on correcting for multiple comparisons. It found the results insignificant irrespective of the multiple comparisons. revised my edit to talk about multiple comparisons. This is incorrect and should be reverted. Comments? Lfstevens (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I missed that those were pre-Bonferroni correction values before doing the actual statistical tests Seralini didn't do. I tweaked the wording while keeping it straightforward. My overall preference with my original edit was to cut some science lingo out of it and explain it simply for a more general reader. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
Recently admin JzG (also known under the name Guy) removed systematical all the mentions that Seralini's studies have been published in peer reviewed literature, and removed at least 2 related study papers (See DiF's in above section). Since the admin appears unwilling to discuss his edits (see above section), I ask for other opinions.
 * 1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
 * 2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
 * 3. Should Arbcom enforce discretionary sanctions for admin JzG (See recent decision in regards to GMO's), since it seems to me that his edits are disruptive, and he shows no signs of willingness to work in a community environment, and to support neutral articles. prokaryotes (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your third point needs to be taken up at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not here. AIR corn (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)oment


 * Comment Most published studies should be peer reviewed so there is generally no need to say this if we say it is published in a scientific journal. The problem here seems to stem from the fact that a Seralini paper was later retracted by the journal and then re-published without any further peer review. Retraction itself is extremely rare as is publishing without further peer review. I am not we should use this rare occurrence to highlight the norm for a particular article. The second point seems to relate to the removal of a study published by Seralini supporting his other claims. Personally I think this can be included as long as responses to it are also included. Most published material gets responses and I am sure Seralini gets his fair share. I addressed the third point above and feel it should be removed as it will distract from the rfc. AIR corn (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the above, in response to the three questions you pose above. Exactly as Aircorn says above, I removed redundant use of the term "peer reviewed" because virtually all scientific research is published that way, and including it amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority unless it's specifically relevant due to issues with the peer review itself (as for example the extremely unusual review prior to the republication of the retracted 2012 paper). The quesitons you include above are a prime example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Especially since I actually also toned down what seemed to me to be a very problematic description of the process adopted by ESE, a characterisation of the process which I think went well beyond what Nature says in the cited source and looks to be trying to accuse ESE of deliberately publishing fraudulent research. Feel free to report my edits at the noticeboards if you think they fall short of NPOV, but demands for ArbCom sanctions against named editors against whom you have a grudge do have a habit of backfiring. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignore the fact that the paper has been peer-reviewed before, and now you claim "extremely unusual review prior to the republication". Also read what Aircorn wrote again, its not exactly what you want, but you pretend it is. prokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're starting to sound like Dana Ullman demanding that no interpretation of any study is valid other than his own. This is a retracted paper, republished without any modification from the original. That's pretty unusual. In fact I can't think of a single other example (though no doubt they exist). And the only previous example I that springs to mind where a paper has been launched by press release in advance of its formal publication is Fleischmann & Pons' cold fusion paper. The source draws attention to the fact that there was no further peer review, and all I am doing is following the source. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jzg's comment below mine seems to be aligned with how I see these questions. AIR corn (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the above And (3) looks like pure WP:BATTLE craft. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you now Wikihounding me? Notice that Alexbrn is claiming i edit war here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayurveda#Recent_edits and immediately looks up my other edits, and posts not in support. prokaryotes (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What!? As you know I was on your Talk page, and so I noticed there mention of an RfC. Being an eager member of the community, when I see an RfC that I can participate in, I do it! (That's the whole point of RfC's ain't it?) Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You intimidate me, you threaten me, you follow my other edits, over basic article improvements - whats next? prokaryotes (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think you're right. If you have problems with my behaviour take it to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the above in fact, this RfC demonstrates a certain lack of the HT in IDHT. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the above. It goes to WP:RS, WP:DUE, and common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * tentative Include I've looked at the four diffs above and I think the removal of the fact that Seralini has published other papers which come to the same, albeit dubious, or similar conclusions that HAVE undergone peer review or at least are in peer reviewed journals is relevant to the article. However, I can't find sources which state this. If PK has such sources Id appreciate them being provided before this RFC closes. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All his studies have been published in peer reviewed journals, which is not explicit mentioned, but normally foudn on journal websites under about or similar links. The study from 2011 which i refer above has 91 cites which is also an indicator which merits mentioning, and since we have a section for previous papers, which are related to the 2012 publication. The study from the first DIF above was published in Environmental Sciences Europe, 2011. It also is noteworthy that the retracted paper from 2012 by Food and Chemical Toxicology was retracted because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors - they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. Later publications by S were again published in FCT. prokaryotes (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not appear to be making any observations here that are new, or worthy of inclusion in our article. So my response to you is "so what?" -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is not a magic talisman conferring immunity form criticism. There are many factors that are taken into account when assessing published work, which include things like journal impact factor, reputations of journals for uncritical publication of certain subjects (Chinese journals publishing studies on acupuncture, for example), responses within the literature and more widely, subsequent replication and so on. The Séralini affair specifically refers to a journal article that was retracted - that's a big black mark even if someone else subsequently republishes it. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" a real-world issue, which is that this study is currently considered to be worthless and its republication questionable. I understand that you wish it were not so, but that is what the sources say. It's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting PEer Review is a magic protective cloak, however I think it is important to distinguish quacks who publish dozens of papers in irrelevant journals with no peer review and scientists who publish within the bounds of the scientific method, even if those scientists come to unjustified conclusions. The fact that Seralini is a scientist and not a quack is relevant to that section of the article and should in some sense explicitly be in there, it could be resolved by simply atating where each fo the mentioned articles was published because at the moment you have to go to the references for that. If you believe his preious position within the scientific community isn't relevant then why have a section of previous papers at all? SPACKlick (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is reasonable and fundamentally I agree, but per WP:FRINGE there is a risk in including primary sources of this kind without any context establishing how those sources have been received (especially remembering the homeopathy-sponsored "all feed is evil" study, which is just shockingly poor). It is also more relevant to the article on Séralini himself than in an article on a controversy about a specific paper. Here, I think we very much want to look for WP:RS sources that establish the context and make the link to the original paper, as per your argument above. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Obviously i support the inclusion of mentioning that publications have been peer-reviewed, and related studies should stay in the article. prokaryotes (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As the lede stands it seems reasonable to me, in that it mentions the refusal to withdraw, the retraction, and the review, all of which need mention. Concerning all that, I suggest no change. However, like Prokaryotes, I think that the hiring of reviewers deserves mention, and at least, does no harm if factual, but rather adds relevant perspective in context. I urge that it be mentioned. JonRichfield (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support both 1&2 It is rather unfortunate that reliable sources are constantly being suppressed when they go against the extremist skeptical POV. Of course these should be included, as long as they are well-attributed, no question. LesVegas (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What? They are not being "suppressed". They are both included and pretty much always have been. We just don't wave the magic wand of "peer-reviewed" in order to try to confer a legitimacy that was effectively removed by retraction. We do not use them as sources for their own existence (perr WP:NOR, but we absolutely do link them and highlight them with full citations for the reader's convenience. This gives them much more prominence than if they were bueired away as references for something for which they are not actually reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support both 1&2 The attempts to discredit Seralini often try to make the study seem more exceptional and unusual than is the case.  To ignore the fact that the study went through the normal review process and is very similar to studies from Monsanto that also had inconclusive results from using too few rats.  Seralini simply extended the studies that Monsanto did that showed data that looked troubling--after having to fight to get that data that the industry claimed was confidential.  To leave out the fact that the publication was peer reviewed helps to reinforce the double-standards of scrutiny that were not applied to the industry sponsored studies that used the same number and kind of rats.  Why this is not mentioned in the article shows problems with our article's NPOV. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Séralini discredited himself by engaging in science by media release. The study was retracted, that's a fact. The study is included int he article, that's a fact, too, and one which this badly formed RfC studiously ignores. Essentially the question is: should we give the articles less prominence and make them harder to find by including them as references for their own existence, in violation of WP:OR, rather than, as at present, listing both publications with full citations and using reliable independent sources to support he facts of publication. In other words, it's an RfC asking people to support ignoring policy. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe you are wrong. Seralini was ethically bound to both include the information and make sure that information was disseminated to the greater public at large. He did a toxicity study, but it is required that when doing a toxicity study and finding cancer results, even inconclusive, they be mentioned and a call for further studies to quickly resolve it since the products are already being used by the public. What is unethical was the attempt to force a retraction and pretend it never happened. That is the actual seralini affair. Why this wiki page has been hijacked by the very same unethical forces that caused the scandal in the first place is somewhat troubling. If I were to read the wiki page with no knowledge of the Seralini affair, I would come to the conclusion he did something ethically wrong. This page generally reads exactly the opposite of where the true scandal lies. That makes this wiki page highly deceptive and potentially a continuance of the scandal itself. This is the Seralini affair http://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0049-2 Redddbaron (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support both 1&2 per David and Les. Jus  da  fax   16:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * *Support per my above RFC. prokaryotes (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * you already !voted above. You don't get to !vote multiple times in an RfC. Yobol (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * None of the above. Only reasonable, rational, and reality-based position available. jps (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the above, per Aircorn. The above statements appear to be creating an environment which is trying to distract/lend credence to a fringe position. Yobol (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * support 1&2 Although I believe 1 is a non-issue. Include it where it is relevant but no need to emphasize it. 2 is fairly obvious. Understanding the papers themselves that are at the center of the controversy is key information and should be included. Redddbaron (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)