Talk:StarLink corn recall/Archives/2014

Stop with all the arguing
User:Canoe1967 and User:Jytdog I'm getting very tired of both of your antics. Stop editwarring. Stop arguing. Let discussions play out on the talk page. I've protected this page. The same goes with anything related to Taco Bell/StarLink/Corn Recalls/Controversies etc etc etc. Stop all the moving and renaming. Stop muddling all the conversations down in the talk pages, and stop arguing through edit summaries.

I'm losing patience, and I've given you both a lot more time than most would bother. Sergecross73  msg me   19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you google "The shells contained genetically modified corn that was not approved for human consumption." you will find many sources that use 90% of the same sentence so it is copyvio. This has been discussed before but the other editor seems to feel he is immune to that policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to wear you out Sergecross, and thank you for your efforts to date.Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe such a common, short phrase would constitute as a copyvio. If that's the only concern though, then its simple enough to put the phrase in quotes and add the ref at the end. Sergecross73   msg me   20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We may have to quote someone regardless because so many sources would use similar phrasing to us. We just got here late in writing our article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If its that common, its probably all the more proof that its a generic phrase that's not really a copyright concern. Much like something like "The album was well-received by critics". That phrase is in just about every music album article that received more than a lukewarm reception. But it's not a copyvio issue, it's a common phrase not really attributable for one to try to own... Sergecross73   msg me   20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are far more record critic sources than GMO corn recalls though. We had a similar issue we had to cover up when a source plagiarized our article and then we used her as a source. Since we created the material first, we can't source her to it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but I doubt this is a WP:CIRCULAR issue, as both this and my example are such a generic phrase/sentiment. Anyways, I don't see it to be an issue, but if there's consensus to remove it, then that's fine. I'd recommend either making this a separate subsection from my "stop arguing" subsection, to something that would attract more discussion, and/or starting something up at WP:CP, if you truly want to pursue this. I'd recommend working on something more constructive, but it's up to you. Sergecross73   msg me   20:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It isn't me. The article was stable until the other editor unilaterally decided to change it back to the copyvio without finishing the discussion we had weeks ago on it. Now it is locked with the copyvio material again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went through all the diffs from today, and for whatever it's worth, I agree completely with Sergecross. I think, on a conduct level, both of you are equally to blame, and you both should know better by now. On a content level, I don't think the sentence is a copyvio, but I do think that "deemed unfit" changes the meaning of the source material in a POV and misleading way. Anyway, WP:There is no deadline, so please let me suggest that we let the move/merge discussion reach consensus before we have any more content disputes, because a consensus about the page name(s) should help clarify how to frame the content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing POV about the term 'unfit'. If you were to ask the FDA if it were fit or unfit they would say unfit. Whether for legal or health reasons it is still unfit. The page should also be corrected to the last stable version before the edit war and not the copyvio version. That is the only revert I made since any other editors' edits to it, I think. The name change is still a mess because the proposed name is wrong in many ways. I have suggested better names but no one seems to respond they just keep repeating the same rhetoric about 'IMHO'. We go with sources, policy, and consensus, not IMHO rhetoric.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with how the FDA works, and if one were to ask them, they actually would not use the words "deemed unfit". Not approving something means the absence of approval, not the presence of an affirmative determination that it should never be approved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No ones argument has been invalid though. They're giving their opinions, of which are rooted in policy. That's the same thing you're doing. There's nothing wrong with the discussions so far, unless you count the fact that people aren't siding with you. (Or the excessive arguing). Sergecross73   msg me   21:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it is considered arguing when I just want questions answered. Single recall is wrong because there was more than one. StarLink recalls is wrong because that doesn't cover the 12+ years of refusals, product returns, buybacks, million dollar+ tests, and corn thrown out, etc. Their opinions may seem to them that they are policy but the sources say differently.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether you are persuaded by what I said or not, my comment at 18:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC) attempted to directly answer those exact questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we call it Starlink corn recalls if we have to. This is an easy fix. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about the plural. As I tried to explain in that same earlier comment today, I read the source material as really being a single continuous series of closely related events, instead of a bunch of entirely separate events. On the other hand, I'd go along with the plural if it would put an end to "all the arguing". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not object to "recalls" either. Jytdog (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear about my own opinion, it's not exactly "not object". For the reasons I already said, I believe that the singular is actually better, so the plural is a distant second choice. I'm just saying that I would go along with something that I dislike in the interests of not having further argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Back to the subject of this section. Just to be clear; I was not going to revert again; I respect 3RR a lot and (so far) have never been blocked for violating it. I am grateful that Canoe allowed me to edit the article some, and a) get rid of reference to the FDA in the lead as having had anything to do with the approval process; b) consolidate the duplicate paragraphs; and c) fix the error about the FDA doing the recall. On the flipside, it is sick that I have to be grateful to him to edit the article.   That said, the thing that we were reverting over - and have been in disagreement about since the very top of this page (!), is the "deemed unfit" business.  It is absurd for Canoe to say "the article was stable before that editor" did anything, as the article is still quite new.  In any case, as has been said several times: 1) "deemed unfit" is wrong - no agency "deemed" Starlink "unfit". 2) Canoe's choice of that phrase reflects his lack of competence - the fact that it is gussied up legalistic pomposity doesn't make it less wrong, It is not relevant to any regulatory process. Things are approved, or not.  3) His ferocious defense of the phrase reflects his ownership of this article and his ongoing battleground and uncivil behavior. 4) There is no reliable source for using that phrase.  5) as Canoe himself has pointed out, every reliable source does use the phrase "not approved" to describe what happened with Starlink. 6) It is literally insane to say that the phrase, "not approved", is a copyright violation. It is like saying that the phrase, .. "taco bell recall" is a copyright violation.  Or that it is a copyright violation to call the sky "blue".  It is insane.   Canoe doesn't have a there is no leg to stand on, on the point of "deemed unfit" vs. "not approved".   I care about this because saying "deemed unfit" is not true and misleads the reader to believe that any regulatory agency found something actually and definitively wrong with Starlink - none ever did.  And it is right at the beginning of the article and skews the whole topic. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (edit to strike comments on the contributor, not content. my apologies for going off target Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))
 * That is total crap, Jytdog. I also consider it a bad faith personal attack that I will ignore yet once again. I have never tried to own this article as others have. The only edit I disagree with is the copyvio one and that is the only one I have reverted, I think. Feel free to add it as a quote from a source if you disagree with my paraphrasing. Until then it should be locked as the wording that was stable for over a month. You never did complete the discussion about it on the first post of this talk page. Instead you just edit warred your copyvio version and now you have it locked as copyvio. If you disagree then I could email the source to discuss it with WMF legal since only the copyright holder can file with them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you: Stop commenting on each other and focus on the issue at hand. Or let conversation play itself out without all the arguing. A tip, since neither of you seem to get it; every time you start the back and forth crap up, discussion stalls. That's especially important for you to note, Canoe, as conversations are not going in your favor. If you halt up discussion, there's no hope for you building a consensus for your case. Also, as far as the copyvio stuff goes, I've given you 2 possible correct avenues on how to address this. WMF is going to ignore if you haven't done due diligence on your end. (It's just like you don't go straight to ANI to solve problems, but rather, you do it after ample efforts of discussion on talk pages have failed to make progress. But again, you have neither started a new discussion with a better section title, or taken it to WP:CP. Sergecross73   msg me   15:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyvio is still copvio. I didn't say I was going to contact the WMF. We could contact the copyright holders for their input though. We did this here (diff) and twice here. All three copyright holders provided input. A sentence from a source without a quote is the same as a line from a song. Jytdog, feel free to select a source and quote the copyvio sentence according to policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why people perceive you as "difficult to work with". I presented you 2 approaches. You ignored both, and continued to push the exact same approach that wasn't working. This is why you don't make any progress in your discussions. You're making absolutely no effort to to cooperate. Sergecross73   msg me   16:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore your first recommendation that we just quote a source. I still don't feel I am being difficult to work with. I was treated very badly when I tried to add this material to the controversy article. The same GANG said the article was too large for it. I then split it to this article. I have never complained about their edits to this article as they do with most of my edits. Tag team reverts without response, not following policy nor sources, and lack of response in discussion, etc. There is nothing wrong with the title of this artcle for this event as it does match most sources. If we merge it to a 'Starlink in food' article then we can't use recalls in the title because that would limit the scope. We don't call the WWII articles '1944 Invasions of Europe' nor 'Attacks on Pearl Harbour'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe, I know you feel that you were treated badly at the Controversies article, but you behaved there, just as you have done here. You actually had a good point about including Starlink under the Health section and in the regulatory section, and both ended up happening.  Now, many of your facts were wrong, you really gave no arguments, and you were so aggressive about repeating your point, that it took me and others a long time to see that you had a good point.  As I wrote then, you get farther with sugar than vinegar.  And there is no "gang."  There are some well-informed, reasonable people who have individually gravitated to these articles, as often happens in Wikipedia. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you saying my facts are wrong? They are not my facts but what the sources say. You still haven't found a source that claims it as an environmental recall nor one that states the recall was controversial because of the allergen claims. You will probably refuse to answer here as you have before. You are also not answering over there so I expect I will never see any anwsers to my questions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Missed the point by a mile. And in any case, you won canoe - the content got where you wanted it to go.  I have explained  several times why the content was where it was (herre for example); you have ignored those explanations. In any case this is a battle that is way over and you missed the point of what I wrote. A) You get farther, faster, with sugar than vinegar. B) There is no gang. When are you going to leave the battleground, already, and just discuss things?  Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (edited to add "and just discuss things" as my intention was ''not" "go away" but rather, "talk instead of fighting" Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Your explanations still don't match the sources though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have agreed to using the sentence as a quote. That way we can avoid the copyvio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I was trying to get at before, as the sole person who sees this as a COPYVIO concern, it is your burden to provide the source to back this up, and how the quote/excerpt would be presented. Sergecross73   msg me   16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for commenting on contributor, not content. I have struck the off target remarks I made.  Canoe, good to know you will not quick revert edits I want to make to the article outside the "deemed unfit" business, which is still under discussion.Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, please, think before you hit the save button, so that you don't have to strike comments subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

good advice, i have been trying to keep cool but not successfully enough. will try harder.Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then pick a source to quote and thus avoid the copyvio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Outside of claiming that "this is copyvio" you have not explained why it is a copyvio. I can tell you that: a) any common two word phrase most definitely falls under 'fair use' and so would not infringe anyone's copyright; b) a term of art, such as "approved" or "not approved" can never be subject to copyright. As others have requested, please make an actual argument based in copyright law or Wikipedia policy (not just a repetition of the claim) about why the use of the phrase, "not approved", constitutes a copyright violation.Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read PLAGIARISM and then see this search. It is not just the phrase "not approved" it is the whole sentence. As I have said before feel free to pick a source and quote it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a little more concrete. So you are saying "genetically modified corn that was not approved for human consumption" is plagiarized. I did a more narrow google search here and the clause appears 820 times.   This was a good idea - you search with 8 million results, and mine with 820, each demonstrates that this is a common clause and not the proprietary, copyrighted expression of any one entity.  You have provided the defense against any charge of plagiarism.  Just like this search has 19 million hits.  You have not made a case that there is any copyvio.Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though I still think that it's just a common phrase and not plagiarism, let's try to resolve the two-way impasse by looking for a third way. How about changing the phrase "that was not approved for human consumption" to "that was not approved for inclusion in human food products"? It seems to me that we get into problems when we try to change "not approved", but we can surely change the other part of the phrase. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with that.Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how you change it because it will probably still be copyvio of one of the sources. This is because we are 12 years late in our wording. Why not just pick a source and quote it as Sergecross originally recommended and I have never disagreed with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We could do that, or we could just leave the wording the way that it is, because it was never a copyright violation to begin with. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current consensus forming is that it's not a COPYVIO to begin with. Which is why I keep on telling Canoe to start further discussions through other avenues, like WP:CP, to get further comments to see if its even really an issue. Sergecross73   msg me   19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just quote a source as you originally suggested? I don't think anyone disagrees with that. That would prevent anyone else, including the sources, from claiming copyvio.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which source do you suggest? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will accept a quote only if Canoe brings this to WP:CP and gets support for the claim that there is copyvio. I am very happy to compromise when reasonable arguments are brought. Right now there are none.Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of consensus policy claim is that? If you don't wish to select a quote then state valid reasons why we can't use one. Just because I agree to a quote doesn't mean you need to disagree because I like it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, which source do you suggest? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I choose as others will probably disagree anyway. Just Google the copyvio sentence from the lead and choose a close one would probably satisfy all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Either propose something concrete, or take it to WP:CP. This circular arguing is not constructive. Sergecross73   msg me   19:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The shells "contained a genetically engineered corn not approved for human consumption."ref. Is everyone ok with that?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording on the page now is already a paraphrase of what the source you chose says. There is no copyright violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no copyvio. Please bring this to WP:CP; it would be a kindness to let us know when you do.Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is copvio according to our policy. If you could simply agree to your exact same sentence (above) that is in the article now, with quote marks, then we can hat this whole mess off. Another drama board would just create more 'too long, didn't read.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy to compromise when there are reasons but you have none - vaguely waving at a policy is not an argument. No one else agrees that this is copyvio.  So WP:CP is your standard recourse. Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the policy I linked earlier? What do you see wrong with adding quote marks to a sentence you approve of? This will save bots, other editor's, readers, and sources, from claiming copyvio. Another drama board will just be more 'too long, didn't read' and probably come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with quote marks to CYA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read the policy, several times. Just waving at a policy is not making an argument.  Is your question about "what do you see wrong..." a real question, or rhetorical?  If it is a real question I will answer it.  Do let me know.  As for the rest, no one here, including an admin, sees copyvio - I am not worried about bots and other editors. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Canoe has argued very strongly that the sentence is a copyvio of multiple sources. I invited him to pick any one of those multiple sources, any one of his choosing, to be cited directly as a source. He came up with a source. No one forced him to pick that source over any other sources. The wording in the source that he chose is different than the supposedly plagiarized wording on this page. It seems to me that we have zero evidence of a copyvio. I also know that, for whatever reason, Canoe was very interested in changing "not approved" to "unfit for human consumption". Maybe it's time to stop discussing copyvios where none exists. I'm sure that Canoe disagrees with me, and he is free to go to WP:CP and make an argument there. If the consensus there is that there is a copyvio, I expect editors here will respect that consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I have deactivated the edit request template for now, since there is obviously not consensus for changing "not approved" to "deemed unfit". If another specific wording is proposed or a consensus is reached, feel free to re-activate, or better, form a new request. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is the correct name?
Should Starlink corn recall be moved to StarLink corn recall? I'm referring to the capitalization of "Link", because I just saw it get changed in the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there some policy or guideline that says we should follow the originator's trademark orthography? If there is, then I reckon the article should follow it. Otherwise, seems overly fussy to me.  The person who changed the one occurrence, unfortunately didn't change them all Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i guess this is the relevant policy WP:TITLETM; to answer the question we would need to go through the sources and see how it is most often spelled, and then use that. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * which I just did, and it is almost always StarLink. So that is what we should do. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I moved it. I'll leave the fixing of the rest of the text for another time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i did the global change, so is all ✅, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)