Talk:StarLink corn recall/Archives/2013

Untitled
Not editwarring just trying to establish a lede. However the tone of the debate here indicates that I should look to collaborate elsewhere. Good luck with your article Victuallers (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for reverting your edits. Instead of reverting I could have just corrected them. I felt a revert was warranted because of the drastic changes to the article that also included false information that had been removed before. I agree that the lead does over balance the article. The reason for this is because the other sections need expanding. I have since added expansion templates to those. I have never seen a description section added to replace the lead. I always thought the lead was the description. This is another reason that it was easier to revert than correct.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

More sources

 * This one mentions countries bailing from GMO after the TB recall. Need to find out which/how many.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact on world corn market.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * High cost of buyer/supplier testing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposing rename (unresolved)
Moved to RfC.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe, as neither you nor anyone else initiated an RfC would you please strike the comment above (which you added at the same time you advised me to an initiate an RfC below) as it will be confusing to anyone who reviews this? If you don't want to, that's fine. This note will help make it more clear.  Thanks tho Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How about renaming this to "Starlink recall" - over 300 products were recalled. I know Taco Bell is the one that caught the press, but a) it is a bit unfair to them and b) it is not accurate... Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Were they recalled for health or environmental reasons?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Starlink corn was found in over 300 products. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to finish.. and Starlink corn was not approved to be in any food. "Taco Bell" branded taco shells sold at supermarkets were one such kind of food.  Tacos from Taco Bell restaurants actually came from a different source, in case you were unaware of that. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about .--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like a bad name for the article. :) Do you have any reasons to offer for one title or another?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The title is fine. Bring it up at RfC if you wish a change it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are other editors other than you and I; let's wait and see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest making a requested move request. Requested moves. AIR corn (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing us to the most appropriate request mechanism, Aircorn. For what it is worth, I like to try working things through on Talk before moving to those.Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I have found only mention Taco Bell as the notable recall. If you wish to find sources that the other StarLink recalls were notable then feel free to create Starlink recalls or StarLink corn etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources include Wall Street Journal listing a whole bunch, ABC (which talks about Taco Bell-branded products they produced), CNN discussing Safeway, to name a few. Plenty of available sources to support this being a Starlink recall as opposed to singling out Taco Bell. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I cannot understand how you can be so fierce, rude ("get stuffed"), and uncompromising when you do not understand the basic facts of the Starlink incident. Competence matters. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create articles about the other StarLink issues. This one is about the Taco Bell recall. I am still curious as to whether you will try to add those articles as environmental recalls in the controversies article. There is no reason to change the name of this article. I consider your attempt to do so is just another bad faith response to an article that you don't like.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed it but yesterday I created a section on the Starlink recall in the allergenicity subsection of the Health section of the Controversies article. This article's existence is fine; I have only tried to improve it and as far as I know nobody, including me, has made an effort to have it deleted.  Thanks for creating it. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't controversial because of the allergens.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This article might not pass muster on its own, especially if someone makes a Starlink recall article. It might be better to expand this article and include all of them, with a rename, as opposed to having yet another fork. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Canoe, can you please provide reasons why the article title and scope should not be expanded to the whole Starlink recall, of which the taco shell recall was a part? Just stating as a fact that "this one is about Taco Bell" is not providing reasons, but is asserting an authority that neither you nor anyone else has.  So would you please provide reasons?  (you asked 'what sources?' and sources have been provided)  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create StarLink recalls--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a reason - again you have to provide reasons around here, otherwise you fall afoul of WP:OWN. If we do a request to move, you will need to give reasons there, so why not give them now?  If you have no reasons, please yield now so we don't have to go through the exercise of a request.   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mediation
Okay, both Jytdog and Canoe have asked for my assistance with this. Lets start things fresh. Each of you, please, briefly state your stance in this conflict, without reference to the other editor. Sergecross73  msg me   00:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. In general I want to work to improve articles, discuss things reasonably when there are disagreements about content (and by reasonable I mean providing and receiving reasons based on wikipedia guidelines and policies), with yielding on both sides to reach compromise. I want civil conversation focused on content - in words that express respect and good faith. There is no dispute about content that cannot be worked out, if things proceed this way, which is fundamental to wikipedia. This is the heart of the issue to me. I have come to the point of WP:SHUN because I have given hope of this happening with Canoe.

With respect to content, there are a ton of issues where there is disagreement that I do not understand. Some of this has been resolved as far as I can see but that has not been acknowledged.
 * 1) Genetically modified food controversies article : The original dispute was that Canoe wanted to have the Starlink incident be included in the Health section of the GM Controversies article. I and others resisted this.  Yesterday I yielded on this and added content about Starlink in the allergenicity subsection of the Health section, and other editors improved what I added.  It makes sense in the allergenicity section, as most of that section discusses concerns about potential allergenicity, and that was exactly the reason why Starlink was not approved.   This seems resolved
 * 2) Genetically modified food controversies article : Canoe has also said that the Starlink incident should be included in the regulatory section, and that was accepted pretty early on.  I believe this is resolved
 * 3) Genetically modified food controversies article: Specifically scope.   Right now the article starts by saying  "The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the relative advantages and disadvantages of genetically modified food, genetically modified crops used to produce food and other goods, and other uses of genetically modified organisms in food production. The dispute involves consumers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified (GM) food are: whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population."   That has been settled for a pretty long time.  After Canoe made objections in various edit notes when he deleted content and in one Talk section,  I opened a broader discussion in Talk about scope to see if we could focus on the issue and reach a new consensus on it.   I am open to any reasonable take on the scope of the article that we can form consensus around.   It is not clear to me what Canoe wants the scope to be.
 * 4) Genetically modified maize article - when I recently arrived at this article, I found many tags about the need to improve, including sourcing, removing POV material and expanding the lead.  I expanded the lead and improved several sections with NPOV text and good sources.  Canoe reverted much of that work with no or minimal edit notes so I don't understand what is disputed.
 * 5) This article, a current discussion concerns whether to change the name and broaden the scope (there was a GM corn called "Starlink" that was approved only for animal use and found its way into human food - about 300 products were recalled, among which were taco shells branded "Taco Bell" and sold at supermarkets.).  I suggested expanding the title and scope of this article to "Starlink recall" - I think that would be a more useful article.
