| Revision as of 21:31, 20 July 2013 editTracyMcClark (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers15,852 edits →Viriditas' assertions of consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:58, 20 July 2013 edit undoTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,657 edits →Viriditas' assertions of consensus: 2 minor replies, thanks, and back to the main pointNext edit → | ||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
| ::::::::It might sound strange to US but not everybody in this world knows where this location supposed to be. We're writing for an international audience, remember? Thanks.] (]) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | ::::::::It might sound strange to US but not everybody in this world knows where this location supposed to be. We're writing for an international audience, remember? Thanks.] (]) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::OK, it's not a big enough deal for me to really care about, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me to click on the link to the city. --] (]) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just clarifying "teams" I think that my real-world POV on this matches that of Viriditas, (I don't like GMO's) but we check that at the door when put on our wp editor hat. The article should not be a soapbox for promoting the anit-GMO view. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | ::::::Just clarifying "teams" I think that my real-world POV on this matches that of Viriditas, (I don't like GMO's) but we check that at the door when put on our wp editor hat. The article should not be a soapbox for promoting the anit-GMO view. <font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::I better clarify that I was alluding to what petrarchan47tc said about "obvious teamwork". --] (]) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::This article is ''not'' about a minority view but about the march and is simply just not the place to argue for or against GMO's, (besides the points made directly in response to the march of course.)] (]) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | :::::::This article is ''not'' about a minority view but about the march and is simply just not the place to argue for or against GMO's, (besides the points made directly in response to the march of course.)] (]) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Thanks for the format fixing, much appreciated! I agree with you that we should be coat-racking here, but I also want to make sure that what we ''do'' say here is NPOV. And, as much as mistrust of GMOs is very much mainstream in culture and politics, the scientific consensus really is pretty overwhelming. Therefore, I think that we need to get back to the main question at hand. I went back and read the archived discussions. I don't see an established consensus for the wording on the page, and I don't see a explanation of why the language that you reverted is original research. The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. You are right that one of them had been malformatted, resulting in a cite error message, but they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal ''et al.'' believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with ] with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture. --] (]) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent deletions == | == Recent deletions == | ||
Revision as of 23:58, 20 July 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the March Against Monsanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the March Against Monsanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Foodlogo2.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:WikiProject_Internet_Culture_logo.svg){kind=link}
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Sociologielogo.png){kind=link}
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Far too promotional.
I have read the article for the first time an it looks like promotional material for the MAM movement, failing to distinguish exaggerated claims made by the organisers from generally accepted facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide glaring examples that we can address, otherwise, there is nothing actionable about your opinion and that leaves us with nothing to address. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- To start with have in the lead, 'On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000 to 2 million supporters participated in marches and rallies; organizers claimed that marches took place in 436 cities around the world'. The 2 million and 436 city figures are estimates by the organisers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we've previously discussed this. First of all, most, if not all protest estimates originate with organisers. Sometimes, depending on the protest movement, you'll have competing numbers released by government sources. Second of all, the numbers were widely reported by RS. I'm not seeing anything "promotional" here at all. The largest coverage came from the Associated Press which said "Two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto Co. in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday." What exactly is wrong with the lead? Nothing I can see. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- You say, 'most, if not all protest estimates originate with organisers' that is no doubt correct but it does not mean that we must state the, invariably exaggerated, claims of organisers as fact in WP. We need independent reliable sources. In the body of the article we could possible say something like, 'The organisers claimed ...' but to put such figure without is source, in the lead is misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It already says that, using the lowest numbers available (CTV) with the highest according to organizers (AP). Feel free to find the wording you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- As written, the presentation of those numbers looked odd to me too. Would it help to attribute the low-end and high-end numbers more clearly? Something like: "On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000 (according to CTV) to 2 million (according to the organizers) supporters participated in marches and rallies". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- No contentual concerns on my end, but from a purely stylistic POV I'm biased against using parentheticals in the lead as I find them distracting. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Giving the organisers' 'estimate' without qualification in the lead is misleading, even with the lower figure. It is undoubtedly an intentionally exaggerated figure to promote the march. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you done the math? How do you know it is intentionally exaggerated? And how is it "promotional"? Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Giving the organisers' 'estimate' without qualification in the lead is misleading, even with the lower figure. It is undoubtedly an intentionally exaggerated figure to promote the march. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- No contentual concerns on my end, but from a purely stylistic POV I'm biased against using parentheticals in the lead as I find them distracting. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- As written, the presentation of those numbers looked odd to me too. Would it help to attribute the low-end and high-end numbers more clearly? Something like: "On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000 (according to CTV) to 2 million (according to the organizers) supporters participated in marches and rallies". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- It already says that, using the lowest numbers available (CTV) with the highest according to organizers (AP). Feel free to find the wording you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- You say, 'most, if not all protest estimates originate with organisers' that is no doubt correct but it does not mean that we must state the, invariably exaggerated, claims of organisers as fact in WP. We need independent reliable sources. In the body of the article we could possible say something like, 'The organisers claimed ...' but to put such figure without is source, in the lead is misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we've previously discussed this. First of all, most, if not all protest estimates originate with organisers. Sometimes, depending on the protest movement, you'll have competing numbers released by government sources. Second of all, the numbers were widely reported by RS. I'm not seeing anything "promotional" here at all. The largest coverage came from the Associated Press which said "Two million people marched in protest against seed giant Monsanto Co. in hundreds of rallies across the U.S. and in over 50 other countries on Saturday." What exactly is wrong with the lead? Nothing I can see. Viriditas (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- To start with have in the lead, 'On May 25, 2013, an estimated 200,000 to 2 million supporters participated in marches and rallies; organizers claimed that marches took place in 436 cities around the world'. The 2 million and 436 city figures are estimates by the organisers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Quote wars
There are far too many quotes in the article, making it into a kind of debating forum rather than an encyclopedia article. In any case the article should be about the march not about GM food. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article is about a march about GM food. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly! We have the articles Genetically_modified_crops and Genetically modified food controversieswhich are the correct place for discussion of the subject of GM food. This article is being used as forum for anti-GM and pro-GM views. That is not the purpose of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's best if the article sticks to it's topic. Having it become a coatrack for anti and pro GMO talking points is not a good thing, even if such does not clearly violate policy. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Martin and North 8000--this article should stick to the protest and not become a GMO debate article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can anyone point me to quotes that detract away from the topic of this article and turn it into a "debating forum"? This subject, the March Against Monsanto, is about an international protest movement that has specific objections, requirements, and demands about GMOs and those things are entirely relevant to this article, just as the discussion about GLBT rights are germane to our article on Stonewall riots, and just like a discussion of the rights of minorities are appropriate for the Civil rights movement article. The discussion about GMOs, how they are used by society, their impact on farmers, consumer rights and labeling laws, the influence of GMO companies on governments, and other issues, are all part of this subject and the sources are quite clear on this point. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest WP:Summary style for guidance about how much verbiage to devote here to the background issues. It's good to give readers enough context to understand the subject of this page, in part by providing internal links, but it's unhelpful to duplicate stuff that already can be found on other pages, which is where the coatrack concerns arise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide examples of current concerns so I can address them? Please remember this article was written by many different editors. I'm not sure what part of the article you have a concern with here. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest WP:Summary style for guidance about how much verbiage to devote here to the background issues. It's good to give readers enough context to understand the subject of this page, in part by providing internal links, but it's unhelpful to duplicate stuff that already can be found on other pages, which is where the coatrack concerns arise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can anyone point me to quotes that detract away from the topic of this article and turn it into a "debating forum"? This subject, the March Against Monsanto, is about an international protest movement that has specific objections, requirements, and demands about GMOs and those things are entirely relevant to this article, just as the discussion about GLBT rights are germane to our article on Stonewall riots, and just like a discussion of the rights of minorities are appropriate for the Civil rights movement article. The discussion about GMOs, how they are used by society, their impact on farmers, consumer rights and labeling laws, the influence of GMO companies on governments, and other issues, are all part of this subject and the sources are quite clear on this point. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Martin and North 8000--this article should stick to the protest and not become a GMO debate article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's best if the article sticks to it's topic. Having it become a coatrack for anti and pro GMO talking points is not a good thing, even if such does not clearly violate policy. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly! We have the articles Genetically_modified_crops and Genetically modified food controversieswhich are the correct place for discussion of the subject of GM food. This article is being used as forum for anti-GM and pro-GM views. That is not the purpose of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, responding only to posts prior to the last 2: Here the "debating forum" would be via efforts to game in talking points for one's view on GMO's and game out talking points for the opposite view. The detriments would be a POV'd article, an article that didn't focus on it's topic, and lots of grief and wasted time on the maneuvers. Right now I think that the article is borderline-OK on the fist two points,on the edge of a slippery slope of being not so. And the third detriment certainly has already occurred. So an effort to minimize that is useful.North8000 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide specific examples from the current article that I can address. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your question doesn't make sense in view of my previous post. What are you asking me to find that I said was a problem? North8000 (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever is "borderline-OK on the first two points" etc. Please point me in the direction of anything that needs to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant by "borderline OK" is that there is a greater than optimum amount of talking points for both sides of the GMO debate, but it is somewhat balanced (tipped a bit towards the anti-GMO talking points) So non-ideal but OK. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever is "borderline-OK on the first two points" etc. Please point me in the direction of anything that needs to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Viriditas, I think replacing quotes with more encyclopedic statements will improve the article. No one seems to have objected to the two that I have changed so I will continue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's strange, since I repeatedly asked you to raise it on the talk page first and you did not. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have continued, but not finished, replacing direct quotes. I hope others will agree that it makes the page look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a shouting match. I think the comments could be toned down even more but I intend to replace all the quotes first. I have also clarified the participant figures in the body of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's odd, as I have repeatedly asked you to discuss it, first. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not odd at all, it is how WP works. Do you not agree that my wording is more encyclopedic? All the actual pro and con arguments are still there, using very similar wording to the quotes but it reads more like an encyclopedia and less like a tabloid or street argument. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's completely odd because I was repeatedly asking in this thread "what is wrong with the quotes" and failed to receive any reply to my queries. Now you tell me that you have changed the quotes because you objected to them. Now at least I have recieved an answer, albeit in a ] form. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I said right from the start that quotations make the article look unencyclopedic. The quotations are more prominent than the running text and make the article look more like a debate on the pros and cons of GE food than an article about the march. If you look at my changes you will see that I have not removed any of the arguments made by either side but just restated them in indirect speech. Do you have any objection to this and, if so, what? What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- And I think it's odd that we have editors arguing about what is or isn't odd. Anyway, in the hopes that I can be responsive to Viriditas' very reasonable request that editors be specific about particular text changes, I've looked carefully at the quote-->summary edits that Martin Hogbin has made in the last day or so, and I agree with Martin that they are an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that I don't need to later eat my own words (too many irons in the fire right now!), but a quick look at Martin's edits seems to be an improvement to me as well. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, it is good to see that we agree about something. My concern is always that WP does not become a wp:soapbox or wp:coatrack for disenchanted individuals or pressure groups. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence that there is soapboxing or coatracking in this article? As far as I can tell, you are whitewashing quotes from Monsanto's CEO and downplaying concerns expressed by the movement organizer. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, it is good to see that we agree about something. My concern is always that WP does not become a wp:soapbox or wp:coatrack for disenchanted individuals or pressure groups. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that I don't need to later eat my own words (too many irons in the fire right now!), but a quick look at Martin's edits seems to be an improvement to me as well. Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- And I think it's odd that we have editors arguing about what is or isn't odd. Anyway, in the hopes that I can be responsive to Viriditas' very reasonable request that editors be specific about particular text changes, I've looked carefully at the quote-->summary edits that Martin Hogbin has made in the last day or so, and I agree with Martin that they are an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I said right from the start that quotations make the article look unencyclopedic. The quotations are more prominent than the running text and make the article look more like a debate on the pros and cons of GE food than an article about the march. If you look at my changes you will see that I have not removed any of the arguments made by either side but just restated them in indirect speech. Do you have any objection to this and, if so, what? What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's completely odd because I was repeatedly asking in this thread "what is wrong with the quotes" and failed to receive any reply to my queries. Now you tell me that you have changed the quotes because you objected to them. Now at least I have recieved an answer, albeit in a ] form. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not odd at all, it is how WP works. Do you not agree that my wording is more encyclopedic? All the actual pro and con arguments are still there, using very similar wording to the quotes but it reads more like an encyclopedia and less like a tabloid or street argument. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's odd, as I have repeatedly asked you to discuss it, first. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your question doesn't make sense in view of my previous post. What are you asking me to find that I said was a problem? North8000 (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide specific examples from the current article that I can address. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, responding only to posts prior to the last 2: Here the "debating forum" would be via efforts to game in talking points for one's view on GMO's and game out talking points for the opposite view. The detriments would be a POV'd article, an article that didn't focus on it's topic, and lots of grief and wasted time on the maneuvers. Right now I think that the article is borderline-OK on the fist two points,on the edge of a slippery slope of being not so. And the third detriment certainly has already occurred. So an effort to minimize that is useful.North8000 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Quotes removed
I have now replaced all the quotes with indirect speech apart from the 'Media reception' section which is more contentious (and tagged). I have stuck closely to the original words but I think both sides could still do with a little toning down. What is the general opinion on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your paraphrasing of Canal's words in the social media section is inaccurate and omitted the significant concerns about Monsanto's monopoly over the food supply which the protesters highlight as one of their primary issues. Your paraphrase of Hugh Grant's quote removed the attribution to Bloomberg and didn't even accurately paraphrase the quote where he accussed those who protested against GMO's as "elitists", even after it was discussed by multiple secondary sources. And, you called CTV an "independent source" instead of attributing the source by name. So, lots of problems with your edits. Viriditas (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've gone back and looked a second time at those edits, to examine Viriditas's concerns one-by-one.
- About Canal in the social media section: I think that Viriditas is correct about the issue of monopoly over the food supply. That can still be addressed through paraphrase, but it should be added back.
- About Grant: It doesn't strike me as a big deal that Bloomberg isn't mentioned, since the source is still cited. I'm kind of neutral about how important or not it is to discuss the accusations of elitism, and I don't see it as something where there is a right and a wrong way to present it.
- About CTV: Overall, I think Martin's edit was an improvement, because it differentiated clearly between estimates by the organizers, and estimates by sources that were not associated with the organizers. It's important that we make that distinction, given how much the numbers differ. There's a case to be made for saying, instead, "One independent source, CTV, estimated...", as it's more precise.
- --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, thanks for your analysis. I was just about to attend to your first point when I saw that Viriditas had added a whole new swathe of emotive NPOV quotes. There is a consensus that quotes are not desirable here, especially ones that seem only to be promoting a POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've gone back and looked a second time at those edits, to examine Viriditas's concerns one-by-one.
Media reception.
See also: Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2 § Fringe tag, and Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 1 § Media coverage sectionThis page has been tagged and I agree that it seems to present a bizarre conspiracy theory that all the world's media somehow conspired to not mention the march. What should we do now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The idea that the corporate media protect the interests of the corporate class is hardly a "bizarre conspiracy theory"—it's an common model used by those who study the media. In this case, the topic of media coverage is obviously relevant to an event seeking to bring attention to an issue. groupuscule (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- oy va voy. This is one of the most damaging ideas to our democracy. Fox News de-legitimizes main stream media (MSM) from the right wing; sloppy generalization of Chomsky de-legitimizes it from the left. We are left with nothing in the center, no legitimate fourth estate; everybody firmly locked into their bubbles and no longer even seeing the same world. Lovely. Sloppy generalization of Manufacturing Consent is bizarre conspiracy theory. There are other ways to explain the lack of coverage of MaM in MSM that have nothing to do with "protecting corporate interests." Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, like it was rather boring, badly supported, and unnewsworthy, for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hobgin, are you aware that there is an entire sub-discipline of media studies involving scholars who perform and publish content analyses of media coverage, and that none of them have reached your personal, pet conclusions? Because of "the consolidation of media companies and their acquisition by multinational corporations" there are "additional commercial pressures on the media. Producers and editors now have to satisfy not only their historical audiences and sponsors, but stockholders as well...As globalization takes hold, an increasing number of environmental issues take on international implications, and the transnational corporations have deep interests in how they are treated...The corporate influence not only circumscribes the kinds of issues that may be taken up by the media, but it urges that they be framed in a less critical way." Think tanks and foundations promote the corporate interests of companies like Monsanto by flooding the media with their agenda bullet points. "Many of their own research reports became the subjects of newspaper "news pieces" and they "gain access to the public through radio and TV talk shows, for which they make their representatives freely available." There are hundreds of books and papers on this subject. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, like it was rather boring, badly supported, and unnewsworthy, for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- oy va voy. This is one of the most damaging ideas to our democracy. Fox News de-legitimizes main stream media (MSM) from the right wing; sloppy generalization of Chomsky de-legitimizes it from the left. We are left with nothing in the center, no legitimate fourth estate; everybody firmly locked into their bubbles and no longer even seeing the same world. Lovely. Sloppy generalization of Manufacturing Consent is bizarre conspiracy theory. There are other ways to explain the lack of coverage of MaM in MSM that have nothing to do with "protecting corporate interests." Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand the idea that right wing US media might choose to ignore the subject, in fact had they done so but other media sources covered the march, that would have been a good argument for a conspiracy but the article has statements like, 'A global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy...Monsanto produces genetically modified foods that are in our food supply — foods we eat every day — and yet somehow protests against this aren't covered?". If the facts are that only some US media ignored the march then that is what we should say. If, on the other hand, the claim is that the world media, including European public service media such as the BBC ignored the march because of pressure from Monsanto, then we are looking at something akin to the moon landing conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a classic fringe position (how extreme is a matter of debate) and so should not be unduly prominent - if indeed it is notable, or strongly-sourced, enough to be mentioned at all. I think not, and have deleted the paragraph in question. With this solution, can we remove the tag now? Alexbrn 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand the idea that right wing US media might choose to ignore the subject, in fact had they done so but other media sources covered the march, that would have been a good argument for a conspiracy but the article has statements like, 'A global protest involving millions of people must be newsworthy...Monsanto produces genetically modified foods that are in our food supply — foods we eat every day — and yet somehow protests against this aren't covered?". If the facts are that only some US media ignored the march then that is what we should say. If, on the other hand, the claim is that the world media, including European public service media such as the BBC ignored the march because of pressure from Monsanto, then we are looking at something akin to the moon landing conspiracy theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the last two paragraphs should go too. They are both vague and unsubstantiated opinions expressed by local US media sources about an allegedly global campaign. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let me suggest keeping just one sentence from those two paragraphs, about Thom Hartmann, and deleting all the rest. Just the opening sentence of that paragraph, not the quote that follows it. Make that sentence the last sentence of what would then be the single paragraph of that section (now the first paragraph). That way, we at least give one sentence to the opinion that coverage was minimal, but without giving that opinion undue weight, and I agree with the comments above that it's a fringe opinion. Hartmann is notable enough that we have a page on him, so a one-sentence summary seems appropriate to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but I cannot accpt even that. He says, 'but two million protesters aren't enough to risk upsetting the corporate masters'. That give grosly undue weight to one persons speculation as to why there was not more news coverage, as opposed to the much more likely reason that it was just not that interesting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The sentence I was talking about keeping is: "Radio host Thom Hartmann, in an opinion piece called "So Much For The Liberal Media", claimed that the media had largely ignored the protests." It doesn't include what you quoted there. Maybe you thought I meant a different sentence? The fact that his reasoning doesn't convince you doesn't matter, and it isn't UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but I cannot accpt even that. He says, 'but two million protesters aren't enough to risk upsetting the corporate masters'. That give grosly undue weight to one persons speculation as to why there was not more news coverage, as opposed to the much more likely reason that it was just not that interesting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Again, this article is about a protest movement, not a GMO debate. Many people are as or even more concerned about Monsanto's business practices than they are about the possible untoward affects from GMOs. This movement is a protest of Monsanto and there's nothing fringe about that. Some editors here may believe that Hartmann's opinion is not correct but as editors it's not our place to censor the opinion of notable figures any more than we should censor the Monsanto spokesperson's opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- agreed, gandy, there is nothing fringe about protesting Monsanto. Some reasons may be fringe (e.g. GMOS cause cancer) but in general protesting big ag is not fringe. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was advocating for including Hartmann's opinion, just not at undue length. The issue being discussed isn't whether criticism of the company is fringe, but rather, whether claims that the news media, collectively, are working to suppress coverage of the movement are fringe. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- A claim without any substantial evidence that, 'the news media, collectively, are working to suppress coverage of the movement', is not fringe but completely beyond the fringe. You seem to be suggesting that we mention the view of a person who believes in a conspiracy theory on a par with the moon landing conspiracy theories. It is not even remotely credible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Did you see what I said to you a few lines above? All I'm talking about is that he "claimed that the media had largely ignored the protests". Nothing about conspiracy theories, only that there exists a line of thought that there wasn't a lot of coverage. I'm agreeing with you that the conspiracy theories are fringe. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- A claim without any substantial evidence that, 'the news media, collectively, are working to suppress coverage of the movement', is not fringe but completely beyond the fringe. You seem to be suggesting that we mention the view of a person who believes in a conspiracy theory on a par with the moon landing conspiracy theories. It is not even remotely credible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let me suggest keeping just one sentence from those two paragraphs, about Thom Hartmann, and deleting all the rest. Just the opening sentence of that paragraph, not the quote that follows it. Make that sentence the last sentence of what would then be the single paragraph of that section (now the first paragraph). That way, we at least give one sentence to the opinion that coverage was minimal, but without giving that opinion undue weight, and I agree with the comments above that it's a fringe opinion. Hartmann is notable enough that we have a page on him, so a one-sentence summary seems appropriate to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the last two paragraphs should go too. They are both vague and unsubstantiated opinions expressed by local US media sources about an allegedly global campaign. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed to death already. Nobody is saying the media is working together to suppress coverage. But, Monsanto has been involved in suppressing media coverage in the past (see Steve Wilson, Jane Akre, Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_against_WTVT, WTVT#Monsanto_controversy, Monsanto#1997_WTVT_news_story) with the help of corporate media outlets. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'm new to this page, and I'm sympathetic to how it feels when a topic has already been discussed. What I was reacting to, and I think this is reasonable, was what was currently on the page, not anything elsewhere. And what was on the page was rather a lot of text by not-very-noteworthy sources that were saying, as quoted on the page, that there was some kind of problem with the major news media ignoring the protest. If we are going to say on this page that Monsanto suppressed news coverage of this particular protest, we need reliable sourcing that this actually took place, not speculation by commentators that it might have taken place, per WP:BLPGROUP. If there is information on other pages about actual suppression of this sort, but not specifically in relation to the March, then the correct way to indicate that is by a "see also" hatnote at the top of the section, per WP:Summary style, and I'd be fine with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry but this is absurd. Is the article saying that media coverage was suppressed or is it not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Monsanto was not a party to that litigation and was not found to have done anything wrong. WTVT was not found to have done anything wrong, news-wise. Yes Monsanto did send a threatening letter to Fox. But WTVT said that "it did not bend to Monsanto's letter and wanted to air a hard-hitting story with a number of statements critical of Monsanto." But they did not want outright lies in the story. The judge found that "Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH." So this is a poor example. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed to death already. Nobody is saying the media is working together to suppress coverage. But, Monsanto has been involved in suppressing media coverage in the past (see Steve Wilson, Jane Akre, Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_against_WTVT, WTVT#Monsanto_controversy, Monsanto#1997_WTVT_news_story) with the help of corporate media outlets. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- My suggestion earlier was to have a sentence similar to this: "The march was covered by X, Y, Z, A, B. Some media critics, however, criticized the media for not covering the march." This is an inartful way of putting it, but this way the criticism and the truth both get coverage here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed over and over and over again, notably at Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_2 and Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_1#Media_coverage_section. Every point you've made has been addressed. There is nothing whatsoever "fringe" about these views, nor can cite anything from WP:FRINGE that applies to this content. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The argument is less that it's a fringe viewpoint and more that it's not true. It's why the tag is undue, not fringe. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed over and over and over again, notably at Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_2 and Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_1#Media_coverage_section. Every point you've made has been addressed. There is nothing whatsoever "fringe" about these views, nor can cite anything from WP:FRINGE that applies to this content. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- My suggestion earlier was to have a sentence similar to this: "The march was covered by X, Y, Z, A, B. Some media critics, however, criticized the media for not covering the march." This is an inartful way of putting it, but this way the criticism and the truth both get coverage here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Martin, this has been discussed in many different threads already. There is no "bizarre conspiracy theory" here at all. Can you name the major media outlets that covered the protests in the United States on May 25? There were only two, the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Which shows that the march was essentially not newsworthy. Or are you trying to tell me that there was some conspiracy to prevent all the US media from mentioning the subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that there were only two justifies a short sentence on the page saying that those were the only two. It doesn't justify material speculating on why there were only two. If there were sourcing demonstrating why there were only two (for example, other news sources saying why they chose not to cover it), then that would be appropriate to cite, but speculation does not belong here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would rephrase your first sentence to say, 'The fact that there were only two justifies a short sentence on the page saying that those were the two'. The last only has been omitted because it implies that there ought to have been more. I have no at all objection to saying simply that the march was covered by two media sources. That would not require its own section. It is absurd to have speculation by two minor media sources over an alleged conspiracy involving all the major media. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Except that it's not true. We can list off plenty of major media sources that covered the march, either by the commonly understood (ran a story) or by the definition some use here (did their own reporting). It's why there's opposition to the amount of space we're giving to the claim that it wasn't covered. Thargor Orlando (talk)
- I'm trying to understand: were there just two in the US, but multiple others in countries other than the US? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- There were many in the US, and even more if you count international sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- There were massive protests in the United States and Europe. And they were not covered by large corporate media outlets. Your claim that there were "many" in the US is based on what, exactly? The only large media outlets that covered the international protests in the U.S. were the AP and the Los Angeles Times. CNN covered it three days later. RT was the only outlet that covered it in Europe. In other words, virtually no media coverage, just a singular AP story that was distributed via wire. In any case, what policy or guideline are you using to argue for the removal of this material? This topic has been discussed already many times. Thargor has now evolved his argument by dropping the fringe claim and arguing that we can't include it because, according to him, "it's not true". Except, Thargor has been asked, over and over again, to provide a reliable source that disagrees with the opinions in question. He can't provide these sources, and he can't challenge its weight, so that leaves no challenge at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I won't beat a dead horse on this, you are incorrect as I have shown in previous discussions on the matter. I do not care to remove the data, I have proposed an alternative that lists highlights of the coverage as well as notes the minority, untrue viewpoint that some believe it was ignored. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thargor, what would be your proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please correct me if I misunderstand, but Thargor is talking about US sources that Viriditas distinguishes from major news sources, so there might be lots of "sources" in the US, but only two US sources if one leaves out all the minor ones. Correct? If I'm right about that, then the thing to do is to say that there were two major US sources, name them, and leave out any theories about why there were not more, unless we have reliable sourcing (and we apparently don't have it) in which the other sources explain why they didn't cover it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thargor, what would be your proposal? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- I won't beat a dead horse on this, you are incorrect as I have shown in previous discussions on the matter. I do not care to remove the data, I have proposed an alternative that lists highlights of the coverage as well as notes the minority, untrue viewpoint that some believe it was ignored. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- There were massive protests in the United States and Europe. And they were not covered by large corporate media outlets. Your claim that there were "many" in the US is based on what, exactly? The only large media outlets that covered the international protests in the U.S. were the AP and the Los Angeles Times. CNN covered it three days later. RT was the only outlet that covered it in Europe. In other words, virtually no media coverage, just a singular AP story that was distributed via wire. In any case, what policy or guideline are you using to argue for the removal of this material? This topic has been discussed already many times. Thargor has now evolved his argument by dropping the fringe claim and arguing that we can't include it because, according to him, "it's not true". Except, Thargor has been asked, over and over again, to provide a reliable source that disagrees with the opinions in question. He can't provide these sources, and he can't challenge its weight, so that leaves no challenge at all. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- There were many in the US, and even more if you count international sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to understand: were there just two in the US, but multiple others in countries other than the US? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- Except that it's not true. We can list off plenty of major media sources that covered the march, either by the commonly understood (ran a story) or by the definition some use here (did their own reporting). It's why there's opposition to the amount of space we're giving to the claim that it wasn't covered. Thargor Orlando (talk)
- I would rephrase your first sentence to say, 'The fact that there were only two justifies a short sentence on the page saying that those were the two'. The last only has been omitted because it implies that there ought to have been more. I have no at all objection to saying simply that the march was covered by two media sources. That would not require its own section. It is absurd to have speculation by two minor media sources over an alleged conspiracy involving all the major media. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Response
- On May 16, commenting on petitions submitted to the USDA opposing applications by Monsanto and Dow to test new GM crops, Monsanto's CEO Hugh Grant stated the petitioners wanted to block others from choosing more affordable food options.
Nowhere does any source cited say this and I've asked Jytdog and others to stop adding this. Hugh Grant was not commenting on petitions submitted to the USDA, he was commenting on social media. Unless Jytdog is in personal close contact with the CEO of Monsanto, I would be curious why he and others keep altering the quotes and changing the context. Grant did not say anything about petitioners to Kaskey, and he paraphrsed it as "The advent of social media helps explain why many people in the U.S. have come to oppose genetically engineered crops in recent years". Nothing about petitioners. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding quotations
- "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", she recalled... "Companies like Kellogg's and General Mills are putting things like Fruit Loops on the market that are basically 100 percent genetically engineered ingredients," Canal told Salt Lake City Weekly. "And that's marketed to our kids."
I removed the following quote because it gives undue weight to the opinion of one person compared with the broad scientific consensus: 'I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison'(my emphasis). I have no doubt that Canal said this and genuinely believes it but putting, 'feeding my family poison' in the article, even if balanced by pro-GE quotes, gives undue weight to the extreme fringe view that GE foods are poison.
The same argument applies my general practice of replacing quotes with indirect speech. They give excessive prominence to fringe views. There is nothing at all wrong with my changes, especially as the strong opinions are correctly attributed. At least two other editors have agree with what I have done; you seem to be the only one who objects.
This page has already come under criticism for promoting fringe views and it was even proposed for deletion on that basis. Had I been around at that time, I would have opposed deletion but supported the majority view that this page must not become a promotional article for fringe science. It is fair enough to briefly give the reasons that the organisers started the movement but we are not here to support their cause. Giving their fringe views equal weight to mainstream science and the welfare of the majority of consumers is a very clear violation of WP:due.
It is also my opinion, supported by some others, that this page should not just refrain from promoting fringe science but that it is not the pace to have the GE vs anti-GE debate. We already have a page for that purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such scientific consensus about genetically modified organisms. Evidence of consensus is scant; evidence of dissensus abounds. Appeals regarding content on this page should not invoke a fictional consensus. groupuscule (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your "argument" in that page has no basis here, as it's simply your opinion and does not reflect the real-world consensus in play. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no such scientific consensus about genetically modified organisms. Evidence of consensus is scant; evidence of dissensus abounds. Appeals regarding content on this page should not invoke a fictional consensus. groupuscule (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument is flawed. The quote you removed has nothing to do with "giving undue weight to the opinion of one person compared with the broad scientific consensus." In fact, it has nothing to do with any "broad scientific consensus" at all. The quote has to do with Canal's reasoning for starting the movement. That she believes that she was feeding her family poison is her opinion and her rationale. Quoting her reasons for starting the movement does not give "undue weight to the extreme fringe view that GE foods are poison", nor could it. Furthermore, your argument for replacing quotes isn't reflected by your edits. You inaccurately replaced direct quotes to things that did not give "excessive prominence to fringe views", such as the statement from Monsanto Hawaii, the CEO of Monsanto, Canal's reason for starting the movement, a protester's reason for organizing, official statements from Monsanto, and more. None of these things "give excessive prominence to fringe views". Most of your changes are problematic as detailed in this thread and above at Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Quotes_removed, where other editors do not agree with your changes as you claim. There is quite a bit wrong with your edits, and I will now ask you for a second time to stop changing quotations. Your last series of edits introduced plagiarism when you removed the attribution and the quotes themselves. Finally, your removal of Canal's quotes isn't supported, and your stated reason for removing them ("emotive") shows that you are confused about how we use quotes. Those quotes represent her POV. We don't neutralize the POV of a person we are quoting. There are fundamental problems with your edits here. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could hear what others think. My opinion is that putting a quotation stating the extreme fringe view, that GE foods are poison, gives the view undue prominence on the page and in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Earlier I said that at a glance your changes looked OK however it seems that with closer inspection as outlined by Viriditas it seems that in at least several instances the edits were not acceptable. And as has been said repeatedly Martin, we do not edit articles for our personal version of the "truth". For instance, if Reverand xxx says that women get raped because they don't dress properly, that's what we quote them as saying regardless of our own views. Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's a lot to comment on here. First, about the material that was on Martin's talk page, it would have been polite to either link from here to the talk page, or ask Viriditas before copying it here, but Viriditas should know that the terms of use, right above the save edit button, allow anything one writes to be copied anywhere else.
- Earlier I said that at a glance your changes looked OK however it seems that with closer inspection as outlined by Viriditas it seems that in at least several instances the edits were not acceptable. And as has been said repeatedly Martin, we do not edit articles for our personal version of the "truth". For instance, if Reverand xxx says that women get raped because they don't dress properly, that's what we quote them as saying regardless of our own views. Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could hear what others think. My opinion is that putting a quotation stating the extreme fringe view, that GE foods are poison, gives the view undue prominence on the page and in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- This is not the place to have arguments about whether or not opposition to GMOs is fringe science, or whether GMOs are poison.
- Overall, I think most of Martin's edits have been helpful, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we should go more in the direction of using direct quotes of Canal, because of her special role in the subject of this page. If we directly quote her, then Misplaced Pages is not taking a position about her opinions about GMOs as "poison", and it's appropriate to indicate her beliefs and motivations. We can link to other pages in lieu of refuting her here.
- I do not regard Martin's edits as introducing plagiarism.
- About the specific edits for which Viriditas provides links, taking them one-by-one: I don't see any problems with the one about Monsanto Hawaii's statement. About the Monsanto CEO, I already commented at #Quotes removed. About Canal, I also commented above, and I'd be inclined to bring the direct quote back. About the Los Angeles march organizer, I'm neutral between the quote and the paraphrase, and I don't see any distortion of the meaning in the paraphrase. About Monsanto's official statements, ditto. About "According to the AP", it doesn't rise to the level of plagiarism, but I'd be inclined to either restore the explicit attribution or to insert the word "reportedly" into "Some people are reportedly concerned...", with the inline cite at the end of the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with this rationale for using direct quotations. Paraphrasing can be useful for efficiency's sake, but in this case (subbed in to replace a one-liner) seems mostly to muddy the waters. groupuscule (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I do not object to all quotes but I think that the article as it was looked like a debate on GE food between Canal and Monsanto. I see two problems with this, firstly this is not the place for such a debate; we have an article on the subject. More importantly though, it gives legitimacy to an extreme fringe view (that GE foods are poison) and also gives the impression that the generally accepted view is only that of Monsanto.
- I would not object to one or two quotes from Canal, but only in a context that does not give them prominence or legitimacy and also makes it absolutely clear to the reader that we are giving the words of a person with an extreme fringe view. I cannot see how we can do this, which is why I thought we should remove the quotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good, that's fair, and that's progress, I think. Where you say that you cannot see how to do that, I can make a suggestion, using the quote at the top of this talk thread as an example. What Canal says there is, indeed, a view reflecting a particular POV. However, a direct quote makes it clear that she, not Misplaced Pages, is saying it. The problem you describe then becomes how to put what she says in context, without us taking a POV and without having a coatrack of arguments. I would suggest something like: "Talking about her personal motivations for starting the movement, Canal said '....'". Lead into the quote like that, and make it particularly clear that this is what she said. Have hatnotes directing readers to the pages where the GMO controversies are covered in detail. Keep reporting here what Monsanto has said in its responses. (I don't know if there are responses from sources other than Monsanto, but it would be worth looking for ones that specifically address the March.) That will work. This page is about a movement started by people who have a point of view, and there's no getting around the fact that this page will tell our readers what that point of view is. Maybe somebody will read her quote, decide to believe her literally, and not read anything more. There's nothing we can do about that, and it's not Misplaced Pages's job. But anyone who reads the whole page, including the Monsanto responses, and who goes on to look at the other pages we link to, will have access to enough information to draw an informed conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I could go with something like that for one or two quotes only but I do not think we should try to balance Canal's fringe opinion with Monsanto quotes. That gives her view legitimacy and makes it look as though only Monsanto support GE food. I think we should do all we can to prevent any possible misunderstanding that Canal's view is that of WP. One problem is that putting the full quote, "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", gives too much prominence to her opinion and I cannot see how we could reduce it and still retain the sense. We could actually do better with indirect speech along the lines of, 'Canal stated that she considered GE foods to be poison'. What would you suggest? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that we shouldn't have a point-counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto. I simply meant that Monsanto's perspective should continue to be included on the page, not necessarily right after each quote from Canal. For the reasons that I already said, my suggestion about the Canal quote is to use the quote, but presented in the way that I said. There is no problem with her view appearing to be Misplaced Pages's view if we do it this way. In this case, I would not paraphrase. Better to encompass all that she said: the increasing anger, the small fortune, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no "point counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto" anywhere on this page. Judging by this discussion, there is support for adding the quotes back in. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, the point-counterpoint seems to be, instead, on this talk page.
I didn't say that there was one on the page. I said that there need not be one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you restored the quotes? Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Do you not know the answer to your own question? Please feel free to restore them yourself, and know that I will support your doing so, as long as it's consistent with what I have said here.--Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you restored the quotes? Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, the point-counterpoint seems to be, instead, on this talk page.
- There has been no "point counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto" anywhere on this page. Judging by this discussion, there is support for adding the quotes back in. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you that we shouldn't have a point-counterpoint between Canal and Monsanto. I simply meant that Monsanto's perspective should continue to be included on the page, not necessarily right after each quote from Canal. For the reasons that I already said, my suggestion about the Canal quote is to use the quote, but presented in the way that I said. There is no problem with her view appearing to be Misplaced Pages's view if we do it this way. In this case, I would not paraphrase. Better to encompass all that she said: the increasing anger, the small fortune, etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I could go with something like that for one or two quotes only but I do not think we should try to balance Canal's fringe opinion with Monsanto quotes. That gives her view legitimacy and makes it look as though only Monsanto support GE food. I think we should do all we can to prevent any possible misunderstanding that Canal's view is that of WP. One problem is that putting the full quote, "I became increasingly angry every time I would go to the grocery store and spend a small fortune to ensure I wasn't feeding my family poison", gives too much prominence to her opinion and I cannot see how we could reduce it and still retain the sense. We could actually do better with indirect speech along the lines of, 'Canal stated that she considered GE foods to be poison'. What would you suggest? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good, that's fair, and that's progress, I think. Where you say that you cannot see how to do that, I can make a suggestion, using the quote at the top of this talk thread as an example. What Canal says there is, indeed, a view reflecting a particular POV. However, a direct quote makes it clear that she, not Misplaced Pages, is saying it. The problem you describe then becomes how to put what she says in context, without us taking a POV and without having a coatrack of arguments. I would suggest something like: "Talking about her personal motivations for starting the movement, Canal said '....'". Lead into the quote like that, and make it particularly clear that this is what she said. Have hatnotes directing readers to the pages where the GMO controversies are covered in detail. Keep reporting here what Monsanto has said in its responses. (I don't know if there are responses from sources other than Monsanto, but it would be worth looking for ones that specifically address the March.) That will work. This page is about a movement started by people who have a point of view, and there's no getting around the fact that this page will tell our readers what that point of view is. Maybe somebody will read her quote, decide to believe her literally, and not read anything more. There's nothing we can do about that, and it's not Misplaced Pages's job. But anyone who reads the whole page, including the Monsanto responses, and who goes on to look at the other pages we link to, will have access to enough information to draw an informed conclusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would not object to one or two quotes from Canal, but only in a context that does not give them prominence or legitimacy and also makes it absolutely clear to the reader that we are giving the words of a person with an extreme fringe view. I cannot see how we can do this, which is why I thought we should remove the quotes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Viriditas' assertions of consensus
I have a few minor concerns following Viriditas' blanket reversions of my recent edits, which she or he has justified as based in talk page consensus. As I read the comments above, it seems that multiple editors have suggested that this page, as it exists, too closely resembles promotional material. I strongly agree. Viriditas has been the most frequent and vociferous opponent to these comments, but I wonder if Viriditas' opinions really equate with consensus. Observations:
- The "March" was a march, a defined, discrete event. While the founder may hope that it turns into a true movement, and while this may eventually happen, there hasn't been enough time or evidence to establish this. The Misplaced Pages article should present what has happened, not what we hope will happen in the future.
- Editors have objected to "grassroots" and other designations ("full time mother of two"?), which seem to be inserted to imply that the good, simple people of America have had enough and are standing up to the evil corporations. Is the continuing presence of such language encyclopedic?
- My reading of Misplaced Pages policy is that the scientific consensus must be underlined when we present fringe topics. Anti-GMO events are truly fringe from a scientific and thus a Wikipedian perspective. This is not a slur or a reflection on numbers. Even if a majority of the American public believe that God created the world in six days or that a particular biotech is trying to surreptitiously poison unwitting Whole Foods customers, the Misplaced Pages definition of fringe is opposition to a well established and verifiable scientific consensus. The article should include a statement about the broad international consensus, and the sources for this statement do not need to address the May 25, 2013 event specifically. In contrast, the article is replete with material that is off-topic or of questionable relevance other than to promote the March organizer or suggest that her views are on an equal footing with scientific consensus. SpectraValor (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your points have been discussed extensively and at great lengths. There is nothing fringe in this article and the scientific consensus is well established with sources about the subject. Please consult this talk page or the archives for further information. I am, of course, happy to very briefly review the finer points of those discussions with you. As far as I can tell, you are attempting to restore the failed arguments of Thargor Orlando, who did not get consensus for his edits. I will chalk that up to a coincidence. As for your points:
- Movement. This point has been discussed ad nauseum in the thread Talk:March_Against_Monsanto/Archive_3#US bias? Every angle of the discussion was addressed. You are now trying to reopen this argument with a straw man, defining the movement as a single discrete march. However, the sources define it as a movement based on accepted sociological definitions of organized activity that involve more than one geographical location, not more than one march. In other words, this topic is appropriately defined as a global movement per the sources and the accepted definitions in use.
- Grassroots. You say that editors have objected to this term because of its implications, however the sources have described it as an "international grass roots movement". Grassroots in this topic area refers to ""ordinary people regarded as the main body of an organization's membership". This is covered in the above linked discussion.
- Scientific consensus. You have attempted to re-open several discussions covered in depth at Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2, all of which concluded that 1) there is nothing "fringe" in the current version that needs attention, and 2) the scientific consensus is adequately and accurately presented in its proper context using sources about the subject. As it stands, the article currently says, "The U.S. government and scientists maintain that GMOs are safe for consumption, but those wishing to avoid them have advocated for mandatory GMO labeling laws" and "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming."
- Off topic or irrelevant material. You've claimed that the current version "is replete with material that is off-topic or of questionable relevance other than to promote the March organizer or suggest that her views are on an equal footing with scientific consensus." I can see no part of this current version that reflects this view. Perhaps you will be so kind as to provide examples.
- I believe that covers everything. If you are still interested in proposing your edits, simply choose one to start with and add it here below so we can discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how many more people need to disagree with you on this, Viriditas. I'm surprised this is being argued again as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thargor, there is no support for these edits, which coincidentally, restore your edits which were found to lack consensus and violate our policies. You cannot add original research to this article. End of story. We've discussed this extensively in the archives, and there was no support for your violation of policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how many more people need to disagree with you on this, Viriditas. I'm surprised this is being argued again as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your points have been discussed extensively and at great lengths. There is nothing fringe in this article and the scientific consensus is well established with sources about the subject. Please consult this talk page or the archives for further information. I am, of course, happy to very briefly review the finer points of those discussions with you. As far as I can tell, you are attempting to restore the failed arguments of Thargor Orlando, who did not get consensus for his edits. I will chalk that up to a coincidence. As for your points:
While I do agree with Viriditas on some of the above points, I think that the article is biased towards promoting the views of the protestors. The main mechanism for this is by becoming too much of a coatrack/vehicle for making their argument, via too much of (the sum of) repeating their talking points, spun wording, views and characterizations of things. Also via selection of wording. As one example of many, the name used in the lead to identify a portion of a law was the derogatory name/description created by the protestors. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- That "name" is the one referred to the most in our best reliable sources. There is nothing promotional about it. It's the most common name for the law in relation to this topic. I cannot possibly see how not best representing our sources is an option. Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I basically agree with North, and I made an edit about the "Monsanto Protection Act" to not present it in Misplaced Pages's voice. I hope that at least that will be noncontroversial. Regarding scientific consensus, I agree with the changes that were made by SpectraValor in the GMO controversy section. For the lead, I agree with Viriditas about "grassroots" and "movement". For me, what's left after that are the numbers of participants, and I have already stated what I think we should do with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The use of the term "Monsanto Protection Act" is entirely inline with our sources. I am not all that concerned with your changes if the sources support them. As for the changes made by SpectraValor, we have previously discussed this when Thargor Orlando tried to add the same edits over and over and over again last month—against consensus. We cannot add original research to this or any other article which is exactly what this is—sources collected by editors that have nothing to do with this subject. The scientific POV is already well represented in this article from sources about the subject. This is very clear and has been extensively discussed. Thargor Orlando's continuous violation of our policies is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The fact that "SpectraValor" showed up out of the blue to restore these problematic edits and policy violations while subsequently having Thargor Orlando appear out of nowhere to restore them once again, shows that we've got a more serious problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Obvious teamwork is obvious. It's why I quit editing ths article and will not get involved with the GMO issue on wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The use of the term "Monsanto Protection Act" is entirely inline with our sources. I am not all that concerned with your changes if the sources support them. As for the changes made by SpectraValor, we have previously discussed this when Thargor Orlando tried to add the same edits over and over and over again last month—against consensus. We cannot add original research to this or any other article which is exactly what this is—sources collected by editors that have nothing to do with this subject. The scientific POV is already well represented in this article from sources about the subject. This is very clear and has been extensively discussed. Thargor Orlando's continuous violation of our policies is a problem that needs to be dealt with. The fact that "SpectraValor" showed up out of the blue to restore these problematic edits and policy violations while subsequently having Thargor Orlando appear out of nowhere to restore them once again, shows that we've got a more serious problem at work. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I said to Viriditas on my talk page: No, that isn't rule (policy or guideline) so you are in error. And no, it isn't wp:or because it is wp:suitably sourced. So you are wrong on both counts. I am more concerned about a good process for such changes (vs. the huge bundle that you just dropped) than any end result, so if you could just unbundle and discuss, I think that things would go much better. Interestingly, I think that my POV is the same as yours on this, but as always, when we enter as editors we need to check such that at the door and so 50% of my "disputes" are with people who are promoting my POV. That is our duty as editors in wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are totally confused about how original research works. Original research can be "suitably sourced", and most often is! Have you actually read the policy?
...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research
- None of the sources in question have anything to do with this subject, and even worse, the AP source that accurately represented this section was removed! This is not acceptable. We don't remove reliable secondary sources about a subject and replace them with off-topic, editor-chosen sources that are about a different subject! I am simply flabbergasted that an editor of your standing doesn't know this. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I wish that what you are implying (a degree-of-relevancy requirement for content) were true, but it isn't. Your construction was pretty creative (those three dots represent half the policy, not shortening of a sentence). The first part was putting forth a sourcing requirement for material and so does not establish a relevancy requirement for material. The second was referring to a juxtoposition of material to create a statement that was not in either of the sources. In any event, I'm in agreement with getting /keeping GMO debate material out of the article. The problem is that too much of the talking points of the anti-GMO has been put in via the mechanisms described above. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- At some point, Viritidas, you're going to have to stop with the veiled attacks on other editors. Nothing in the talk history pushes against the point of the fringe guideline which you continually violate here, and it's hard for me, who has been engaged on this page for months now, to "come out of nowhere." If you can't justify your edits within guideline and policy, they're going to be removed. It's that simple. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not on their "team", but I pretty much agree with Thargor and North. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Above, we are told that the issues about scientific consensus were settled at Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2. I've gone back and looked for where there was supposedly an editorial consensus that the sources involved original research by editors. What I could find was Talk:March Against Monsanto/Archive 2#Report on sources for "broad scientific consensus". That doesn't even come close to representing either an editorial consensus or a demonstration of original research, except to the extent that the so-called "report" disputing the scientific consensus appears to be OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not on their "team", but I pretty much agree with Thargor and North. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- As I said to Viriditas on my talk page: No, that isn't rule (policy or guideline) so you are in error. And no, it isn't wp:or because it is wp:suitably sourced. So you are wrong on both counts. I am more concerned about a good process for such changes (vs. the huge bundle that you just dropped) than any end result, so if you could just unbundle and discuss, I think that things would go much better. Interestingly, I think that my POV is the same as yours on this, but as always, when we enter as editors we need to check such that at the door and so 50% of my "disputes" are with people who are promoting my POV. That is our duty as editors in wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- About: , I also recently fixed some format errors, and the most recent revert of the scientific consensus material added the errors back: . I'm quite willing to fix errors of that sort, but it seems to me that if someone is going to do a big reversion, they could be careful enough to fix any errors that they, themselves, have re-introduced. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Question to those reverting the language back: why is it so important to keep bringing back the word "American" in the first sentence (referring to where Monsanto is)? After all, the rest of the sentence gives the specific location. Is it just easier to hit the revert link? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It might sound strange to US but not everybody in this world knows where this location supposed to be. We're writing for an international audience, remember? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, it's not a big enough deal for me to really care about, but it doesn't seem that difficult to me to click on the link to the city. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- It might sound strange to US but not everybody in this world knows where this location supposed to be. We're writing for an international audience, remember? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just clarifying "teams" I think that my real-world POV on this matches that of Viriditas, (I don't like GMO's) but we check that at the door when put on our wp editor hat. The article should not be a soapbox for promoting the anit-GMO view. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I better clarify that I was alluding to what petrarchan47tc said about "obvious teamwork". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Just clarifying "teams" I think that my real-world POV on this matches that of Viriditas, (I don't like GMO's) but we check that at the door when put on our wp editor hat. The article should not be a soapbox for promoting the anit-GMO view. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is not about a minority view but about the march and is simply just not the place to argue for or against GMO's, (besides the points made directly in response to the march of course.)TMCk (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the format fixing, much appreciated! I agree with you that we should be coat-racking here, but I also want to make sure that what we do say here is NPOV. And, as much as mistrust of GMOs is very much mainstream in culture and politics, the scientific consensus really is pretty overwhelming. Therefore, I think that we need to get back to the main question at hand. I went back and read the archived discussions. I don't see an established consensus for the wording on the page, and I don't see a explanation of why the language that you reverted is original research. The closest thing to an explanation is that the cited sources did not relate to the subject of the page. I've gone back and looked more carefully at those sources. You are right that one of them had been malformatted, resulting in a cite error message, but they all seem to me to be reliable sources about GMOs. If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- This article is not about a minority view but about the march and is simply just not the place to argue for or against GMO's, (besides the points made directly in response to the march of course.)TMCk (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Recent deletions
Recently, an editor removed the following information from the article as "tangential":
Two days before the group held the May 25 protest, the U.S. Senate rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.
I fail to see how this information is "tangential". The entire protest movement is based on the lack of labeling laws, and the rejection of this amendment was one of the things protesters were upset about it. I admit that this can be rewritten and expanded, but based on the sources, I cannot see any good reason for its removal. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I removed it. Three days before the protests there was a full moon. So? While the Senate may have done something, how did that impact the protests? What does the source say about the Senate's action upon the protests? Did the protestors say something about this? (Yes, I repeat myself, repeat myself, repeat myself.) Until the connection is made -- independently by WP:RS -- the info is tangential. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The connection was made independently by RS. You removed them. Not to worry, however, there are many more that make the connection as well. I think this was just a mistake on your part, however, I do see it as an opportunity to improve and expand the text. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The material I removed simply says "Two days before the group held the May 25 protest, the ] rejected an amendment that would allow states to require labeling of genetically modified foods.<ref name="RT-eve"/>" This implies a connection between the rejected amendment and the protests. You've got to add something from the RS like "and the protestors carried signs denouncing the Senate rejection...." that actually makes a connection between the Senate action and the protests. The removal was not a mistake on my part. It was taking out improper WP:SYN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The source you removed is titled, "On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill", and explicitly makes the connection between the two events. This refers to amendment 965 of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954; 113th Congress) proposing the labeling of GMOs. Multiple news sources make the connection, and even Bernie Sanders himself, the man who proposed the labeling bill, makes the connection in interviews with the media and on his own website. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- As Upton made the observation and connection between the Senate action & the march, the RT reference is back in the article at that point. It serves to support what Upton said. – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think the end result of these edits is an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- As Upton made the observation and connection between the Senate action & the march, the RT reference is back in the article at that point. It serves to support what Upton said. – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- The source you removed is titled, "On the eve of March against Monsanto Senate shoots down GMO labeling bill", and explicitly makes the connection between the two events. This refers to amendment 965 of the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954; 113th Congress) proposing the labeling of GMOs. Multiple news sources make the connection, and even Bernie Sanders himself, the man who proposed the labeling bill, makes the connection in interviews with the media and on his own website. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Agriculture articles
- Low-importance Agriculture articles
- WikiProject Agriculture articles
- C-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles