User talk:WLRoss/Archive 7

Hindmarsh Island
While there are several of us interested, would you be interested in making a push to get this article to FAC? I think it is quite capable of becoming one, especially since the issue has now reached some closure with the Ngarrindjeri formally coming to terms with the bridge earlier this month. Keen? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is doable but I also feel there is probably quite a lot more that can be added to make the current artical clearer. ATM I'm reading Simon's "The Meeting of the Waters" (which is pro dissident) and I'm sure there will be information there that was not included in Kenney's pro proponent book. Although I have primarily used Kenney's book as a source I have done so sparingly to avoid POV so on finishing Simon's book I will have to cross reference both to find relevant material for inclusion.Wayne (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have thought that the article doesn't flow as well as it should - I guess this is always a problem when wiki articles are added to piecemeal over several years! I'll think about a better structure as a basis for rewriting the existing content into something more easily readable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of massacres of Indigenous Australians
Hi, I've posted some questions regarding changes you've made there on the article's talk page. Webley442 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MILPERRA MASSACRE or how to screw Jane & save UR own neck
YODAJANE. As you know I'm in Adelaide. As I now know you're in New South Wales. As any reasonable person would believe, only STALKER would edit such an obscure Wiki page at four in the morning seconds after I wrote it. Boom boom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodajane (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy
Hi there. I have removed the notice you added to this article here:. This is because I believe it violates our longstanding guideline, WP:No disclaimers in articles. Many Wikipedia articles contain material which is potentially offensive to many people; however, warnings in individual articles are discouraged, as all pages on Wikipedia link to the WP:General disclaimer already. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NDA discourages but does not prohibit disclaimers, they are allowed if they have consensus. There is currently a RFC on the talk page discussing it.Wayne (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Taman Shud case
Regarding this and this edit, wherein you noted as a reference the use of Baths/Swimming Pool, needs more referencing. Otherwise, it seems like you are drawing on synthesized data to illustrate a point, and we cannot allow that. I am aware of your other edits and feel confident that you can instead write the information as article text, referencing with citation. If you need to address my concerns, could you drop me a line? If I don't hear from you, I will likely revert the info as uncited. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

discussion
join. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Request board
Regarding your post here: since there are more than two editors involved in the dispute and it does touch on the Israel/Palestine area I believe an RFC would be the appropriate way to move forward. Would you like me to go ahead and set one up or can you? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I posted the request, three more editors entered the dicussion. With the added input the editor in question has apparently accepted the reverting of all his edits which was actually more than I was arguing for. From comments made in talk it appears possible that the editor was not prepared to conceed to me personally (we have opposed each other recently in another article) so I stepped back to see if it could be resolved without my input with the new editors, which it was. The article has been stable for a few days now so I believe the request is no longer required. Thx for the input. Wayne (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sorry for the delay in getting around to your request. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So this time I'm getting around to your request in a timely fashion, but I'm rather busy with my day job today: Are you able to provide a brief (e.g., one or two sentence) neutral statement which outlines the issue(s) in contention? If you can then I/we can go ahead and start an RfC to try and attract more attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I've gone ahead and used your proposal with a few tweaks and placed it at Talk:Norman Finkelstein. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you misread the source. Marking it as a revert was a honest mistake. Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. Mistakes happen and I've started out doing a revert and ended up rewriting something instead myself. To clarify my position on why it should remain about Farfour (edit summaries are too short to do so properly), the section is a summary of the programs so what Farfour was doing/saying is important. What a call-in guest said may have been important if it didn't have it's own section elsewhere in the article. The controversy for the translation alsdo makes inclusion a problem without explaining the debate and to add that debate is innapropriate for that section.Wayne (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Arpad Pusztai and statements about the RS
Hi there. I have reverted your reversion. This is due to two things.

I cannot find the statement anywhere where the RS has stated it is at "the forefront of defending GM". If you disagree please cite the source. Please also note that if this was stated by another source, the context it was used in questions the NPOV of nature of the statement.

