Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Groupuscule/GMO

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  no consensus. Editors are fairly split on this one, and the large level of participation makes me think relisting would not be helpful. But especially since the page has been modified to focus on content rather than contributors, it's hard to see consensus building here for deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Groupuscule/GMO


This page is a large piece of original research to advance an Anti-GMO position. It attempts to do an analysis of sources (and a rather flawed one at that, selective quoting, selective bolding etc, the use of non-legitimate sources like the dubious American Academy of Environmental Medicine, a one sided report of Séralini's Anti-GMO funded papers which are widely criticised by scientists, major scientific organisations and food safety organisations). and is more suited for a blog than for wikipedia. There is good reason why we don't rely on the non-expert analysis of wikipedians.

It also contains BLP violations such as "A number of these sources, like Pamela Ronald's article, make completely false claims based on egregious misrepresentations of the sources they cite." This is particularly bad form considering that Pamela Ronald's is a recognised expert, while Groupuscule is trying to deduce issues from the sources.

He also falsely accuses editors who disagree with him of being in a cabal. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC),


 * Keep. The issue is not when fringe points of view are collected in userspace, but rather when fringe points of view leak into the articles.  We can police the latter, but that doesn't mean the former is without value. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This issue needs discussion, and the user is well within their right to begin the analysis in their user space.  petrarchan47  t  c   20:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Analysing sources like this is not something we do on wikipedia. It is original research, and a particularly skewed example at that, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or at the very least pare back that which pertains to living persons. WP:BLP is very clear - "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages". I'm inclined to think it should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST - there's nothing wrong with commentary on various issues but this is obviously not content which is designed to be inserted into articles in the future like a userdraft. It is a personal-opinion-based analysis of what's "wrong" with various articles/sources and is being used on other talk pages as a "counter view" in discussions. Want to blog about (important) issues? Go for it. Want to draw attention to your blog during WP discussions? Fine. Nothing wrong with that. Want WP to host your blog? Not so much. But the "bloggy" stuff is not as much of an issue for me. If the editor committed to removing the BLP violations and personal attacks, I'd probably be at weak delete or neutral. Stalwart 111  06:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see any Wikipolicy being violated by the existence of this page. Collect (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UP: "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.) A skewed 220,000 bytes analysis has no chance of being directly useful. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Try noting that we allow fringe views in discussions - and this page looks far more like a discussion or essay than being a proposed article at all. Note also that userspace != mainspace, and is not required to be "encyclopedic" - in fact very little of userspace is "encyclopedic."  Also note that argumentation on XfD pages is exceedingly unlikely to sway any opinions at all.   In fact, such argumentation is likely to have quite the reverse affect.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We allow fringe views in discussion, we don't let people perform fringe original research in userspace. There is a very large difference. You said that userspace "is not required to be "encyclopedic"". That is where you are very wrong. The userpage guidelines show that it is in fact meant to be encyclopedic. "clearly unencyclopedic" material does not belong here as the text I quoted makes clear. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - wow I was completely unaware of WP:UP.  My view on this page has been that it is tendentious OR/essay writing, but as far as I knew there was no wiki policy that forbade this kind of thing in user space.  Now that I know there is, it seems clear to me that it needs to go.   Also, I pointed out to User:Groupuscule on his Talk page here that I find one of the bullet points at the end of the document to come very close to being, if not actually being a personal attack against editors he is disagreeing with (including me) and that it made me very uncomfortable - the bullet is all about contributors and not content.   Groupuscule has thus far refused to modify or delete that bullet point.   This makes me all the more favor deletion of this page. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the attacks, the issue is that the information is encyclopedic in some contexts, just not the contexts that they're being used in currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DELETE - This is simply propaganda campaigning that doesn't meet the criteria for establishing a standard for removing well documented references. We would not be having a similar conversation about climate change scientific consensus.  There are clear advocacy and commercial (organic) special interests involved here who profit from promoting these fears and disinformation campaigns about easy to document/prove scientific research and consensus.  The counter claim articles are also published on Wikipedia and cross-linked providing information on those references.  Using them as a rational for eliminating accurate characterizations of scientific, academic and regulatory body consensus is ridiculous.CinagroErunam (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually for climate change we have data going back over 150 years to work with compared to less than 20 years for GMO's.TMCk (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you voting keep because of policy based arguments, or because you agree with the original research presented by Groupuscule? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See below.TMCk (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Collect made the argument for me. And if there are any BLP vios or PAs as alleged they need to be addressed at a different venue, not here. Deleting a whole page that is meant to discuss the issue w/o cluttering the actual article's talk page b/c of such allegations, (I didn't look much into them so I'll not comment on those), is clearly not the proper way. It is also not the proper way to handle apparent disagreement(s) on the subject by deletion of named page.TMCk (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to have ignored the first paragraph of the reason for deletion and rather focussed on the side issues. The main issue is that this page is a giant original research article, and also attacks other edtiors and living people, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, this is not a "giant original research article" b/c it is not an article, and if you'd read my post with more care, maybe you would realize that I did indeed address that point. Furthermore, your question in (dis)response to my comment to your "vote" is quite insulting and lacks any good faith assumption and therefore rather shows a lack of good faith from your side. May we focus on the (technical) subject of this MFD now and not the editor(s)?TMCk (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible, but I think part of the problem is that the miscellany in question focuses on editors. Technically, we're talking about deleting (or not) ad-hom commentary and personal attacks, some BLP violations and a bunch of original research. The OR is less of an issue for me (though some of it strikes me as a bit silly) but I would still like a commitment from the editor that the personal attacks and BLP vios will go. Otherwise, we should remove his capacity to make them. But I think there's also an WP:UP case to answer on the "content" parts. Stalwart 111  03:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The focus should be on the editor's edits and their subpage and surely not on the editors commenting here. Guess we can agree on that. As for alleged/perceived or factual BLP and PA issues, of course they should be addressed (at the right venue as I said before) and the editor in question approached in this regard. If valued and brought up at ANI (I.E.), the page creator will have a choice to make changes or potentially face restrictions and changes are made "by force". Deleting their whole page made in good faith [so far I'm at least sure about that considering what, or better said who, an editor who voted here for the deletion.... funny somehow..., encouraged the creation in the first place] that, if at all, only barely touches one of several points of WP:UP is simply overkill and putting an unjust fist down where only a pointing finger is needed.TMCk (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yeah, we're on the same page. If it were me, I'd prefer the bureaucratic deletion of my user sub-page over referral to the "dramah boards" for finger wagging (at the least) or sanctions. I would hope the latter is not necessary given resolution is probably as easy as taking an axe to the BLP vios and personal attacks in the essay and committing not to restore them. But again, without such a commitment, the focus turns to the editor himself and the possibility of such sanctions. Surely that can be avoided? Stalwart 111  05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I too hope the "much hated" (at least by me) "drama boards" can be avoided. The page creator was notified of this MFD and thus is sure aware what is going on here. I'd like them to post their point of view but it seems to me that they're holding back and see what comes out of it. If I'm correct in my latter assumption, I'd like to point out to them that such an approach is the best way to go in some cases but this is not one of them, IMO and experience; Tho I can't force this or any view on them, I truly hope they (re?)consider commenting with a willingness to compromise. A bit of good faith showing is always helpful and a step forward. Thus said, we're on the same page here just as you said.TMCk (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said. Stalwart 111  22:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbBreak 1

 * Delete - This is just a campaign to redefine what mainstream means.


 * Keep. Deletion is not a solution. Encouraging the user to adopt a more focussed and reasoned argument using reliable sourcing would be a better approach. There is bigger picture on the consensus question that is perhaps not as well addressed as it might be in the relevant article, that appears to be the main reason for this user's frustrations, however Groupuscule would do well to accept that the existing consensus assertion conforms to WP:RS. Semitransgenic  talk. 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, however the BLP problem should be discussed and likely removed. We should keep our terms straight. Original research is a term of art in Wikipedia and there's no point in getting terms confused or conflated. I don't think any Wikipedia editor would take respond kindly to being accused of original research for discussing or critically analyzing sources on a talkpage, nor should they be. Editorial judgment and article-writing doesn't happen robotically or without editorial analysis and discussion. A priori, there's no reason to weight, say, Snell et al 2012 (strongly affirming the safety) significantly more than one of any number of the recent peer-reviewed literature reviews suggesting the opposite, such as, for example, Domingo & Bordonaba 2011 ("the risk assessment of GM foods ... has not been systematically performed as indicated in the scientiﬁc literature ... only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs,which remains completely open at all levels"). Generally, the way to comply with WP:NPOV is to present both sides when recent peer-reviewed medical reviews in on-par reputation journals (Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2009, Environmental International 2011, Domingo above, Nutrition Review 2009 are not fringe journals) have different perspectives. In this case, one side is picked. I'm not saying it is the wrong side - in fact it is likely the right side. But cherry-picking a winning side is not, at least in theory, the standard approach per WP:NPOV or WP:MEDRS. I am very far from an expert on this topic, but my reading of the discussion thus far leads me to suspect that very few of the editors are experts, and thus they are likely to benefit from detailed discussion of sources. It is also only through sifting through the sources to understand the broader picture that editors can best represent the literature, and if they can do that in public, with explanations and discussion for why some sources are weighted more heavily than others, more the better. The proper objection to this page is WP:FORUM; however, it does not seem applicable here since the user is using this to engage discussion around the article. As I've said on the talk page, I do recommend that groupuscle make bold edits to focus the discussion, but the information presented here is a decent overview of some of the literature. UPDATE: If a fair amount of time goes by and nothing comes off this, then it may be worthwhile to bring it up again for deletion. I'm not saying it should stay up forever. II  | (t - c) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You make some good (and sourced) points related to content of the dispute the editor attempted to address at their subpage and the proposed deletion. Also very helpful content info for my own further educational research on this matter which is limited, just as the still new science's research is. There are still more questions than answers available for my taste to be able to make up one's mind in either direction; And that's just regarding to the direct health issue(s).TMCk (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - while the author has so far declined to respond here, he has (in fairness) addressed the material and this MFD elsewhere, including within the page in question. From Talk:Genetically modified food controversies:


 * He provides more commentary here. I have removed some of the pre and post commentary from the quotes above but my intention was not to misquote or misrepresent. Please feel free to add more to those quotes from Talk:Genetically modified food controversies if you think it is required.


 * The response strikes me as fairly unapologetic and the addition of an addendum where he lists (without much context) quotes from various editors and ascribes them a meaning isn't helping the situation. Regular references to Team GMO - those who object to his research - are unhelpful. The material is getting more "bloggy" by the day and more and focussed on editors. It's looking more and more like a soapbox to allow the editor to "have the last word" in discussions by posting responses to a userspace (rather than the discussions themselves) where others have no right of reply. It's not particularly good faith and my inclination that this should be deleted is getting stronger by the minute. Stalwart 111  01:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe I misunderstood part of your comment [or you just made an honest mistake in the time line of actions?] but he didn't post any more commentary at his subpage since the MFD was started. The posting you're referring to was there before June 15. I won't comment on his other posts he made at GMO controversy article's talk page as I didn't look at them myself so far. With only some quotes from over there I simply don't have enough or any context to make my own or any "judgment" about his replies. Maybe I have more time and patience tomorrow to take a closer look.TMCk (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I probably just wasn't clear - I wasn't suggesting he had been adding to the content since this MFD, but he had added commentary elsewhere that refers to it. It was that linking back to the content that I was referring to. But my use of tense was sloppy and I've struck some of it to make it clearer. Stalwart 111  03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The piling on of long essays, completely OR, is now happening on the Talk page of an article. Please see this dif - ~40Kb of exuberant soapboxing - critiquing the US regulatory system in the guise of providing an overview of a RS. ~Maybe~ this is OK on a userpage (the subject of our discussion here); seems to me that this is not what Talk is for. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * sorry but that's nonsense, Groupuscule provided a useful overview of an RS source (that was offered by Jytdog) in response to a query I raised on the matter of regulatory nuances (relating to relevant content missing from the lead). If an editor actually has time to spend on this kind of analysis I don't see what the issue is. If there are issues with what the editor has written, with respect to what is contained in the source, they should be addressed specifically, deleting the content is not an appropriate response. Semitransgenic  talk. 10:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't see any Wikipedia policies being violated. It brings together in a single post the editors arguments and pinpoints points of dispute that the editor believes needs addressing or refuting etc without cluttering up the articles Talk page. I would have thought this would be of great assistance to his opponents by making his claims easier to respond to. Wayne (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbBreak 2

 * Delete - This is a page that I'm seeing used repeatedly in links in public discussions, as if it carries some weight of Wikipedian consensus. Here's the latest example, but I have seen it multiple times, by anti-GMO campaigner groups as well: http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/24494567 . It is harming public discourse and could damage the perception of Wikipedia. Mmangan333 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Not sure at all how you come to such conclusions. "...harming public discourse and could damage the perception of Wikipedia."? How, compared to other non-main space content? And what exactly would be the the public discourse's damage? You raised quite some dubious questions with your post.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * MCK, I think the point taken by Mmangan is more interesting than you give credit for. The document that Groupuscule produced is an essay - a piece of OR arguing that there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of currently marketed GM food.   It would an appropriate blog posting;  it is not appropriate for Wikipedia space.  The point that Mmangan is making is that the essay appears in Wikipedia space, and somebody clicking on the link at other sites is very likely to think they are coming to Wikipedia - that they are finding an encyclopedia article.  That makes a bad thing worse.  I am curious about the "used repeatedly" thing - Mmangan can you provide other references? Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Either way, a user draft tag with its noindex magic might help. Stalwart 111  02:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't done yet it should be, either way.TMCk (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added said tag with a note about why. That should also prevent it from coming up in Google searches and the like which should be fine given that doesn't seem to have been the intention either way. Stalwart 111  13:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do I really have to point out that this sub-page is not an essay! It is a response given in user space by advise from another editor [wasn't it you?] from the contested talk page in question. That is a clear fact and should not be mis-construed here. One's personal subjective opinions are of no help here as they're not a valid argument to delete anything, even if it were in main space. And no, links provided in online comments by readers of a news site are of no concern at all. To be frank, that's like seeing doomsday when taking a shit. I truly would like a response from the OP to my valid questions tho.TMCk (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, here's another case where I saw it in the discourse: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/06/07/comedian-flays-gmo-zombie-myths/#comment-928621050 And it is being used here by GMWatch: http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/52-2013/14908-claims-of-qscientific-consensusq-on-gm-are-baseless and that is flying around twitter. And I agree that this would be fine as a blog post on some activist site somewhere. It would still be incorrect, but you can put anything you want on a blog. This misinformation about the weight of the scientific evidence on this issue is wrong. However, if people are using this as some kind of evidence that it's in Wikipedia then this alters the perception of Wikipedia content. It will make it easy to discount Wikipedia as credible source information if activist misinformation posted to pages, which become used for claims in public discussion, becomes acceptable. It could become a new strategy for activists to misuse the imprimatur of Wikipedia to pretend it is vetted in some way. Most casual users do not dig into the talk/history/etc. Mmangan333 (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mmangan. TMCk, I am not saying that your questions are not valid. I am saying that you should treat others' questions as valid too. And if you actually read groupuscule's page, you will see that it exactly fits the format of an essay - he presents his thesis, presents the arguments for it, and concludes by restating his thesis and providing an action plan to move on it. It is not a response to any specific question. As the essay says in the lead (note that it is structured exactly like a wikipedia article, btw): (emphasis added): This page grew out of a discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies. Its goal is to assess the following claim which is currently made on Wikipedia: “	There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from genetically crops pose no greater risk than conventional food. ” Here, you will find analysis & research suggesting (1) that the sources presented to support this claim are inadequate and (2) that many alternative sources contest this claim. The work presented here is wide-ranging but not comprehensive, and should not be interpreted as a polemical argument that genetic modification is dangerous. This text should be understood primarily as a response to the stalled and disorganized discussion taking place on article talk pages. For more explanation of why this page exists, please read |this section and the section immediately following. I am sure that I have made mistakes, small and large, while searching, reading, compiling, and annotating. If you find errors in this document please let me know at the talk page here or at my user page. Please do not edit this page directly; I have organized it carefully in the hopes that it will be somewhat legible for those new to the debate. Please feel free to fork any part of this page if you wish to discuss its contents line by line. The question of safety in genetically modified food is obviously important to the world. More immediately, it is important to the Wikipedia community. Multiple Wikipedia articles currently make a claim about the "safety" of consuming an enormous range of new organisms— in terms not used even for well-known substances such as aspirin or aloe vera. The community must address this claim, even if only to verify it more adequately.

And in the intro in the body of essay, groupuscule writes: "We will demonstrate that many of the sources provided are used inappropriately, and that they themselves misrepresent the factual basis for their claims. Our analysis will not rely on original research, but on assessment of the quality of the sources—and of how they relate to the claim. Thus, we will limit ourselves to examination of the sources themselves and to secondary literature that comments on these sources directly."

That is his thesis. In his essay, he does indeed look at each of the sources. However, in dealing with each source, he reads them in a classic Deconstruction method -- against the grain - he does not even take the quotes from those works that we have highlighted in the Talk page, and address them.' Instead, he looks for the seams, the questions, the way to, well, deconstruct the source to show that GMOs are risky. Reading against the grain. Which is not what we do in WIkipedia. You do that in journal articles in grad school. Or blog posts.

Last thought -- TMCk, put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I disagree with a lot of the content of that essay. How do I respond? (real question!!) How is this normal dialogue in Wikipedia? (rhetorical question). I have considered several times writing an essay on my own page, deconstructing groupuscule's deconstruction. How else could I possibly respond? (real question) But I won't do it --I do not want to continue this practice of violating how Wikipedia works. I have advised groupuscule several times that if he revised that page to actually address the sources -- state what they say, state whether they meet RS, in a concise, non-essay-like fashion, without editorializing like "And that statement has been repeated multiple times by “science journalists”, smugly contemptuous of those who disagree." there might be something there, that we could actually work with. As it is, groupuscule's "report" (as he/she calls it) is a self-continued unit - an essay - that I cannot even begin to respond to in any normal fashion; it is for things like this, that WP:UP was created. As a self contained essay it is not helpful to the dialog on the Talk page to actually try to reach consensus.Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick additional point. I am not saying that the essay is problematic because I think it is wrong.  It would just as bad, if I did the same thing in my userspace, writing an essay on what I think is the correct and standard reading of the sources.  I am saying the page is problematic because it is an essay that is not helpful to reaching consensus about content - is not part of any kind of normal WIkipedia dialogue on Talk that helps reach consensus, and as such should be deleted.  It is a pretty witty essay, written with some style, and a nice thumb in the eye to those who are OK with GMOs that are on the market... but all those pleasures do not make it acceptable to have in wikipedia space.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional point. On June 12th I pointed out passages where groupuscule has ignored clear statements in the sources in support of the scientific consensus.  He skipped over these in writing his essay, and has not incorporated them after I pointed them out;  I guess they don't fit into his thesis.  But it points up another reason how this document is not part of Wikipedia Talk -- it just sits out there, out of dialog with the actual discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is ... Wikipedia does not say "we remove anything that is wrong in userspace."  "Wrongness" is not a reason given to delete essays, as far as I can tell.  If you wish "wrongness" to be added as a reason to the policies and guidelines, then make that change on the appropriate page, but unless that change is made, this page does not violate userspace rules.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Collect I specifically said above that rightness or wrongness is not my point. Jytdog (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, when User:Historyday01 attempted to introduce similar sources at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, you wrote: "it is unfortunate that you posted all your sources here. It makes conversation really difficult. You should post them on a sandbox page on your userpage and bring in ones that are relevant to the discussion, so they can be discussed. Otherwise it is just piling on." What is it that you really want? If you want to discuss specific items addressed on this user page, you are welcome to discuss them on its talk page or elsewhere. groupuscule (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is your justification for producing your essay? Wow.  The issue with what Historyday01 did and my response, is really simple.  He/she created a section called "Is there a broad consensus that GM foods are safe?" (which the article says no where) and loaded into it content about everything controversial about GMOs.  About 90% of the list of sources (and discussion) were not directed to the point he/she made clear was the target of ire, namely, the statement about food safety.  Sources that were off-target were: a) any primary source; b) sources like 'earthopensource'; c) I would say, anything related to glyphosate or other herbicides (which has nothing to do with the safety of food from GMOs per se (the presence and toxicity of residues on part of the subset of food from GMOs that is derived from herbicide-resistant crops, is relevant to food safety overall, but is different from the question of toxicity due to the modification itself); d) anything related to patents, the entire regulatory system, big ag in general, the environment, or anything else not about the relative safety of eating food from GMOs.  Posting that list was not a targeted and productive effort to move editors toward changing the text he/she was concerned about. It was a rant about everything. Your essay is similar in its lack of usefulness.  While you didn't dump the whole thing into Talk (for which I am grateful!), as a self-contained monologue that weaves an entire argument, putting sources into its context, there is no way to respond to it, as I have said several times.  There is also no way to respond to it.  There is no Talk page for it (nor should there be) and you have asked people not to edit it directly. I have made other comments about the essay - very specific ones -  on the relevant Talk page, to which you have not responded.  And here is my main point -- your essay hangs out there on its own, out of dialogue with other editors.  That is why it should be gone. It is a profoundly un-wiki thing.   I have also suggested that if you want to participate in moving the conversation forward, it would be great if you turned it into a list of sources, and added commentary under each source, summarizing what it says and stating whether it meets RS and better, MEDRS. (that is what an annotated bibliography looks like)  Targeted, and free of editorializing comments.  It would be even better if you just deleted the thing, and created the list of relevant sources in the Talk page of the controversies article, where we could have threaded discussion.  One section for each source.  Sources relevant to the food safety issue, starting with the ones already cited and adding any others you want to bring that are relevant to food safety.  This would create a framework that is useful for creating a new wiki-consensus with respect to the content about scientific consensus on food safety. This would be a normal wikipedia process.  Again, it is hard for me to understand how you cannot see that historyday01's posting was an incoherent rant about everything GMO-related that was impossible to respond to, and it is harder for me to understand how anybody could think that your solo, out-of-dialogue essay, is consistent with the values and processes that are central to Wikipedia and its community of editors.Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbBreak 3

 * Delete. Violates WP:NOR, and so will never be suitable for mainspace.  As an essay, it is not sufficiently related to the project.  Refer to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Userspace is not an indefinite host for material unsuitable for mainspace. This is certainly not the first time I've seen Collect at MfD feigning ignorance as to our community standards regarding content there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all user names. This is a useful bibliography for research purposes. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a useful bibliography, because it's not a bibliography. :-) I think this conversation would be significantly different if it were. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy circular tautology day! I'm afraid I didn't get you a nice present because I didn't get you a present. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The outline of my statement in formal logic is, "x not contained in set S, therefore x not contained in subset T of set S." This is not circular, and is not a tautology except in the sense that it is a valid logical statement. I was trying to inject a little levity (I guess I failed), but the idea was that the page contains other things than the sources and the discussion above has focused on those as well. I do agree that usernames need to be removed though. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC) With respect to your next reply below: you may want to read my comment again. But regardless, we should probably take the discussion on logic and the definition of "bibliography" elsewhere if you're interested. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You assumed it wasn't a bibliography, and therefore assumed it couldn't be useful, because it wasn't a bibliography. The page in question is an explicit bibliography containing a list of sources noting a lack of consensus in the GMO literature. There is also the addition of editorial analysis by the user to accompany each reference. As a result of this informative analysis and list of references, I find it a useful primer on the subject of GMO consensus.  It also happens to be supported by our user page policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's not not a useful bibliography because it's a bibliography? And it's "a list of sources noting a lack of consensus in the GMO literature" alright: the only problem here is that this lack of consensus is a fabrication of the page's author, and the sources in question have been picked to advance that position. This isn't a debating society, and asymmetric bibliographies compiled to explicitly advance some particular POV are unacceptable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Its usefulness has nothing to do with the fact that it is a bibliography. Its usefulness has to do with its use for research purposes, as I originally said.  The dogpile of prevarication here is malodorous.  The POV that there is no consensus on GMOs is acceptable, and it is supported by reliable sources.  As for advancing it, as editors we represent our sources, their POV, and their arguments.  The editor who is hosting this analytical bibliography is doing so for educational research purposes. In order to write about a POV, you have to analyze and understand it. This subpage makes this possible and allows others to follow the arguments and review the primary sources.  There is no policy or guideline that supports deleting this subpage. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all well and good asserting that the list is intended to better understand the subject, but when said page is deliberately cultivated to present a POV contrary to the one accepted by community consensus it strays out of educational territory and into indoctrination. Put simply, NPOV applies just as much to secondary compilations of information as it does to the articles that they purportedly support. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for the discussion, everyone. We see there is a clear consensus for removing discussion about the actions of individual editors, and we will make this change shortly. groupuscule (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Please speak up if anything has been missed. We also changed the userspace template to make clear that this page is not a proposed draft of an article.
 * We hope that some of the folks who care enough to participate in a deletion discussion also care about a potentially misleading claim of food safety. In our view, this situation remains urgent—both because of the actual wrong information provided and because of the threat to Wikipedia's actual and perceived integrity. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.