 * 6) This article - the lead of this article says Starlink was "deemed unfit for human consumption by the Food and Drug Administration." which is wrong two different ways.  I tried to change "deemed unfit" to "not approved for".  It was the EPA that received the application by the company that wanted to sell Starlink for human food.  The EPA had ~concerns~ that the protein engineered into the corn might cause allergy - they did not have enough evidence to decide if it would or not - and that is why the EPA didn't say yes or no to the application.  They just did not approve the application.  Eventually the company withdrew the application.  Neither the EPA nor the FDA declared anything about Starlink as being fit or unfit.   The FDA was not involved in approval of the application or lack thereof.  The FDA got involved after the Starlink escape into the food supply was made public, and  (working with the CDC)  it was not able to identify any cases of allergic reaction.  Even today nobody is sure if the protein in Starlink can cause allergy or not.
 * 7) This article - there are several other things I would like to improve, but am not going there as it would not be productive in the current environment.

Like I said, none of the "disputes" are dire, or are even about content as far as I can see. There is nothing here that cannot be worked out if we can just talk civilly.

Thanks for asking.Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) At Wikipedia we reflect what the sources say as to notability, article naming, material inclusion, and scope. Jytdog, and other editors, seem to want to control content in favor of one side of the controversy. They do this with tag team and wp:own tactics while refusing to provide sources when I ask them to back up their POV as to what should be and what shouldn't be in articles.
 * 2) This article is about the notable and sourced Taco Bell recall. If the other 299 product recalls are notable and sourced then that material can go in another article.
 * 3) This recall was not notable as being controversial for lack of allergen testing or environmental concerns. It was notable for the regulatory ignorance before and after, it is notable as the first GMO food recall and was widely published, it is notable for being one of the main issues that caused many countries to ban or control GMO food, etc.
 * 4) The controversy article scope was not written to reflect sources. It seems it was written as a POV from editors as an excuse to include good things about GMO food that are not controversial. The present scope is wrong and used to include far too much of this material and it unbalances the neutrality of the article. The scope should read "the public debate over the controversial aspects of GMO food".Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

response to Canoe: ok. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Continuation of WP:Battleground and accusatory mode that Canoe has been in since his first edit in the GM suite of articles.
 * 2) This comes down to WP:OWN as far as I can see.
 * 3) This is incredibly frustrating - Canoe argued fiercely and in a sustained manner that the content belongs in Health. Now that I agree he changes his mind and doesn't even acknowledge that he argued for this. It is all there in the difs.   In any case, the content is in the Regulation section and has been for a while, and Canoe does not acknowledge this either.  So again I am not sure what the issue is.  But this goes to my overall point - there is no discussion or sensible back and forth.  If an issue is addressed, the ground is shifted, and shifted again.  It seems Canoe's only interest is to argue and attack and keep doing so.  There is no end in sight, no interest in reaching consensus and moving on.  I really do not understand what is happening here.
 * 4) This is not a clear argument and seems based solely on Canoe's view of what a "controversies' article should be... unclear how we will be able to resolve this. It is involves many editors, not just Canoe and I.
 * It is still not how the sources state it. It was not controversial because of the allergens section it is in now. The regulatory section does not state the complete story according to sources. To be complete it should state that Adventis and the government new about the contamination nine months beforehand and they did not acknowledge the earlier report regarding this at the time of the recall. They actually stated words to the effect that "they didn't have a clue" it could happen.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Sergecross: One thing that may be helpful to look at would be some of the talk page discussions where multiple editors, not just these two editors, have taken part in the discussion. I think that Talk:Genetically modified food controversies is probably the most informative of these, particularly because multiple other editors have commented specifically on their readings of the source material. One can try to examine, there, the extent to which other editors might, hypothetically, be working with Jytdog to exert OWNership, and the extent to which, hypothetically, other editors might have a consensus with which Canoe does not agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't that I don't agree. The sources don't agree.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish - The main reason I had requested them to state a brief case is because I don't have a ton of free-time this week, and don't have the time or energy to go through these unwieldy masses of arguments. Even this is getting long winded. Sergecross73   msg me   17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I'll say no more, other than that you have a difficult task before you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I'd usually pass on this, but both editors asked nicely, I wanted to try. Sergecross73   msg me   01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am not writing more here til you have time to review what is here.Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll look at this again tomorrow. Sergecross73   msg me   01:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Point #4 - Genetically modified maize
Okay, so lets start with this one. (Even though its not technically this article, its relevant, and we're already discussing here.)

Canoe, why have you reverted virtually all of the work Jytdog has done here? Much of his content was sourced, and you re-instated a bunch of unsourced information. Why you may request people "discuss first", its usually considered bad form to not give any reason as to why you're requesting it to be discussed first. I don't see any actual concerns from you on the talk page or your edit summaries on that page. The only reason given for just a minor part of the edits was that you felt some of it was too detailed for the lead, which I find strange since it 1) the article is tagged for needing a longer lead and 2) as is, it currently cuts off mid-sentence. Sergecross73  msg me   19:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back to his expansion. It just seemed too much of a change to do without discussion. I may have time later to go through and take a closer look.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The first four sources are Monsanto, Bayer, the Society of Chemical Industry, and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, which is funded primarily by the GMO industry. Are these considered RS for a neutral article? I haven't checked the other sources yet.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "the first four sources." Looking at your reversion of your reversion (this dif): and it goes on. So again Canoe, what sources are you talking about?Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the first source I added is http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.html (a university extension office)
 * the second source I added is http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html (University lab website)
 * the third source I added is http://www.scq.ubc.ca/bt-corn-is-it-worth-the-risk/ (government of British Columbia)
 * the fourth source i added is an article from a university lab http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12213239 (that link is not in the article - just added it) (edit note, deleted that, I am not going to work more on the GM maize while it is in a semi-unreverted messJytdog (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
 * the fifth source I added is this cite doi|10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x which is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20938806 which is by a collaborative group including regulators, academics, and industry
 * the sixth source I added is doi|10.1038/nbt1381 which is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18259178 which is by a collaborative group including regulators, academics, and industry
 * the seventh source is the famous Bt butterly paper from a Cornell lab http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10353241
 * For pete's sake, I just looked more closely and Canoe only unreverted part of what he reverted. I did a ton of work on the GM Maize article and Canoe reverted just about all of it. I can't figure out what is what, and I am not going to go through the hassle of figuring out what Canoe has not unreverted.   This is kind of the definition of disruptive editing.Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, "too much of a change" isn't a valid reason by itself, especially when so much of it was unsourced before the change. You can't just put it on hold indefinitely like that. If that's your only concern, it should stay at Jytdogs versions unless/until there's actual aspects to contest. Sergecross73  msg me   00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back with no changes see the diff?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you mostly did. I just walked through each dif and it is OK.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed it right away, the other one isn't in my watchlist. But yes, thank you very for that, Canoe. So, this one seems largely resolved, except for a single number you guys aren't seeing eye to eye on, correct? Sergecross73   msg me   12:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- all good now. If Canoe brings a RS as good as the CDC for the 51 number, I will yield on that. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Point #5 - Name/Scope of this article
So, if I'm understanding this one correctly, Jytdog wants to expand its scope to cover everything related to the Starlink incident, while Canoe wants to keep it at the Taco Bell's level in terms of scope. Is this correct? Sergecross73  msg me   20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Focused only on content, yes that is correct, except I would say that I have suggested broadening the scope and am looking at least for a reasonable discussion of that. The issue here is SO not related to content and shows everything that has made me unhappy. Canoe has been blatantly rude  - his response to my query was  - in bold font - "Get stuffed." Canoe has not given a reason that the scope should be X or Y but has simply declared, "it is X." and "there are plenty of sources for X."  It is like talking to a wall that slaps you for even trying to talk to it. There may be an awesome reason to keep this more narrowly focused on Taco Bell.  Canoe is not articulating them.  There are reasons to expand to cover all products found contaminated with Starlink, that have been articulated. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (expanded a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC) )
 * The Taco Bell recall was the most notable and most sources don't mention the other products unless just in passing and after the fact.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1 - How about starting off a subsection in the article labeled something along the lines of "Other Starlink incidents" or something like that. If enough sources and content emerges, creating an WP:UNDUE issue, we splitit off to a bigger "Starlink recall" type article. If there isn't enough, then its just some notes about related incidents? Thoughts? It's fine if you don't agree with that, but just tell me why. Sergecross73   msg me   23:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you trying to come up with a compromise, but I would be fine with you not solving this, and instead I will bring a "request to rename a controversial article" action (controversial only because of one editor, but nonetheless...) and let the community decide. I am not open to the compromise you offer, since I see it as just caving in to dramatically unreasonable behavior and no reasonable arguments.  Canoe was not even aware that the Taco Bell shells were part of a much larger recall until I opened up the renaming discussion- you can see that unfold in the relevant section above.  Again, I am very very open to reasonable arguments, and perhaps the community will supply some.  Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what is your reasoning beyond not wanting to cave to his behavior? I don't know if its true or not, but at the very least, the assertion that the Taco Bell part was the main part that got coverage is at least a valid claim/approach.  Sergecross73   msg me   01:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a valid question! Again, if you read the exchange above, Canoe doesn't actually say that.  He just says there was a Taco Bell recall, and that there are sources for it.   His response were, in order. 1) "Get stuffed". 2) "The title is fine. Bring it up at RfC if you wish a change it."  3) All of the sources I have found only mention Taco Bell as the notable recall. If you wish to find sources that the other StarLink recalls were notable then feel free to create Starlink recalls or StarLink corn etc".   4) "Feel free to create articles about the other StarLink issues. This one is about the Taco Bell recall. I am still curious as to whether you will try to add those articles as environmental recalls in the controversies article. There is no reason to change the name of this article. I consider your attempt to do so is just another bad faith response to an article that you don't like".  5)  "Feel free to create StarLink recalls".   Canoe never makes an actual argument - he comes close-ish in 3).  He is just rude and demanding  and says "that's how it is" - the only takeaway is "this is my article, go away)   Which is, in my view, 180 degrees to how we do things on wikipedia.  That kind of behavior should not prevail or even be given much credence around here.  My reasons for broadening the article are:  1) over 300 products were recalled, including the Taco Bell shells;  what they all have in common is Starlink;  2) I want our readers to see the full scope of what happened; the recall affected many products, including "taco shells, tortillas and chips included those served at restaurants such as Applebee's, Wendy's, Del Taco, Casa Solana and La Cantina.... [and] also included many grocery store private label brands. They are Best Buy, Brookshires, Kroger Co., Food Lion, Fred Meyer, Kash-n-Karry, Rich Food, Shurfine, IGA, Albertson's Inc, Safeway Inc., Vons, Brookshire's, Bueno Comida, Food City, Sack'n Save, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc." (from here).  Yeah, Walmart.   From the same source, ""We had no idea of the scope of this," said Matt Rand, a spokesman for the Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a coalition of green groups. "This shows how widespread the StarLink problem is.""  and 3) If you want to really do research on this and track down what happened at the various agencies involved, you have to go looking for "Starlink" not "Taco Bell."    I want to say, that if I were behaving like Canoe, I could see someone exactly like Canoe come screaming at  me saying "you are trying to bury the extent of the Starlink contamination."   It is really crazy to me that on the one hand he calls me the worst kind of Monsanto whore, and on the other - because he starting working on this issue as though it only affected Taco Bell shells, he thinks my effort to make the article appropriately broad is some kind of stealth attack.  This is what I mean by I am end of my rope with this guy. Jytdog (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems like either approach would be fine, so maybe it'd be best to consult the community. Canoe could have been a little more civil and articulate in his point, but his idea of making a bigger "Starlink" article does seem plausible. At the same time, this article is already about 40% about Starlink, and not so well written that it would be a travesty to re-do much of it (For example, much of it seem doesn't flow all that well, with all of these 1-2 sentence paragraphs.) So you intend to do an RFC on this then? With a consensus, then you'd be free to work in whichever direction without (justified) opposition, at least. Sergecross73   msg me   17:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, I will follow the procedure here. Thanks for your thoughts on this -- I agree that there may well be good arguments for keeping it more narrow. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which I have done. Just want to say... I do not agree that Canoe "could have been a little more civil". Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean its too much of an understatement? Otherwise I don't follow... Sergecross73   msg me   20:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes that is what I meant. I usually err on the side of caution that I will be misunderstood and give too much information but in this case I did not want to beat a dead horse.  Sorry for being too terse. :) Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its fine. And that really wasn't meant to be that literal of a qualifier of how good or bad he was, just that he could have been a little more cooperative, that's all. Sergecross73   msg me   23:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio?