Also note that the RS do peer review, as is evident from the numerous peer reviewed journals they publish. Therefore both statements have been removed. Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society#Publishing

To be honest, these are very minor changes in a very non neutral article that needs major rewriting. Hopefully I'll have the time in the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craptree (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I no longer have that source so cant check. However the fact that the society peer reviews work it publishes is irrelevant as it does not peer review work by others that it does not publish which it did in this case. What exactly do you think needs rewriting? The article pretty much follows what the sources say and includes rebuttals. There is enough data available that the article could easily be made to lean towards an anti GM stance but it has not done this.Wayne (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Just in case you are not aware of the above ArbCom decision, particularly the discretionary sanctions part of it, please take a look at it. Any attempts to promote fringe/conspiracy theories related to 9/11 on Wikipedia in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE may be reported at WP:AE and may lead to discretionary sanctions being imposed. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you telling me this when I have made no edits regarding any theories? The edits I have made to date have all been grammatical corrections which can be seen by my edit summaries. I find it rather offensive when editors try to scare those they dissagree with away from editing certain articles so I hope this a mistake on your part. Wayne (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please. Feigning naivete here does not sound particularly convincing. This edit here, where you changed "Conspiracy theorists" to "Some theorists" is a classic example of substituting plain language by a watered-down euphemism intending to legitimize fringe views. In the next edit you appear to claim that National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers issued their findings without conducting research. Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no need to feign anything, I am very experienced with 911 articles (see sections 1, 2 and 10 above) and posting a notice such as above is uncalled for when there has been no violation. In the past it has been used as a sledgehammer by some POV editors to discourage editing so I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. My comments are very clear as to the reason for the edits and you need to draw a very long bow to claim any were pushing conspiracy theories. "Some theorists" does not water down anything or legitimize fringe views. The article is not on Conspiracy theories and some of the theories covered by that section are not conspiracy theories or even fringe so saying "Conspiracy theorists" is casting too wide a net and thus POV. The conspiracy theories are already identified as such. I did not claim or infer that NIST did not conduct research which can be seen if you read the edit comment. NIST conducted no research into CD which the sentence as it stood implied. This particular edit was there more than a year ago and was removed then for the same reason I gave in the comment. Not including those words does not change the meaning of the sentence one iota. Perhaps understanding of English is at fault and if so I apologise for assuming you may have had a POV motive.Wayne (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

+ The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. WLRoss, I'm not an admin but I can find a neutral one if need be. Placing this here so you are aware...--MONGO 03:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Holisticmed
Hi WL. I reverted your edit to Showa Denko becouse I do not think http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/ is a reliable source. Cheers AIR corn (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it is or not is irrelevant as a reason to revert the entire edit as it was only one of two references used for the edit. The edit itself is not controversial or disputed.Wayne (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry missed the seeds of deception ref. Although I would argue that is just as unreliable as holisticmed for the sentence as written. This is from a journal (although it is a point of view and will have to be attributed to the author) and it says they were reportedly destroyed. I will see if I can find a review which has more information. AIR corn (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx. The claim is important for the section as it explains why several ideas have been put forward but none proven. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Woggabaliri
Has it occurred to you that Woggabaliri is a massive piss take that has gone horribly wrong? The evidence, apart from ausport, seems incredibly thin on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked a number of reliable sources and if it's a hoax then it is incredible (not to mention dissapointing) that it has lasted so long without someone picking up on it. Assistant Professor of Education, Ken Edwards of Bond University included Woggabaliri in his 1999 book Games from the dreamtime and again in 2008 in a guide to Australian and Torres Strait Island games published by Bond Universities Humanities and Social Sciences dept, Yulunga: Traditional Indigenous Games. Edwards claims all the games are either taken from original 19th century accounts or provided by the Indigenous communities themselves. In 2000 it was mentioned in an ABC program as being taught by a non profit Indigenous organisation in Queensland to encourage Indigenous children to take up sport, which I believe predates Ausports first mention. In 2008 it was included in a book International games: building skills through multicultural play published by Human Kinetics in the U.S. The game is included in several guides to Indigenous games other than those put out by Ausport. An entire page in the sports secion of the Advertiser was dedicated to Woggabaliri some weeks ago. The FFA included it in their bid to host the World Cup so it would be very embarrassing indeed for them if it was proven to be fake. Last but not least, the Wiradjuri people are the largest Indigenous group in Australia and I find it hard to believe, given that the game is promoted in NSW schools, that none would have spoken up if the name did not mean play in their language or if they did not know it existed. Wayne (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some research and found a 1904 dictionary of the Wiradjuri language. Woggabaliri is the actual Wiradjuri word for play. That doesn't rule out a hoax of course but it does rule out the name as a pun of Wog Ball which is the main evidence cited to support the hoax claim.Wayne (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a wiradjuri word (central NSW), but a Queensland organisation was playing it in 2000? How did that happen?  And how can an etching from Victoria have anything to do with the story? (as shown in the article) - honestly, this story is all over the shop, and everything leads back to the ASC and this book written by the bloke they hired - there is absolutely nothing else on the game - NOTHING!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to re-read that dictionary, it's not a wiradjuri word, it's a ngunawal word, the wiradjuri word for play is wagagi. As I've said, this whole story is all over the shop  and is fake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We have to go with the sources and they say it's real. If you believe the story is fake please find some evidence as I've looked myself and the only claims of fake I can find are AFL related website forums which provide no supporting evidence so are hardly reliable. My mistake with the language though as I only scanned the page to find the word. It doesn't alter anything as the Ngunnawal border the Wiradjuri lands. As far as I can tell Edwards 1999 book was written before the ASC became involved with Bond University but I could be wrong and the Indigenous organisation in Queensland was affiliated with QUT where Edwards worked at the time so that could explain why it was promoted in Queensland before NSW. As for the engraving, the sources say it is "more likely" the game is Woggabaliri than Marn Grook, partly because of the name of the engraving and partly as it was a scene near Merbein which is around 400km from the area where Marn Grook was played but only 100km from where Woggabaliri was played. It's quite possible it is another game entirely or a variation of one of those but again we have to use what the sources say or we get into WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole story is riddled with holes. Nothing existed before Edwards' book - nothing.  He claims the name of the game is the Wiradjuri word for "play", but he's wrong according to your source, that's  Ngunawal word.  And all of a sudden, an etching of a game played in Victoria is picked up as proof of the exsitence of Woggabaliri?  The name of the picture is "never let the ball hit the ground".  Hasn't it occurred to you that that might describe Marn Grook as well??  How is that there's stacks of documented evidence of the existence of a game called marn grook, but absolutely nothing on Woggabaliri - I mean absolutely nothing.  And what's worse, the ASC has grabbed the language of marn grook, run with it for their own agenda, and now are claiming it's the oldest recorded indigenous game - how can they say that?  The whole thing is a hoax.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot beliave how gullable some people are. Why should Australian football supporters have to find evidence that this game DID NOT exist? There is not one bit of "evidence" that predates some dude called Ken Edwards - absolutley nothing. And yet your WIKI page claims it is recognised by the ASC as the oldest indigenous game...go figure.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.122.14 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict:The claim is made by the ASC so the wiki page is just following the standard practice of basing articles on RS. Who do you want to find evidence? I've looked and found none so it is up to those who believe the game doesn't exist to find it. In the decade since Edwards' research was published there have been no doubts raised and I can site dozens of more recent findings in Indigenous anthropology so it is not at all unusually for something to become public knowledge so recently. The only reason doubts have been raised now is because this article has brought it to the attention of a website for AFL fans who based their claim on the name being made up. We now know the name is real so the claim has changed to no whitefellas have heard of the game before 1999. Can I point out that the first mention of Marn Grook was 10 years after Blandowski's 1857 book was published with the etching, Blandowski had never heard of the game yet we dont discount that it existed. That we now have a wiki page is actually a very good thing because having the information out in the wider community should expose any problems.Wayne (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So now, Wayne you have taken down the picture of the game of Marn Grook at Merbein despite claiming it was "more likely" "woggabaliri" above. I assume you have discovered that your "sources" (Kenny Edwards??) above claim, that merbein is 100km from where "woggabaliri" was played is a nonsense, in fact it is at the north end of the regions where Marn Grook was witnessed by many. It is 800km where the word "woggabaliri" came from!

The most plausible event now is that someone has plucked the name "woggabiliri" out of an old dictionary - perhaps the online version of your link - and fraudelently built a game like soccer around it. Unless ONE other source is found that speaks of a game in that region where you volleyed a ball without using your hands, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn. The guy who wrote the book is still alive so we should be able to work it out.

And do you seriously, seriously believe that Australia' indigineous would have invented a game that forbid them from using their hands?

I think it is now time to remove this silly Wiki entry completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove anything so obviously it was vandalism which I'll fix it shortly. What difference does it make that the name came from any particular part of the area where the game was played? BTW it's 600 km not 800. Marn Grook is Gunditjmara for game ball and they lived around Portland which is 470km from Merbein. If you base the distance on where the games were actually played, Woggabaliri appears to be closer to Merbein than Marn Grook as I mentioned above. Not that the Merbein game is proven to be either of them. If you want to have the article deleted you can do so by making an AFD request. Wayne (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some more research and historian Gillian Hibbins states that there is no evidence Marn Grook was played north of the Grampians (and that it is extremely unlikely that it was played in the Grampians either) which rules out Merbein which is 400km north of the Grampians. Basically Marn Grook was played in the coastal regions from Portland to Melbourne. On the other hand, apparently Woggabaliri was played by Indigenous people around Balranald which is around 120km from Merbein. This supports the theory that the Blandowski etching is more likely to be Woggabaliri than Marn Grook. Hibbins research also supports that much of the Marn Grook article is considerably more suspect than the Woggabaliri one. For example the article says Evidence supports such games being played primarily by the Djabwurrung.... yet Hibbins says there is no evidence at all that they played it and they are too far north of the games extent. Wayne (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So GH says there is no evidence that "marn grook" was played north of the grampians and that is enough for you to dismiss it....yet you now assert Woggabaliri, was "apparently" played around Balranald yet you provide no evidence whatsoever. What do you mean by "apparently"? Surely if it was credible you would have posted it on your WIKI page given some of the nonsense you have had up there? Where is the evidence that a game was played AT ALL, ANYWHERE, that invovled volleying a ball around without using your hands? Any quote at all that pre dated Ken Edwards? Anything? Why do you morph from a gullible fool when you are "researching" "Woggabaliri, into a forensic scrooge when Marn Grook is the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was enough for (me) to dismiss it I would be editing the Marn Grook article but I am not doing so. There is no requirement that any source pre-dates Edwards and to demand one is rediculous. If you have a problem with the article go to WP:AFD instead of vandalising it. I'd also suggest you read up on WP:NPA and I point out that a "gullible fool" is more likely the one who is making claims based on personal opinion without providing a shred of evidence for their position. I'm only too willing to accept any evidence you have but a consensus on a football fansite is not a reliable source. Wayne (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not providing a shred of evidence. Others have demonstrated that there is no evidence. Everything stops at Ken Edwards and there is ansolutely nothing else. I don't go for this line of argument on metaphysics however here it is apt - how do we demonstrate something doesn't exist? Surely the best we can do is point out the complete lack of evidence?

and again "apparently Woggabaliri was played by Indigenous people around Balranald" and why isn't it up on the WIKI page? if there is evidence of it than that would be at least SOMETHING. If Ken has just gone down the local at Balranald and som bar fly has told him a family anecdote, that's not much to base it on is it..? also: "Popular with the Wiradjuri and surrounding peoples"..what is this based on? Is it a quote from Ken's book? and: "Woggabaliri is recognised by the Australian Sports Commission as one of the oldest Indigenous ball games" where do they say this? And "vandalism"? Apologies if you interpret correcting for a complete lack of evidence constitues "vandalism" good for you but I am actually far more concerned with the fabrication of history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * All spot on Bazza. The orignal author of this article has been found out peddling his POV big time.  He initially started this article with "Often confused with marn grook" - yeh, right, a game that no one has ever heard of and for which there is zero documented evidence - absolutely zero.  I suggest people have a look at Edwards' bood on and the entry on Woggabaliri.  Not only are zero references supplied, not even an indication of who he got the story from - nothing.  And according to his "variations", they clearly all have a modern ring to them, right down to numbering the players!!  It's a massive hoax, all exacerbated by the ASC for running with the claim for the sole purpose of creating a narrative for which they feel they will get government funding.  I also hope Australia's rivals start to take a close look at this claim of woggabaliri showing our heritage in soccer - they will be able to make mince meat of that claim in five minutes flat!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figghiu Beddu (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheers Figghiu! So we are still waiting on evidence. We need three accounts to back the assertion that this game exists and that the etching at merbein was the one and the same game:

1. That the ngunawal played it (the nation whose language the name was derived) 2. That the Wiradjuri played it (the large nation the original claim was made) 3. That the Madi Madi played it (the nation that is two nations from the Wiradjuri around where Balranald now is that is central to the possible hijacking of a picture showing aboriginal kids around Merbein - a nation a further two nations away and on the other side of the murray...............) All these accounts need a significant ingredient - that the game forbid the use of hands. Right now, all we have discovered is the "woggabaliri" is the Ngunawal word for play. That is the only fact in the entire "history" ,oh, and the FFA's use of it in the bid book.
 * You guys all need to read what is meant by reliable sources. From what I've seen of his other work Edwards seems to be a legitimate scholar so we have to accept him as a RS. If it is a hoax it will eventually come out but lack of evidence of something before someone researched it is not proof. Deleting text based on a personal belief is vandalism. My personal belief is that the etching is not either game but I'm not allowed to put that in the article because that it my personal opinion. If I leave out mention that a group believes the etching is Woggabaliri then that is POV pushing of that personal belief. The minute any actual proof of a hoax is discovered the article will be deleted but until then it is a legitmate sport.Wayne (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand fully what a reliable source is. When everything hinges on the research on one "academic" and the same refuses to respond to people let-a-lone provide the "unpublished evidence" that apparently supports it, I would suggest we have an unreliable source. And you? Why do the words "popular" still appear on this page. Where does the ASC refer to it as "one of the oldest" indigenous games? Have you even TRIED to get into contact with the Faux-historian, who's research constitutes the entirety of the "evidence" of the existnene of this game? You've claimed that "apparently Woggabaliri was played by Indigenous people around Balranald" but refuse to, even here, tell us what you are basing that on...I don't know WIKI as well as you, clearly, but I know what a reliable source is and you and Ken clearly are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can suggest he is not a reliable source all you like but that is WP:OR and not permitted. Why do I need to get in contact with Edwards? If you have a problem you can contact him. As far as I know Edwards never claimed to be a historian but he did do the research which was in his area of expertise so that makes him a reliable source. What is the problem with him being the primary source? Do you know of anyone else who has done the research? Do you know of any reliable sources that dispute Edwards research? I have never claimed to be a reliable source but Edwards is until proven otherwise. You fail to provide any evidence for your position other than a personal belief. If there are problems with the source they will eventually come out but "I dont like it" carries no weight whatsoever. Check out the Marn Grook article for unsupported claims....the only evidence linking it to Wills is a story passed down through his family and in fact a historian found that the Djabwurrung and Jardwadjali never played the game yet you dismiss Woggabaliri out of hand despite it at least having some research supporting it. Do I detect a double standard? I picked Balranald as an example as it is on land adjacent the Wiradjuri and large enough that the name would be recognised. It's still not close enough to say that the game is Woggabaliri and I'd put money on it that it is not but it is 4X closer than Marn Grook so if it has to be one of them there can be no dispute it is the closer of the two that has the greater claim, a claim which has been made by the source so we can say it in the article. Wayne (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Care to explain your revert? Editors have had more than three weeks to justify denying the inclusion of cited material. So either be involved in the talk, or don't be - but you cannot remove edits on the pretext on the lack on consensus when the discussion is no longer active. Editors cannot control and own the article this way. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing as you were the only one who supported your edit while everyone else was against it you cant just add it because no one has commented in three weeks. Wayne (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentically Modified Food Controversies
You deleted my comment and reference recently on the grounds that the reference had "Pro-GM bias and contains 3 false claims." What was pro-GM about the article and what were the 3 false claims? SylviaStanley (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As Pusztai had no part in the memorandum of support, a statement in a Pro-GM article that the 22 were "mostly friends" needs support from another source. They all probably "knew" him but that to carries POV implications. As for the errors in the newspaper:

Rebecca Bowden chose the "independent" reviewers. She now heads a pro-biotech rebuttal unit to counter GM criticism. The reviewers had COI problems. Several had publicly condemned Pusztai in a letter published in the Independant newspaper several months before the review. Two were members of a 1998 Royal Society working group that was pushing GM foods to the government. One was chair of the Roslin Institute. One was the wife of the founder of Biogen. In fact every single one of the six had previously commented publicly in opposition to Pusztai's findings. In fact it is not "almost unprecedented". It is completely unprecedented as this is the first and only time in the Society's history it has done this. The Society also broke with peer review protocol by only publishing it's criticism without the data it reviewed. Publishing the data allows other scientists to see that the review conclusions are valid. The Royal Society is given too much authority in the controversy. Has everyone forgotten that the Society once insisted that acid rain was a fiction discovered by a scientist using flawed data. They even dismissed that people could catch BSE because the research was "flawed." Wayne (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The six specialists were selected... [for] their independence from the Pusztai affair."
 * "None has commented publicly on the controversy."
 * "It is almost unprecedented for the Royal Society to establish... an independent peer review of a scientist's unpublished work."

--- Thanks for your explanations of why you deleted my comment and reference.

However, you are wrong with your "`3 false claims" in the Independent newspaper article.

1) As I am sure you know, In early 1999 the Royal Society organised a Working Group of six (named) people chaired by Professor Noreen Murray. Their official remit was to look at research at the Rowett Institute to see if there should be changes to the Royal Society September 1998 statement on GM plants for food use.

2) They found 13 sources of information on the Rowatt research.

3) The Working Party sent this information to six "independent,impartial" reviewers. The Royal, Society selected  them based on their expertise in statistics, clinical trials, physiology, nutrition, quantitative genetics, growth and development, and immunology and their independence from the Pusztai affair. They were asked to report on the scientific merit of the research done.  These reviewers were to remain anonymous.  As far as I can find, the names of these reviewers were never published anywhere.  None have any commented publicly either before or after the review.

4) I found a copy of their responses on Puszai's personal web page.

5) Based on their responses, the Royal Society Working Group issued their report "Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes" in June 1999.

The 11 March 1999 Independent newspaper article referred to the six "independent,impartial" reviewers. The paper was therefore absolutely correct in saying The six specialists were selected... [for] their independence from the Pusztai affair." and "None has commented publicly on the controversy.". You were mixing up the six-member Working Party with the six "independent,impartial" reviewers.

(Incidentally, where did you read that Rebecca Bowden the secretary of the Working Group chose its members? It seems much more likely to me that the President and members of Council of the Royal Society would chose such high powered members for the Working Group.)

Are you sure that the Royal Society has never "..established... an independent peer review of a scientist's unpublished work?" Have you looked back at all the documents issued by the Royal Society since it's founding in 1660? Personally, if I were an editor of a major reputable British newspaper like the Independent, I would hedge my words, just in case such a thing had happened before. Incidentaly, if you read the Working Party's report, they say that the Pusztai reports that they looked at had already released into the public domain, both through the media and on the Internet. Once again, the stated objective of the Working Party's report was to see if there should be changes to the Royal Society September 1998 statement on GM plants for food use in view of the "Media frenzy" (Wikipedia's words).

In conclusion, your description of the Independent newspaper article as pro-GM is just plain wrong. It is absolutely neutral and factual.

If you look at Pusztai's CV on the web, 12 of the 22 scientists who signed the memo supporting Pusztai have co-authored articles with him. Also Professor Maarten Chrispeels has been described as a friend of Pusztai as was Stanley Ewan, Pusztai's co-author of the letter to Lancet. If the science editor of a major reputable British newspaper like the Independent wrote that the majority of the scientists supporting Pusztai were friends of his, in my view this is a far more relieable than a large number of other references in Wikipedia about GM plants. Nevertheless, in view of your comments, I will change my entry to "mostly friends or acquaintances" and add the information about 12 people who co-authoured articles as a note/reference.

I know nothing of the Royal Society's previous attitude to acid rain nor BSE. However, it doesn't surprise me that they have got some things wrong in the past. However, from my science classes at school over half a century ago, that is the essence of the scientific method. Based on the data one has, one formulates a theory. As you get more data you refine or change your theory compeletely. Even such an eminent body as the Royal Society still has to work via the scientific method. Who knows? Maybe one day, if there is sufficient contra evidence, the Royal Society might change its stance on GM plants. SylviaStanley (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Although it is likely they were, signatories co-authoring articles does not mean they are friends. I've co-authored work in the past with people I detested, because it was my job and they were the best (or only) people available. Including mention of it in the article implies they supported Pusztai ONLY because they were friends. The article already says the memo was "orchestrated" by Friends of the Earth which is POV in itself as the word means organising something to achieve the results you want which in turn, in this article, implies manipulation. Wayne (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I may have confused the working party with the reviewers. Rebecca Bowden was named in a Guardian article as putting together the peer review. The reason I believe she was chosen was that all the Societies councilors and most especially Lachmann had financial interests in biotech companies. Bowden probably had a COI as well because the previous year she had worked for the government promoting GM. I have read several sources that state that this was the first independent peer review of an unpublished work conducted by the Royal Society. At the time of the review only the results had been released into the public domain. The design and methodology of the experiment was never given to the Royal Society who based their peer review solely on Pusztai's results and some Rowett internal reports.


 * If you check the Royal Society report you will see it states we have reviewed all available data and checking further it lists what was reviewed. The methodology and design is not in the list. The report also states The structure of the experiments was changed as they progressed. Pusztai has responded that this is a false claim and that it is obvious from reading the data that this did not happen. The report states A particular difficulty is that the experiments were not well designed. Pusztai has responded the Royal Society never asked to see the design (or methodology) of our experiments. The report summary is rubbish as well. It makes six points....point one is ambiguous without all the data being reviewed, points two and three have been discredited, point four is irrelevant as the numbers were a standard industry practice, point five is a subjective assessment and point six is problematic as Pusztai had already stated that there was a lack of quantitative correlation that he found puzzling but that it didn't effect the overall findings. The Society report was obviously lacking in objectivity.Wayne (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

-- As you say, a person co-authoring an article with Pusztai does not necessarily mean they are friends with Pusztai. However, by putting their heads above the parapet and signing a very public memo supporting him in this highly contentious issue, means it is likely they were. Kenneth Lough, another signatory, did not co-author any articles (that I could find on Pusztai's CV), but he was a colleague of Pusztai at the Rowett Institute. Similarly you could argue that a work colleague might hate your guts but Lough signed the support memo and has supported Pusztai elsewhere in the media. Again, it is likely he was friendly with Pusztai.

I think you are reading too much into it when you say that "Including mention of it in the article implies they supported Pusztai ONLY because they were friends." To me it only implies that the majority of memo signatories were people who knew Pusztai personally and were in favour of his stance. Most members of the general public would have probably assumed this already.

I do not think that when the article says the memo was "orchestrated" by Friends of the Earth that this was anything controversial or POV. I think it is now clearly out in the open that Friends of the Earth organised the memo and the press conference announcing the memo that kicked off the "media storm." For example, Berger in an article in the British Medical Journal on 27 February 1999 quoting from an article by Fenton and Irwin in The Daily Telegraph on 15 February 1999. And Dixon in 1999 articles in Healthwatch  and in the IOS Press. SylviaStanley (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor_assistance/Requests
As requested. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Wayne (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A look please
Can you have a look at this: --Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Non-lethal weapon

Hey Dad..! ‎
Hi! The content was pulled from a lot of sources, but in most cases the wording was almost identical to the original. It was understandable, as we want to be very careful about the wording in this sort of situation, but in this case it was overly close. With copyvio the normal approach is to remove it asap and to rewrite later - I did rewrite the sections that were core, but at the time I saw the "who knew what" stuff as secondary. At any rate, I've rewritten the material about Reilly and Buchanan. More generally, I think we might be heading into undue weight territory, given that there are still no charges laid, but that's not my primary concern. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looked a bit as if only certain information was being taken out. I think undue wont be a problem as it is what was reported by those involved rather than speculation based on what they said. If anything proves incorrect or of less significance after the investigation is completed the text can be reworked to eliminate anything that has become undue.Wayne (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - and it would have looked that way. It was more of a case of rewriting what I thought was most important, rather than deliberately leaving things out. :) Hopefully it is better now, anyway. Given the time it has taken, I'm not expecting much to eventuate in the case, but I guess we'll see how it pans out - they'll probably have to make some comment or other once twelve months have passed. - Bilby (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)