Talk:Stephanie Seneff

Notability
I'm concerned that this person doesn't really pass WP:NOTE requirements for notability. In fact it seems a clear candidate for WP:BLP1E but before starting an AFD I thought I'd see what others think. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) I don't even think this wiki page would exist if she had never spoken publicly against the big firms who's products demonstrated possibly serious large scale harmful effects without giving the wiki entry more of a full spectrum detail and less bias content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.222.106 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a very notable computer science researcher, with many highly cited papers in that area (see Google Scholar). Her glyphosate research is outside of her area of training, but apparently that is what makes her known to the general public. I think the article should be expanded with some stuff about her real scientific contributions, which should be the meat of the article, as opposed to the stuff that is controversial, but a much smaller part of her career. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy
Continuing on with Seneff's controversial ideas she has now followed Kerri Rivera (of chlorine dioxide and autism fame). Honestly there seem to be no places where Stephanie doesn't step on someone else's field. There is some (limited) discussion on Twitter about having her fired from MIT. Here's an example of Seneff talking to Riverra https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybiHGCA71G8 Smidoid (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Continued coverage
It looks like Seneff is getting continued coverage of publications in line with WP:FRINGE. The most recent one covered here tries to claim GMOs, glyphosate, etc. are responsible for concussions. Not sure if it's worth expanding on in the article at this point, but it does appear her main reputation now is trying to correlate a bunch of things to vaccines, GMOs, etc. and overall being criticized for it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and weight
I don't want to become involved in editing this article, so I'm leaving this as an admin comment only, related to the BLP issues.

An issue arose during the AfD about the self-published sources that were in the article in violation of WP:BLPSPS. So far as I can see, they have been removed, except for Snopes, which I believe is also an SPS. Even if it isn't, it's not an RS for a BLP or autism.

There are other issues. The paragraph about Seneff's views on autism is very problematic, as is the paragraph about cholesterol. She isn't an expert in these areas, and the Pacific Standard isn't an RS on autism. We ought not to use SPS and non-RS to counter material that shouldn't be there in the first place. Re: "Seneff and her MIT colleagues have also done research on the relationship between fat and cholesterol consumption and health in America" – if it's published, let's see it; if not, let's not mention it.

Because of the minimal sourcing, the whole section should probably be reduced to something like "Seneff has become a controversial figure within the scientific community as a result of her views on autism, cancer, gluten sensitivity and glyphosate, as well as her views on cholesterol consumption." The rest of her biography should be developed so that those aspects aren't the main thing.

Because this kind of issue keeps cropping up, editors active in this area should consider drafting something for BLP about not creating bios on borderline figures notable only for highly contentious views about scientific matters outside their area of expertise, where the sourcing is so minimal. Or at least drafting advice about how to write them. SarahSV (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * re crackpots like this lady -- I think it is a good thing to leave these articles up. It's a public service to discredit people who have undeserved credibility. For instance, I came here to find out who the heck this "MIT researcher" was, who writes such ridiculous articles. When the press prints her stuff, they always mention the PhD and MIT but somehow neglect to mention that her position is in computer algorithms, not biology. It's a good thing to be able to find this info quickly. Thank you, wikipedia 203.160.80.62 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stephanie Seneff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160606170517/https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-glyphosate-researchers-use-easy-oa-journals-to-spread-their-views/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/08/anti-roundup-glyphosate-researchers-use-easy-oa-journals-to-spread-their-views/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New article
Just came across this article that looks like a good summary of Seneff: https://mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephanie-seneff-strikes-out-again-glyphosate-and-covid-19

I don't have time to write anything up right now, so I figured I'd drop that here for future reference in case anyone else wants to take a crack at it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is written by Dr. Joseph Schwarcz of McGill University's Office for Science and Society (OSS). He seems to have a vendetta against Seneff, particularly particularly regarding her publications questioning the safety of glyphosphate, Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. He's written numerous articles for the OSS coming to the defense of glyphosphate against Dr. Seneff and her colleagues. It would be prudent to ask why he would be so defensive of glyphosphate?

On their site, the OSS states they do "not accept funding from any vested interest." However, as late as 2007, the OSS acknowledged funding from The Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI). According to the Biotechnology Innovation Organization : "The Council for Biotechnology Information is a coalition of eight leading life-science companies including Aventis CropScience, BASF, Bayer, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca Ag Products, as well as two trade associations, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the American Crop Protection Association (ACPA)."

Dr. Schwarcz has a bio page on a JewAge.org that states: "Schwarcz has consulted for a number of Fortune 500 companies, including Monsanto."

Despite claims made on the OSS website, there is evidence that Dr. Schwarcz might be in a conflict of interest which warrants further investigation before concluding his article is a reliable source. It's also notable that while the Seneff article he's criticizing cites numerous sources in support of her findings, Dr. Schwarcz fails to cite a single source in support of his criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.179.38 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Noone needs to have an axe to grind about Seneff to be able to report a number of inaccuracies in the low quality published papers, it's also not necessary to have an affiliation with Monsanto to do so... As such, Schwarcz is also not the only source about this.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've just noted that Seneff's Twitter account has been suspended. There's no way for us to know how long or what for. I would hope it's for spreading glyphosate misinformation (of which she has produced voluminous quantities) but I would guess she's jumped on the Covid 19 bandwagon again. The way she behaves makes me question how she got a Ph.D in an engineering subject and, I think, at least a degree in some biology discipline. 82.24.18.184 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

8/11/22 Edits
Hello,, et al. My take on the 8/11 edits: (1) The IARC supports Seneff on cancer, but importantly, provides a view contrary to refs incl. Monsanto statement; for NPOV facts re: Monsanto’s specific position should be referenced not even concerning Seneff’s position. (2) She did not publish, Food and Chemical Toxicology published; (3) Per its wikipage, Food and Chemical Toxicology “is a peer-reviewed scientific journal” (4) ‘this publication retracted’ is an unnecessary duplication: “Despite some scientists trying to get a retraction, the editors refused to retract the publication.” is balanced and not overly wordy; (5) Frontiers in Public Health is italicized as a journal, check its wikipage. Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I kept all the useful changes you made. I reverted the clearly biased and SYNTH claims regarding IARC. The IARC claim itself has been debunked by the scientific community, but it also has no relevance here because the source has no mention of Seneff whatsoever. The Monsanto reference, meanwhile, is directly about Seneff's study. As an experienced editor, you should know full well what the WP:SYNTH policy is. Your IARC inclusions are not appropriate unless you have actual reliable sources that include Seneff in such a discussion. Silver  seren C 02:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for your reply here, . Silver  seren C 02:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m glad you learned from the edits I made and hope you didn’t wait too long. I am aware of WP:SYNTH, find WP:SYNTHNOT useful, and note that SYNTH is not a rigid rule, but a guideline for helping to determine the difference between summarizing the information from sources and extrapolating new information from sources. What I find useful for the reader is a response to what the ref notes was “reiterated” information, it was not just a response to Seneff‘s study, but also a blanket, general, statement. Should there be information contradicting a blanket self-serving statement? I would also appreciate your information on the debunking of the IARC claim as it appears not ever scientist has debunked it, and the judicial system seems to disagree. Even if all agree the IARC is debunked, how do you explain the multiple million dollar verdicts and Monsanto/Bayer willing to pay billions of dollars in addition to end litigation? I dare say Monsanto/Bayer recognized it would continue losing and wished to stop fighting a lost cause. Perhaps the reader would benefit if at least the wikiarticle on the litigation were referenced. Although, like you, I am waiting for your reply, note that I have a life and may not reply to you for some time. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for a reply before because you were continuing to edit the article for 30 minutes before replying here. And all you've done here is shown that you have a POV problem with this topic area and shouldn't be editing in it. And also a clear (and seemingly purposeful) misunderstanding of our No Original Research policy and how referenced information is to be used. Your opinion of informative additional material for the readers has no place in Wikipedia articles. If the references do not actually discuss the subject matter, which in this article is Stephanie Seneff, then they shouldn't be used at all. Silver  seren C 04:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

New articles
Some newer articles that might be able to support improvements to this Wikipedia article, such as further discussing Seneff's long-time opposition to vaccines: Mother Jones, Health Feedback, Factcheck.org, USA TodayScienceFlyer (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)