Canoe, what copyvio are you mentioning in this dif? thx Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * yoohoo, User:Canoe1967! Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean besides the fact that it is a copy/paste from the source? I think that is defined as copyvio by us. We should try to use 'wide' paraphrasing as much as we can and avoid Close paraphrasing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't even look at the source until after I made this change, so I didn't copy/paste anything.  The language you are using, about "unfit", is not used in any regulatory context.   If the FDA had acted, they would have said that the taco shells were "adulterated" because they contained ingredients that were not GRAS or had not received approval.  The broad term generally used is "approved" and using a common term is no copyvio.  How can you say a single word is copyvio in any case?  I am really curious.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * btw here is the FDA's page for consumers on how new food ingredients are approved. http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm094211.htm, which is the first thing they would probably reach for. Here is the guidance document on food from GMOs: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this the same FDA that failed to do their job according to this article's sources? If so, then Wikipedia doesn't allow it because it is a self published source. You should now read RS as well as OR, COI, POV, etc, etc, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel your interaction with me by reverting the other article and statements on my talk page show you are COI with this article. I have added the appropriate tag to it. I may bring this up at the COI drama board to see if any other articles warrant it as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean about COI, strange. You mentioned this article in two discussions directly with me (one in the GM controversies article Talk page and again on your Talk page) so I cannot see how you can complain that I come look at it, and edit it. But as I said I am happy to discuss.  Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You admitted above that you edited the article without even reading the source!!!!!!!!!!! This indicates to me that you are using your OR and POV to edit articles. I recommend you avoid pushing this with other GMO articles or I will seek consensus to add the same tag to other articles you have edited. You did similar earlier by wrongly labeling Kraft as the manufacturer, which you would have not done if you had read the source. I think you should take a break from GMO articles. You seem to OWN existing ones and disrupt newer ones with the above POV, COI, OR, etc, etc, etc. If your above links refer to the subject of this article then feel free to add material from them. If not they don't belong here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me make the observation that you seem to be in a highly defensive mode here. Maybe you need to chill out a little bit. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Canoe, simple copyediting doesn't require going to the sources at hand for something high level like this, and I am already familiar with the incident. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what 'high level' means. Again, may I assume that "I am already familiar with the incident" shows that you are using your COI POV and not using sources. Wikipedia reflects what sources say, not those "familiar with the incident."--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An article can be copyedited based on the text that is already there, and such an effort may include making typographical or structural changes to correct errors or improve flow or readability. In such cases, there is no need to follow the sources – that only becomes necessary when checking for close paraphrasing or verifying that the article is saying what the sources say, or to resolve ambiguities. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not see any indication that there were edits related to "typographical or structural changes to correct errors or improve flow or readability". What I did see was an editor that has made more than one wrong edit to an article and then admitted that they didn't read the sources as well as being "already familiar with the incident". To any true Wikipedian this would be many red flags.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Canoe1967, do you remember when we discussed this on the GM Controversies Talk page? You had added a new section to that article on this recall, and I told you that because the content was already in the article, I reverted your addition (keeping the LA Times source and adding it to the content that was already there).   It is from editing that pre-existing content that I am already familiar with this incident.  With respect to my edit in this article in the section on the Recall:  I read the LA Times source before I made that edit, and I acknowledge that I made an error there by stating that Kraft was the manufacturer.  I also note that the original text you created, stating that Taco Bell did the recall, was also a mistake.  We all make mistakes.  Your edit, following mine, made it finally accurate.   That is how Wikipedia works -- together we create good and accurate content, fixing each other's errors and improving on the text that each of us create.  Sometimes people disagree in the course of the process.  Disagreements don't make anybody evil - it is part of the process. Jytdog (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Do you remember when we discussed this on the GM Controversies Talk page?" I didn't see it as a discussion. You reverted sourced material from the correct section and then claimed that since it was hidden way down in the wrong section it didn't belong in the correct one. I felt there was no point even trying to discuss the matter with you at that point because it wouldn't be a proper discussion. I think it would just be you owning the article and repeating the same arguments. Above you have admitted to your mistakes. I think you should continue with admissions to other mistakes you have made. Some of those may be continuing to edit GMO articles, trying to push your COI POV on me and others with GMO articles, and then calling these normal editor processes. They may be normal editor processes but they are not those by editors that follow 5P, which we have far too few of here. I just reverted another edit that stated Taco Bell did the recall. It seems there is more than one editor like yourself that just does major changes without reading any sources first. This recall incident belongs in the health section of the controversies article as it was a health recall and not an environmental one. I think it would be a further mistake if you don't explain why you disagree with that logic. You just continue to argue that it belongs buried way down in the article as just a sentence or two.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on your Talk page, please stop attacking me, and please focus on content, not contributors. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to focus on content. I am focusing on why you don't agree why a health recall should not be included in the health section of Genetically modified food controversies. I still don't see any valid arguments why it shouldn't be included there. If you consider this repeated an un-answered question and others as an attack then that is your opinion. It was not an environmental recall and it warrants more than the 1-2 sentences that are buried deep in the article. I am focusing on why my sourced content additions are either reverted by you or modified to sources that are a contentious subject of the article itself. We call those 'self published' sources and they should be avoided and replaced by secondary ones. We don't write about the state of the union and use the State of the Union address as the source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please discuss edits pertaining to the GM controversies article on that Talk page. It is too confusing to discuss issues pertaining to that article here and on your Talk page. My concerns about personal attack are not about content (of course) rather they are comments you have made along the lines of claiming I have a COI, that I am POV-pushing, implying that I am not a "true Wikipedian", that I am ignoring the 5P, and that I am "burying" important content.  It is not appropriate to continually raise these kinds of concerns in Talk pages.  I have asked you repeatedly, and am asking you again now, to please stop attacking me in Talk and I again suggest that you bring these concerns to an appropriate notice board. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to bring it up at Arbcom as well as COINB. I still don't see how you consider these attacks when all I am asking you to do is take a break from this and the other GMO articles. This material started in the controversy article, you reverted it, now it is here. I gave up discussing it on that article talk page because you still won't agree that it was a health recall and belongs in the health section. Why does it matter where we discuss the same material? You keep coming up with the same issues and I keep responding the same way. If you don't like the article then then take it off your watch list. I am now off to do other work. You should do the same.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Look, I tried talking about it above, and made a simple mistake (calling the article Monsanto instead of the GM controversies article) and you jumped all over me.  No way I am risking another mistake so you can do that some more.  If you want to talk more about the GM controversies article, discuss it there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jumped all over you! You reverted well sourced, notable content from the correct section of the article and you accuse me of jumping all over you? You then said the article was to large. I moved the material here to keep that article smaller. You came over here and added copyvio material. You then admit that you never read the source after adding false information. I have given up discussing that article until the COI claims are chewed through the drama boards. It will probably go to Arbcom the way both sides won't budge on it. I haven't checked the COI drama board to see if it is over there yet. I also have yet to ask on commons if the other languages are having issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was over on your user page, in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting for response to my original question. The recall was a health one with the FDA involved. The EPA was not involved so it does not belong in the environment section. It belongs in the health section. It also warrants more material in that article. I can't see either of those happening though so I no longer care at this point. If decisions are made by Arbcom or COIN then it may change.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about another article on this page. Jytdog (talk)
 * It is the same material that you won't allow there, so why not talk about it here?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, why do you keep adding back copyvio material after we have discussed it to death?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV source
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/english/pet_034a_e_28736.html is a complaint by Greenpeace and the Auditor General of Canada's responses. It includes facts that add to the above timeline. See the response to question 2 for a more complete timeline. Canada.gov we should trust far more than the USA media or government about these facts. They call it 'Starlink corn controversy' which may be an even better title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the story the recall, or is the story the fact that Greenpeace considers it a controversy? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know who named it controversy but that title may be more neutral than scandal. Contaminations would probably be the most accurate for the other article since all the sources probably use that term. It isn't the story of this article recall but a complaint to Gov.ca requesting facts and responses to questions soon after the Taco Bell/Kraft recall. They may not have anymore complaints in the next 12 years because it seems StarLink has always been illegal in Canada and Canada has been spending millions since to keep it out.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. --  tariq abjotu  03:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Taco Bell GMO recall → Starlink corn recall – My reasons for broadening the title and scope of the article are: 1) Starlink corn is a genetically modified corn not approved for use in human food that found its way into the food supply, which led to over 300 products being recalled, including the Taco Bell shells; 2) So calling it "Taco Bell GMO recall" is both misleading to our readers and somewhat unfairly singling out one affected company (which was not at fault, but was a victim);  3) I want our readers to see the full scope of what happened; the recall affected many products, including "taco shells, tortillas and chips included those served at restaurants such as Applebee's, Wendy's, Del Taco, Casa Solana and La Cantina.... [and] also included many grocery store private label brands. They are Best Buy, Brookshires, Kroger Co., Food Lion, Fred Meyer, Kash-n-Karry, Rich Food, Shurfine, IGA, Albertson's Inc, Safeway Inc., Vons, Brookshire's, Bueno Comida, Food City, Sack'n Save, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc." (from here). From the same source, ""We had no idea of the scope of this," said Matt Rand, a spokesman for the Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a coalition of green groups. "This shows how widespread the StarLink problem is."" and 4) If you want to really do research on this and track down what happened at the various agencies involved, you have to go looking for "Starlink" not "Taco Bell.".  Other sources  include Wall Street Journal,  ABC, CNN. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (edit note - added "corn" to proposed new title as per below. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)) (copyedit to make this into English. :) and fix dead link Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Support as noted above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 16 to 1--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would lean towards a move to Starlink corn recall (instead of Starlink recall). I think that the word "corn" ought to be part of the title, to make it more clear what "Starlink" is. I find the sources that Jytdog presented (with the exception of the CNN link, that didn't work for me) to provide convincing evidence that the recall affected multiple companies in addition to Taco Bell, in ways that got attention from third parties (ie, secondary sources). About the Google hits, it can be misleading. Compare: and . I did a Google News search for "taco bell recall", and it returned this:, where every link on the first page had nothing to do with the subject matter we are discussing here: reports about people named "Bell", reports about the labor strikes using the word "recall" as in "remember", and so forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with "Starlink corn recall". No objection. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The main FDA recall was a month later after the notable and voluntary Kraft one. List dated October 31, 2000. If not for the first one then the FDA would not have egg on face a month later. Any Google news searches above would probably only produce results that are recent and not 13yo. 80-90% of the news sources at the time were referring to the Taco Bell recall. The later Starlink ones were just sideshows. The Safeway one was the second notable one but only done as a precaution. They didn't even know if StarLink was in the products they recalled. This is the same as the later Kellog one that didn't know either.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that source, it is great. The rest is unsourced editorializing, but the source is great.  Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I could provide the bulk of sources (10-25) that have Taco Bell as the main and notable recall. I have yet to see any StarLink RS that don't mention their taco shells.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about... the source you just provided? :) Also, the first source I provided is quite long and does not mention "taco bell".  This is what I have been complaining about - you are not even engaging with what I write here. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The source I just provided is primary and should be avoided. The first source you provided is http://www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm ? I think that source is rejected in many GMO articles by editors on the excuse it isn't peer reviewed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to both of you: some discussion is fine, but please wrap it up. If you two keep going on like last time, you're going to make such an overwhelming mess that people aren't going to bother to contribute. Please, let's not get stuck in the same deadlock again. Sergecross73   msg me   00:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * good advice. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - although would be even better with StarLink corn recall per sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Taco recall produces the same books as your StarLink search. It also has 5700 hits to your 1230. Most hit with Taco Bell.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per In ictu oculi and WP:UNDUE. Red Slash 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note. Now that a page called StarLink scandal has been created, I have tagged that page for consideration of merging with this one. I think that makes sense (see also some discussion in the sub-section below), because that new page is something like the page that we are discussing moving this page to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support merge to 'Starlink corn recall' as proposed, as being in approximately the correct register. It has been demonstrated from all the searches that "recall" is overwhelmingly more prevalent than "scandal". For the sake of broader encyclopaedic coverage and helpfulness to the user, I think we ought to mention "corn" in the title. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The singular recall won't wash. There were actually 2 1/2 recalls. Taco Bell, one by Mission Foods, and the 1/2 was just the FDA list of the Mission Foods recall. Corn shouldn't be in the title because products made from the corn were recalled. Any recall article shouldn't contain the Aventis buyback, the non-StarLink precautionary recalls by Safeway/Kellog's, as well as all the product refusals. None of those were recalls. Scandal may be the wrong term but that article can be renamed to StarLink contamination or something similar. This article should still remain as a standalone because it was the widely publicized and notable recall. If it were merged to another article it would either coatrack it or material would be lost that is specific to it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "2 1/2" number is a mess, logically. First: all the recalls, the "scandal", the Aventis buy back etc, involved one thing that unifies them all - the risk of the presence of Starlink in human food (which was a problem because Starlink was not approved for human food, because of the risk of allergenicity).  Second, calling the FDA list a "half" makes no sense - it just lists the foods that Mission recalled.  As far as I can tell there were actual recalls by three companies: Kraft, Safeway, and Mission.  3 separate actions, all involving one thing - Starlink. I have no idea what Canoe means by "the non-StarLink precautionary recalls by Safeway/Kellog's" -- Kellogg did no recall at all; Safeway did do a recall.Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Safeway did not have confirmed StarLink in its products the same as Kellogg's. Any StarLink recall article shouldn't include them. The Mission foods recall was probably the same list published a second time by the FDA. The sources don't say if the FDA did any testing so they may have just used the same list as the earlier recall. The sources also don't say if any products were recalled on the second publishing, thus 1.5 for that pair. We could also call it StarLink corn scare or something similar. An article with a singular StarLink recall would just confuse or readers. Plural would do the same because all the other material would be out of scope. StarLink recall, singular would work for the Taco Bell/Kraft recall except that the sources don't call it that. The other article would need a different name than recall(s) as well to reflect the 12+ years that didn't include recalls.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The key thing is the action of doing a recall - this is a formal public action, has to be registered with the FDA, and causes action - consumers throw food away or bring it back to the recaller who then has to issue a refund. There were 3 of them.  The FDA did not do any recalls - the current text of the article, which says "On November 1, 2000 it was reported that the FDA had recalled almost 300 products that may have contained StarLink corn. These products were all made by Mission Foods." is not accurate. The source says "Nearly 300 varieties of tacos, tortillas, tostadas, and chips made with the genetically engineered corn StarLink have been recalled from restaurants and grocery stores, according to the Food and Drug Administration."  The source nowhere says that the FDA itself recalled anything.  If you look at the CNN copy of the FDA notice here it says very clearly "Recalled by: Mission Foods, Irving, Texas, by press release on October 13, 2000, and by letters on October 13 and 14, 2000.  Firm-initiated recall ongoing."  All three of the recalls cite the presence, or risk of presence, of Starlink.  Canoe you just keep getting the basic facts wrong, and you keep arguing even though you don't understand the situation.  Difficult. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can correct the material in both articles if you wish. I promise I won't revert as others usually do to my edits. The facts still remain that your proposed name is wrong for this article. We go with sources and policy naming, not what 100 votes think it should be.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: the content fork StarLink scandal has now been moved to StarLink GMO contaminations, which doesn't seem like an improvement in any way. I still support merging this with the scandal page, and moving that merged article to Starlink corn recall. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated above there were only 2.5 recalls as well as numerous other incidents that weren't StarLink recalls so recall(s) would be wrong. Others seemed not to like scandal so I changed it to contaminations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I continue to believe that Starlink corn recall remains the most appropriate page name for a single page on the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Endorse Tryptofish. Canoe's arguments don't actually disqualify use of "corn" in the title, because "corn" is acceptable shorthand for "corn and corn derivative products". --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Recall singular won't cover all of the incidents and neither will plural. Plural would just contain the 2.5 recalls and not be the complete history over 12+ years.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is an agenda being peddled with the repeated moves, but it would be most helpful if the articles remained where they are for now, until we decide where they ought to end up. To do otherwise would cause disruption to readers and leave a trail of worthless redirects all over the shop. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The amount of redirects shouldn't matter since we only have one StarLink to search for. Readers will search for either recall or scandal. The Taco Bell/Kraft article they can find in a different search.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Redirects are cheap, so having a lot of them is not, specifically, a problem. On the other hand WP:Double redirects are ultimately being created, and, although they are fixable, it is unhelpful to keep creating more and more of them when there is really only one editor out of a pretty large number participating in this discussion, who does not agree with the predominant view expressed here so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The "predominant view" is wrong though because it doesn't follow policy nor sources. We can't just rename an article because we have a POV about what we think it should be called. The OP was half-cocked because of that. StarLink recall is singular, doesn't cover the 12+ years of contamination, and isn't what the sources call the Taco Bell/Kraft recall. 100 people can vote all they want because they 'like it' but it is still wrong according to policy and sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine to argue with conviction for a view that is not shared by other editors. I've done that quite a few times myself. At some point, however, someone will have to determine the consensus here. Until then, I was recommending that you hold off on creating new pages and creating new page names, edits that you can resume in the future if consensus goes your way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus shouldn't be decided by the POV of the most editors though. It should be decided by sources and policy naming. If 100+ editors wanted to call it TacoGate or StarLink Flubber then they would still be wrong and the article shouldn't be renamed. As long as our readers can find it under its many common names in search then it should matter what we call articles as long as they can find them with redirects. StarLink recall won't cut it as this article title because it is wrong in so many ways. It is also wrong for the other article because of the narrow scope of the title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can expect whoever closes the discussion to understand WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If Starlink corn recall is "against policy" and does not reflect the sources, however, you're not making a good case so far. I'm definitely not convinced of it after looking at the sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went back through both pages to look at the events described there with what I hope was an open mind about singular or plural for "recall(s)", and about events that were other-than-recalls. I still feel that "recall" is consistent with policies and guidelines, and is more precise and informative than alternatives, such as contaminations or controversy. And it simply is not a case of editors pushing some sort of POV to use the word "recall". Although there are a few things listed, like the eventual positions of other countries, that may be WP:SYNTH unless the sources say specifically that the actions were in response to Starlink, the things that clearly are about Starlink are all part of a continuing process in which Starlink was found in food, and the food products were either recalled or placed under the shadow of suspicion of recall. It's not as though the events were unrelated to one another. It's really one continuous series of very related events, with recall of Starlink-containing foods at the center. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I still feel you are not responding to questions I have brought up. This article is about Taco Bell taco shells recalled by Kraft. It was not a Cry9C, Starlink, Aventis, Sabritas, Pepsico, etc, recall. It was a product recall of taco shells made with Starlink corn flour. The other article should not have its scope limited to the 2.5 recalls in 2000. In the 12+ years since there have been many incidents but those were the only recalls. Our readers would probably think that the recalls went on for 12+ years if we title it that way. 'Starlink in food' or something similar would cover the other article. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I think that I responded but just did not persuade you, I'll try again. We agree that there was a recall involving the Taco Bell taco shells. Now, let's go through, one-by-one, the other proper names you listed here. Cry9C is the protein in the GMO corn, so every recall and every contemplated recall was about food that might have contained Cry9C. Starlink is the name of the corn, so every incident involved Starlink corn in the food product. Aventis is the company that created Starlink corn. So every food product contained Starlink corn created by Aventis and containing the Cry9C protein. Sabritas made the taco shells, and sold them to Kraft. Kraft sold them to supermarkets and to Taco Bell. Taco Bell is owned by Tricon, who in turn was owned at one time by Pepsico. There were other products recalled for the same reason, that they contained Starlink corn. There were other products, such as at Kellogg's, where production was halted before a recall would be necessary, but this was part of the same series of events, not something completely separate. There is no reason that I can see to make two separate pages, because all of this was part of the same series of events. Looking at the timeline, almost everything took place in September–November 2000. In what is really the aftermath, there was one isolated incident about the same thing, Starlink corn in food, in 2005, and a second such incident in August 2013. It's easy enough to rewrite what we have now, so that readers will not be confused into thinking that there were recalls occurring continuously over 12+ years. It's just a matter of having a section about the major events in 2000, and rewriting what came after to make it clearer. It would be very unnecessary to spin off a separate page for the 2005 and 2013 events; they were just part of the aftermath of the 2000 events. It would be unnecessary to name the page "recalls" (in the plural), because the events of 2000 were all connected. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the key points. If this article remains seperate from the other one then most sources have it as Taco Bell/Kraft recall. If we combine the two articles they would need to cover the 12+ years of events that are not the original 2.5 recalls in 2000. 'Starlink in the food chain' or something similar would work but a recalls title only would narrow the scope and confuse readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating two separate articles, so that's not an issue with respect to what I said. As for combining them, I've already said that we can rewrite it to make the events during the year 2000 the main focus, and the events in 2005 and 2013 part of the aftermath. It would confuse our readers if we called the combined page Starlink corn recall (2000 – 2013), but nobody is asking for that! Readers are not going to be confused by a page that covers all the events in the recall of 2000, and then has a section or two about the events that happened later. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we combine the two articles into one then that would be the same as calling the WWII articles '1944 Invasions of Europe' or 'Attacks on Pearl Harbour', as I stated earlier.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be a flawed analogy, because at this page, what happened in 2000 was tantamount to 90% of the "war". It's inaccurate to equate what happened with the corn products in 2005 and 2013 with half of a world war, more like two things that happened sometime during the postwar rebuilding of Europe and Japan. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point. The events happened over a 12+ year period. Why don't you just select a title that doesn't include recall(s). I would be fine with that and I am sure others would as well. Then we can finally hat this whole mess.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the events took place almost entirely in a three-month period in 2000, and then there were ancillary events in 2005 and 2013. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to consider the scope of a single article now because it seems since the other one was just deleted without discussion. The first event was the Taco Bell/Kraft recall that cost approx 60mil(?) The subsequent events are still costing far more and have more coverage. Can we just choose a title without recall(s) in it an hat this whole mess off or does anyone has a decent reason for including that focused term?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion does not require discussion. I think multiple editors have given reasons for "recall" in the title. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors could still be wrong if it violates naming guildelines. There is no guideline reason to include the term but many not to. I see no reason we can't get consensus on a title that doesn't include recall(s). I would be happy with any title that doesn't and so would our readers and gudelines.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The noteworthy event is the recall. The 2005 and 2013 incidents are merely ancillary, and can be handled in a section labeled "Aftermath" or "Later incidents". Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree but since the other article is gone now we need a title that covers all the events.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we can always move this one... Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That other page was deleted, properly, because it was simply a copy-and-paste of this one, with a different title, a title that had no consensus. Multiple editors think that Starlink corn recall is a title that properly encompasses the subject. Canoe believes deeply that multiple editors are incorrect. That's where things stand, and that's probably where they are going to end up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

the thing that unifies all of this, is the starlink escape into the human food supply. the 3 recalls, the factory shutdown, the buyback, the regulatory controversy.... all of it. that is why was originally in that section of the GM Food controversies article. that could be a title: starlink corn escape' Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (striking this muddying the water suggestion. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
 * That seems like an awkward title for an article that doesn't have the term in any of the sources. Could you choose a better one that readers will understand? Escape seems like a term for animals and not plant life.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sticking with original suggestion, which: Starlink corn recalls. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeline
Note in the following timeline that StarLink was not confirmed in all cases and Taco Bell/Kraft is mentioned as the most notable. Any article specifically about StarLink shouldn't mention the precautionary recalls in this case. The FDA doesn't mention that the ~300 list all tested as containing StarLink so it was probably precautionary as well.
 * There is no doubt that early reports in late September mentioned Taco Bell/Kraft a lot. Already in October,  the focus became Starlink.  For those reading this, the bulletted list and comment on each source was by Canoe and was part of his original post; I have commented here and on each bullet, and Canoe responded to some of my comments. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (amended to make it more clear what is going on below. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC))


 * ABC News Sept. 18 Taco Bell tests reported.
 * Starlink mentioned twice. "Taco Bell" mentioned five times.  Kraft mentioned 6 times. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ABC News Sept 23 Taco Bell recall reported.
 * Taco Bell mentioned 4 times (3 in series of specific product names); Kraft is mentioned 7 times. Starlink is mentioned once. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ABC News Sept 29. Aventis agrees to buy entire StarLink crop.
 * Starlink mentined twice. Taco Bell mentioned twice. Kraft mentioned once. Jytdog (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Oct 5. Europe's GM food controversy. Only Kraft/Taco Bell mentioned.
 * Unsure what you mean by "only Kraft/Taco Bell mentioned."" "Taco Bell" is not mentioned even once. Starlink is mentioned twice, as is Kraft. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Only the Taco Bell/Kraft recall is mentioned. No mention of a StarLink recall. WP:common name. "In the wake of the Kraft recall..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Oct. 12. Safeway precautionary recall reported. "Safeway does not have confirmed verification that StarLink is present in its taco shells..."
 * Starlink mentioned 4 times. "Taco Bell" and Kraft each mentioned once. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No mention of any StarLink recall. WP:Common name would be Taco Bell or Kraft.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Oct. 13. Mission Foods does a voluntary recall.
 * link is wrong. same one mentioned below labeled "Nov. 1. FDA recalls ~300 products all made by Mission Foods. "Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Same link as below but used twice to source the earlier recall. "...Mission initiated a voluntary recall on October 13..."--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Oct. 22 Kellog shutdown reported as precautionary only. "We are not aware of any raw materials delivered to any Kellogg facility that contain StarLink variety of corn."
 * Starlink mentioned 6 times. "Taco Bell" and Kraft each mentioned once. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No mention of any StarLink recall. WP:Common name would be Taco Bell or Kraft recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you were searching the exact phrase, "X recall" and I was just looking for X. I don't know that exact phrase matters so much, but I see your point. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I assume that you agree that the wp:common name would be either Kraft or Taco Bell recall. StarLink recall was used in very few sources, if any. An article entitled StarLink corn could include this recall as well as the precautionary ones that followed. This article should still be notable enough as a stand alone according to sources, common name, and notability.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand why you think it should be called Taco Bell recall but I do not agree, for the reasons I gave in the request to rename. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not what you or I think but what the sources call it. Either Kraft or Taco Bell recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Oct. 30. 14 adverse reaction reports to FDA/CDC "....the reports were inspired by publicity over the recall from supermarkets of Kraft Foods Taco Bell brand taco shells and Safeway brand taco shells."
 * Starlink is mentioned 12 times in this article. "Taco Bell" is mentioned 3 times.Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No mention of any StarLink recall. WP:Common name would be Taco Bell or Kraft recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Nov. 1. FDA recalls ~300 products all made by Mission Foods.
 * Starlink mentioned 11 times. "Taco Bell" and Kraft each mentioned once. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Nov. 10. StarLink allergen concerns. Only the Sept. Kraft/Taco bell recall mentioned.
 * Starlink is mentioned 25 times. Kraft is mentioned zero times.  "Taco Bell" is mentioned zero times. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "The corn spawned a nationwide recall of taco shells in September..." is the Taco Bell/Kraft recall. No mention of any StarLink recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CNN Jan. 2001. Consumer Federation of America Foundation report. Only Taco Bell mentioned.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Starlink mentioned once. "Taco Bell" mentioned once.Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No mention of any StarLink recall. Only Taco Bell products mentioned.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (Clears throat...) It's very difficult for anyone else to work out who is saying what to whom. Or, perhaps, to really care. Suggested reading: WP:LASTWORD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * :) for what it is worth, the original bulleted list was Canoe's; I went through and commented on each one. Canoe has responded to some of my responses. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but it is still difficult for me to see clearly what the point of the discussion is, in the context of the proposed page move. I'm going to guess, but I could be missing a lot: the issues being raised are that (1) the Taco Bell recall preceded, chronologically, the recalls of products from other retailers, and (2) some sources focus on Taco Bell, as opposed to Starlink's involvement in other recalls. For the sake of discussion, I'm going to provisionally take (1) and (2) as being true for now. I'm not convinced that this would really make any difference with respect to the best name for the page, although I would certainly be in favor of the text of the page accurately reflecting any timeline of events. It seems to me that we still have numerous sources, such as the ones cited by Jytdog at the top of the RM discussion, that show secondary news sources giving prominent coverage to recalls of Starlink-containing products from other companies besides Taco Bell. We have a notable bunch of recalls, including but not limited to the recall of Taco Bell's taco shells, that all share something in common: the recalls were because of the presence of Starlink corn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Canoe, I think his original point in making the bulleted list was definitely your (1); his other point was that (2) the entire phrase "Taco Bell recall" or "Kraft recall" occurs waaaaaaaaaay more frequently than "Starlink recall." My point in responding was that Starlink is always discussed and became more and more discussed as the specific recall of the Taco Bell-branded taco shells receded in time.  Canoe is trying to make an argument that this article should be called, and should be primarily about, the specific Taco Bell recall incident - that there is a good "common name" argument for that and that it was by far the most prominent product recalled in the media reporting.   I don't agree with that reasoning for calling this article "Taco Bell recall" and for limiting its scope to that event, but that is his point, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Taco Bell/Kraft recall was the notable one. The other incidents were recalls as well as product returns. Instead of StarLink corn recalls I created StarLink scandal which is a more apt title to cover the 13+ years of incidents. 'StarLink recalls and returns' may be better if you wish to move it to there and expand it to cover the afterclap of the other less notable material. This article can then be trimmed down to focus on the Taco Bell/Kraft recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at that page and the post-2000 sourcing, it seems like an even stronger argument to rename that to Starlink corn recall and merge both articles there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree very strongly with what Thargor just said. Otherwise, this page just becomes a WP:Content fork of the "scandal" one. I also think that the page title of the "scandal" page violates Manual of Style/Words to watch; the page name discussed here is much better. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this approach. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

They are actually two different subjects though. This search shows that it was truly a scandal. That word is used commonly for article titles and is not one that is frowned upon in Manual of Style/Words to watch. It would cover all the recalls and other product contaminations. Many weren't recalls at all. The Taco Bell/Kraft one should remain as the first and most notable to avoid coatracking either article. This would be a split and not a fork.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

total cost
i've worked over the past week or so to polish this article. one of the things I had been wanting to do is track down the actual cost of the event, most of which was borne by Aventis. One of the biggest costs appears to have been the buyback program. all we had when i started working was the estimate from around jan 2001 that it would cost between $100M and $1B, which is a huge range. Despite hours of searching I was not able to find any source that looked back and reported on the actual cost. Frustrating! Would be delighted if somebody found that. I left a long footnote about this which may stray into OR, but I wanted to report what I could. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)