User talk:Catrinka Trabont

"request for comment"
Catrinka, you are new to Wikipedia. A "request for comment" is a formal mechanism by which people working on a given page ask the wider wiki-world to come and comment on a specific question.  After a certain amount of time, a Wikipedia administrator comes by, and reviews all the comments on the question in light of wikipedia policies and guidelines, and provides a decision. Many RfCs fail because people write all kinds of irrlevant crap in them, and it is impossible for the administrator to find clear responses to the question that was asked.  As for this RfC,  your ally groupuscule set it up. Her goal was to get comments from the community, based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, on whether to remove or modify the sentence "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food." Your off-target comments frustrate the RfC process. If you are really opposed to the statement, you should remove your off-target comments, and bring arguments, based on wikipedia policies and guidelines, that the sentence should be changed or deleted. You should be concise and very clear on how your arguments are based on policy and guidelines. An RfC is a really bad place to be undisciplined, especially if it was set up by an ally. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, thank you for the parts of this note which explain things, though I already was aware in general of the process. You have been patient with me in the past as a new editor, and I appreciate that. However, much of this note is really over the line in its tone, and I hope not to be treated this way again.
 * I was in a hurry when I wrote the post in question, which is why it was somewhat over the top. However, most of what I said was intended as comment on the statement in question. It was too long and meandered a bit, but my comments were hardly so vile or outrageous, compared to the comments of other editors, as to deserve that reaction. If you want to correct me in the future, please stick to facts. But let's not quibble any more on that...I appreciate your sincere attempt to help the editors do their job.
 * I am sorry that you found my response to be over the top. I am aware that we are all in a hurry and I use italics and other emphasis to make sure the key points get through - that's all.  I am not trying to yell or anything.  But I am sorry that it came across rudely.  I did try to provide advice to help you advocate your position, even though I do not share it.  My intentions were not to make you feel bad at all so I am sorry. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I do want to add one more thing though, that your comment to Groupuscule on the talk page regarding their post, that it was not a report but...I forget what you said...was also not WP:etiquette. When I read what they had actually said there, I found it thoughtful and helpful, in contrast to your remark. It would be nice if you edited your comments, both to them and to me, on the page, but that is your choice. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Catrinka Trabont (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been a lot of discussion about User:Groupuscule's essay so I am not sure which comment you meant. (btw generally if you mention somebody in a Talk page, you should notify them by using a Wikilink to their username).   There was one comment that I removed because I learned that they (groupuscule) found it offensive.  I didn't intend it that way so as soon as I learned that they were offended, I removed it. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to editors of the Genetically Modified Foods Controversy
Here is some background which may explain my attitude towards the GE controversy. I have not alerted anyone yet that I have written it, to give me time to review and reconsider.

I was referred to a book called Tomorrow's Table, by Pamela Ronald and her husband, by an author I respected, in support of GM foods, saying they were necessary to feed the world.

About this time, nutrition consultant was giving a talk on GM foods in my town. I went to it, and heard the name of Jeffrey Smith for the first time. His main book was Seeds of Deception.

So I read both books concurrently. Starting with Smith: in the first half of the book, Smith told the Puztai story, ending with Puztai's vindication by scientists who opposed the way he had been treated. In the second half, he reported that the leadership of the agencies responsible for policing new foods were working back and forth for Monsanto, Syngenta, etc.

So then I read Ronald's book, Tomorrow's Table. I was excited to see Smith's name. Would she explain this huge divergence of views? But no, in a singe sentence, ignoring all of the stuff about meddling with the scientists and staffing problems at the agency, she referred to the Puztai study as one which could not be replicated, then went on to critique some obscure work of Smith's. That was it!

I'll provide you with details if you ask, but the rest of the book and the rest of her web page and work which I explored featured the same sort of avoidance of relevant facts, with different varieties such as stuffing a lot of irrelevant information in or generally discounting the concerns of those opposed to GM foods. I had started with an open mind, ready to accept GM foods, but if she really had a defense against Smith's accusations, or against the concerns, she never offered anything of substance, and this looked bad to me. Other GM authors I read were also just repeating the same sorts of things, without addressing the lack of research and other problems.

I have been looking at how public opinion is manipulated for some time. I'm sure I could pull up several relevant Wik articles on the subject. To me, though, this is the heart of the objections to GM foods...the lack of independent peer reviewed science and the avoidance of the relevant issues, by Ronald and others. If there is no need to worry, why are they so cagey?

Some editors have said that they had the reverse experience...that when they explored the anti-GM crowd, they saw a lot of dishonesty. I have not had that experience...what I have seen in the anti-GM camp is a range of behaviors, starting from very careful statements from or quoting of scientists, ranging down to wild and bogus assertions. Any legitimate subject has its lunatic fringe, but the leadership in the anti-GM field passes my test for legitimacy (although Mae Wan Ho is a bit eccentric). Unless the top blows off and we know for sure the stuff is bad, I would place GM opposition in minority opinion...not fringe. If I understand correctly, in WP, minority opinion allows more flexibility of sources, presumably because the minority might be struggling against political pressure to get the truth out. Catrinka Trabont (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Catrinka Trabont (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Catrinka. I came across your page while reviewing recent changes.  A couple of points that might be useful:
 * 1. the lack of independent peer reviewed science I'm not sure who told you this, but I suspect they either had an agenda or aren't a scientist.  Much of the world's scientific literature is now indexed at Google Scholar, and a quick search brings up 24,000 hits.  Having dabbled at bit in biology I expect that number understates the research:  not every relevant paper is going to contain the words "genetically modified foods".
 * So the research is out there. Reading it can be challenging, not only because scientists use a very terse style when communicating with other scientists, but also because the vast majority of this work will be paywalled.  If you have access to a good research university then you can get your hands on any of this work for free.  If not, try WP:RX and see what your local library's interlibrary loan program can do for you.
 * 2. If I understand correctly, in WP, minority opinion allows more flexibility of sources, presumably because the minority might be struggling against political pressure to get the truth out.  That's not my understanding.  Let me point you to an essay called WP:FLAT, which says in part:  If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view.
 * Truth is not one of wikipedia's strengths. What we do moderately well, most of the time is reflect current consensus opinion and make a note of significant dissenting opinions.  Trying to change the consensus here is going to result in a lot of frustration on your part.  If you want to be an activist, you have my encouragement and respect&mdash;but the most effective way of being an activist is getting the Ph.D. and engaging other scientists, not readers of wikipeida.


 * Best,


 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * HI Catrinka: I just came across your post above. User:Lesser Cartographies really nailed it, on several fronts.  Wikipedia reports scientific consensus as it stands.  I would counter what Lesser said a bit.. in that science is a human endeavor - always imperfect, always struggling to improve, always changing but always striving to understand Truth with the tools it has (which are not appropriate for every question).  We at Wikipedia struggle right along behind it, trying to capture the consensus as it exists today, so we can reflect Truth, as expressed in the scientific consensus, as best we can.   But we do not claim authority on our own; we follow the scientific consensus.  I very strongly support what Lesser said about not stopping your own research.  As I describe on my userpage, I have spent hours and hours reading the relevant literature.  I find that so, so many opponents of GM food have not done their homework, and don't understand genetic engineering at all, much less the specific changes made to GM crops currently used for food;  they don't understand the process of bringing GM crops from their invention on a lab bench to growing in the field;  they don't understand the regulatory process at all; they don't understand what toxicology is nor how it works; they don't understand what farmers actually do and think, and they don't understand what happens to food when you eat it.  But they are somehow confident to make broad statements strongly condemning so many things related to GM food.  I just went through a struggle in the GM pages with a guy who was fiercely trying to push a bunch of negative information into the articles who wrote about "corn that produces glyphosate".   That people who do not understand things, allow their passion and conviction to become so strong, is continually amazing to me.  I am surprised you find Mae Wan Ho a "bit" eccentric - she is so, so far out there.  Interesting metaphysics, sure... but she left actual science behind ages and ages ago.  And Jeffrey Smith is just super biased and puts out tons of nonsense, along with some good points.  So much chaff along with the wheat.  So please, do your homework. And by "homework" I mean the documentation that regulators produce and documentation put out there by and for people who actually do this work and who use these products (i.e. farmers and agricultural extension offices that serve them) -- and read the anti-GMO literature too but not only that.  Please try to understand what actually goes on, before you come to judgement on it.  And if you really want to start that investigation from the framework that "the public is being manipulated"  please apply that to everything you read, from both sides. ( I am not sure that is a very productive place to start as it is more of a conclusion than a starting place; much better to start clean, with direct questions like "what is genetic engineering, actually?" and "what do toxicologists consider when designing an experiment"?)   Anyway, good luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)