User talk:Groupuscule/GMO talk

Nothing on Wikipedia has provoked more discussion on groupuscule's talk page than the topic of genetic engineering and whether it's safe. This fact is kind of funny when you consider that groupuscule has barely edited any articles, at all, related to this topic. Groupuscule has made some talk page comments explaining our opinion that these articles have a pro-biotech bias. In response we have met with amazing vitriol and harrassment, claiming a disproportionate amount of mental and emotional energy, not to mention talk page real estate.

Now, the GMO saga is getting its own subpage. Maybe someday we will annotate the below, for posterity.

Your remark on Monsanto Talk page

I have spent a lot of time recently working on the Monsanto article. I just saw your comment today in which you wrote "Strange how the article has gone from an anti-Monsanto POV to a conspicuously pro-Monsanto POV. Wikipedians worry about unsophisticated vandals, but need to pay more attention to corporate infiltrators who are savvy enough to use complete sentences and cite their sources". You are obviously talking about my work. 1) For somebody who proudly has the motto "I value fairness, truth, & justice!", you have made me feel like crap - unfairly judged and dismissed. 2) I am not an "infilitrator" - I have tons of edits all over. You can check them out. 3) The changes are not "strange" - I have carefully annotated what I have done and have engaged with people on Talk. 4) For the record, I work at a university, not at Monsanto. I am not a "corporate infiltrator". 5) The article is not pro-Monsanto. It is (becoming) free of vitriol and coming into line with wiki's POV policies. I have been careful to retain discussion of controversial and bad acts of Monsanto. Your comment has really stuck in my craw. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm sorry I made you feel bad. That wasn't my goal at all. That comment I made on August 1 was regarding changes in the Monsanto article over the last few years, not the specific changes you've made in the past few weeks. I think most of these changes have decreased redundancy and improved clarity, and I appreciate them! I certainly wasn't trying to direct it at you personally.
It is true that I fear whitewashing of pages about corporations on Wikipedia. For example, I do think it's important that Monsanto is giving lots of money to oppose Proposition 37 in California. But you'll notice I haven't undone Arc de Ciel's total rollback of my edits on the topic, even though they frustrate me.
I appreciate your response to my question about toxicity, and you'll notice I haven't made any reverts there, either. I need a little more time to think about the best way to talk about this information, and there's no reason to reactively protect a specific factoid that was on the page.
I think good faith is a great idea, on- and off-line. Please understand that when I attack whitewashing, I'm trying to think about the system at large and not call out one particular editor. I did look at your contribs, I think you have a neat set of interests. :-) love, groupuscule (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. :) I hope we can work together to make this a useful page. Yesterday I started looking at the pages of other companies in the space -- Dow Agra, Dupont Pioneer, Syngenta... none of them seem to be the target of ire in the way that Monsanto (and its page) have.. I find this so strange since their business practices are exactly the same, and all of them, being big chemical companies, have terrible environmental legacies. This makes no sense to me, practically speaking. The only explanation I can come up with, is that Monsanto pioneered the biotech business model in agriculture (getting patents and enforcing them) - but unlike companies in, say, the pharma space who sue other companies when they infringe, companies in agbio sue their customers too (farmers). It would be like a pharma company suing a patient! But the structure of the businesses are different, so that is what happens (patients cannot replicate drugs, but farmers can replicate seeds) But it is still upsetting.. a huge adjustment. And maybe patent law should be changed so it can't happen.. but that is a different question. But in any case, they pioneered it, so the ire has stuck to them, while their competitors just waltz by. Do you see what I mean about the focus on Monsanto. and if so, how do you explain it?Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. If you have a problem with one of my edits, please just ask me about it and I'm happy to discuss. I wrote an explanation for that edit on the talk page (diff): my reason for reverting you, as I said (in more detail), was that the source is on Wikipedia's spam blacklist.

It's not as if the information on California has been removed from the article. In fact, I thought your version was better written than the version that was there at the time, even though I think "filtered through" is POV since it implies that they're trying to hide it. Also, I'm not sure why you used the term "total rollback" for a three-sentence paragraph - it was a regular revert (see WP:BRD), with an invitation to discuss. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, AdC. Partly at that time I was feeling frustration with the whole system, because of the idea that a news source could be on the 'spam blacklist' because its authors make money when people view their sites. Other newspapers make money when people view their sites, too... and (e.g.) 'blogspot' isn't on the blacklist, so this isn't about peer review. In any case I don't think we should be in the business of censoring edits to the encyclopedia at the software level.

"Total rollback" referred to undoing the whole edit rather than (e.g.) replacing with citation needed or something like that. groupuscule (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's called a revert. (FYI rollback is not the same thing.) Anyways, from reading the archives, it seems to be that the website is almost never a reliable source. As I said, you can request for the blacklisting to be lifted (you can also request the specific article to be permitted) and if you can do this I will follow that decision. Blogspot isn't on the blacklist because it can be reliable in certain cases, mainly when citing the personal statements of a public figure or if the author is a known expert on the subject. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly Addressing GM Lobby Slant

I was wondering if you meant to have the requested move in the same section as this. If so I would suggest at least giving it a secondary "=== header ===" as there is quite a lot of information to reply to and it could derail the move discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, good idea, I have done this. I hope folks will discuss the other points in my post, not just the possible name change. I guess I understand if people would rather have an article on the press/spin/hype whatever that accompanied the Séralini study. If this is really the desire, maybe another article on Séralini is in order. At any rate, an article on press/spin/hype around the 2012 study should at minimum be fair in describing the GM lobby as a source for the attacks on Séralini. Based on third party sources, the severity of the attack on Séralini equals or exceeds the elusive wrongdoings. I mean, this guy didn't fake his results or anything like that. Some people made arguments mitigating the strength of his conclusions; much of the mainstream "science press" reporting their criticisms as scandalous, for whatever reasons. A lot of the arguments against Séralini's study originated with people who were paid (directly or indirectly) to discredit him. Meanwhile, we're still talking about whether a particular poison chemical, capable of killing virtually any species of plant, might have some effects on the health of humans and other animals. groupuscule (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Slant

Hiya. Recent edits and the chaos surrounding the March Against Monsanto article showed me clearly that on Wiki there is a slant - a heavy and very obvious one - towards GMOs and Monsanto. I think it is so obvious, ithe subject may be ripe for an administrator's noticeboard. Particularly, the "global scientific consensus" for safety of GMOs, it's to continue to be the focus of every article mentioning GMOs, needs to be corroborated. With so many non-US countries banning them and requiring labels, it seems the pro-GMO slant on wiki is very much a US-bias, and that is clearly a violation of wiki's NPOV policy. The larger wiki community should take a look at this and determine whether "GMOs are safe and everyone who's anyone knows this" is a meme this encyclopedia should embrace. The Séralini "affair" is just one (heinous) example of this slant, imo. petrarchan47tc 22:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. A network of user accounts have been working together on dozens of pages to ensure a pro-GM and pro-Monsanto bias. They use any means necessary to ensure that this viewpoint prevails. (Just look at the interaction on my talk page, above, where two familiar users lay a guilt trip on my about some comments regarding Monsanto.) I think you are also correct to identify a USA bias. As I commented here, the status quo perspective is not only slanted but topsy-turvy given worldwide resistance to Monsanto & GM.

I am not good with Wikipedia bureaucracy but I would definitely assist with a formal complaint/investigation. I think should be a centralized place for discussion, since the users in question use divide&conquer tactics, playing a shell game with the different articles.

This systematic manipulation is really a bummer because, you know, most of us don't get paid to edit Wikipedia... and we would prefer to spend our time expanding articles through honest collaboration Thanks for bringing this up. groupuscule (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a first for me too, but after a week or so (busy plate) I'll look into this and leave a link here for anyone wanting to participate. A centralized discussion is a must. Time is precious, for sure. There is no reason to repeat arguments all over wiki talk pages. petrarchan47tc 01:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy hornets nest, look at the attack on March Against Monsanto that just took place. petrarchan47tc 02:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by IRWolfie

It's interesting to note which of the editors appear to be scientists, and those who aren't. It's also interesting to note those who have expressed very strong opinions on GMOs, and those who haven't, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Many things are interesting to note, and I would invite broad public scrutiny of the whole situation. groupuscule (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Arc de Ciel

Since we're discussing "interesting things to note," I have an interesting question (open for anyone, not just Groupuscle). If you go to a noticeboard and the consensus is against you, will you agree that it is evidence in favor of the position that the articles aren't biased? Or will your opinion continue to be that the articles are POV? In terms of trying to reach a rational conclusion, it's good to answer these questions for yourself beforehand. Feel free to ignore this, of course, or to keep the answers to yourself - although I'm also genuinely curious about your answers.

On the same token, even if you don't escalate, I'm always happy to discuss any of my edits, or the articles more generally, with you or anyone else. I am always open to being convinced by sufficient evidence, or at least I try my best. Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been made difficult to comment on the above due to the deliberately disruptive style of IRWolfie's and Arc de Ciel's comments (which I have tried to dial down a bit). Their comments suggest, both through choosing to write under a headlining style and through their internal semantic structures, that there is a simple determininistic position available which, it is inferred, is also the position of IRWolfie, Arc de Ciel and all "those scientists" out there. The rump of ignorami among us who do not yet march to that tune are graciously invited to accept the apparently obvious bona fides of these two self-styled illuminati and address ouselves assiduously to answering their "have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet" questions i.e to futile attempts to address logical fallacies. Of course, while we struggle hopelessly to do so, it remains "business as usual" for the usual suspects. Their comments could be seen (sic) as little more that sophisticated passive aggression designed to achieve this end. Personally I find such faux-neutrality, combining thinly veiled arrogance with vaunted humility, nauseatingly patronising. Should I then be impressed by Arc de Ciel's proclaimed openness to being "convinced by sufficient evidence"? Should I hold Arc de Ciel in some special regard or care in some particular way about what s/he thinks? My apologies if so, but I have just not been informed ! As far as their questions can be answered in any meaningful manner, I would say that I reject simplistic predicates and that I am not an advocate of mob politics. Basically, reductionist approaches to understanding complex systems are futile and self-serving at best. LookingGlass (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I just hope to be treated like any editor, e.g. with WP:AGF. By the way, it was Groupuscule who put IRWolfie's comment into a separate section. It seems that you have just accused them of disrupting their own talk page. ;-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part Arc de Ciel. My comment is unaffected by it though. Groupuscule edit of the two comments highlighted their nature as well as their existence. My own attempts to tone that down seems to have had the reverse effect. I hope Groupuscule will edit as s/he sees fit. LookingGlass (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But Arc, by pointing at the evidence and saying LookingGlass is wrong you are taking a "simple determininistic position"! You are acting like "those [evil] scientists"! You need to take use a more holistic approach to arrive at truth, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, you again illustrate those semantic styles which my comment addressed. You have changed what I wrote into what you would prefer to argue against. I neither wrote, nor implied the colouring you attribute to me of: "those evil scientists". My comment did not concern the scientists at all but rather the manner with which the reference to "them" was used. Incidentally you make another mishmash in conflating holism and postmodernism. LookingGlass (talk) 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful

This about the last bullet point in your Recommendations, near the bottom of your commentary on GMOs, here. As per policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, I am asking you nicely, to please delete that paragraph and to please steer clear of this kind of discourse going forward. We discuss content, not contributors. I an really committed to wikipedia being a civil place to collaborate and I found this paragraph disturbing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that you are also accusing BLPs of academic fraud. That is a very serious allegation to make, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• IRWolfie, you have led me to reconsider my position on that issue and I agree with you. I have consequently deleted the first paragraph under "Recommendations".
• Jytdog, I have issued no ad hominem nor have I violated Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. I assure you that I greatly prefer to discuss content, not contributors, and to do so in a civil manner on article talk pages. I have taken the extraordinary step of compiling a report in my userspace because I (with several others) have been serially frustrated in my attempts to discuss these issues through normal channels. groupuscule (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, thank you for responding. On the Talk page for genetically modified food controversies you wrote: "Hi everybody. Here (linked to the document) is a report on the sources currently used to support the claim of a "broad scientific consensus" on the comparative safety of genetically modified food. .... I will not spam the link to this report, but I will post it at certain locations where this issue is directly under debate." So you have made the location known, asked people to look at it, and stated that you intend to link to it elsewhere. And you did link to it on the March Against Monsanto talk page, too. So your page is not private by any means. Also, the bullet point says: "We need to ask serious questions about the users who are fanatically promoting the "broad scientific consensus" claim on Wikipedia. