User:Masem/GMOcaseComments

Added comments for the present Enforcement case at Arbcom, moved off due to length

Capeo I recognize the controversy is over the apparent ties of the paper's claims to cancer. I recognize numerous secondary sources have stated the paper is about tying GMO to cancer, and this is not a fact to be omitted from the article we have. But at the start of this, we have a professor that had stated (and restated on this controversy) that the paper was not about cancer but tumors. To avoid any BLP we should be clear that this was how the paper was presented, and then engage in the secondary coverage about how it appeared to be linking cancer to GMO (and of course, from that, strong criticism of the methods used). How the lede presently is at the article does not reflect the intention of the professor as we can verify from published sources (beyond even reviewing the original paper itself, so no OR here), but what secondary sources claim the professor was doing, which makes it an edge BLP issue; unless there's an authoritative aspect here (for example if a person claimed they were innocent of a crime but proven guilty in a court of law), we should not be letting secondary sources trump direct statements from the BLP about the BLP's intentions, though the secondary sources should obviously still be included after introducing the BLP intentions. --M ASEM (t) 17:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Capeo If part of the controversy is that the professor states his paper was not about cancer, while the bulk of scientific community states it was, we should not be factually introducing the paper as being a cancer study as the lede presently does and what had been reverted from in this case's statement, as that is against NPOV and BLP; secondary source cannot speak to the intent of the professor at all, they can only make educated guesses (here, likely based on the professor's past statements regarding GMO). Once you've introduced that the professor wrote it as a tumor study, then the gates are open to include the secondary aspect that most considered it a cancer study, and then his reactions to that to state it wasn't about cancer, and so on. Document the controversy. --M ASEM (t) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 If one is trying to justify that we should ignore what the professor stated (the paper wasn't about cancer) because of backtracking claims and waving around pictures of rats, and that this connection is not something previously pointed out by secondary sources, that is original research on WP's part and against both NPOV and BLP. Document the controversy, don't try to judge it, which is what seems to be happened based on input here and the article's talk page, with calls to call the professor's work as FRINGE and dismiss it. This seems like a "he said, she said" situation, so it is best to simply document what both sides have claimed, even if they later try to revise their claim. As I read it, at the time of publishing, the professor was stating it was not a cancer study, so we should not initially present it as such. --M ASEM (t) 18:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)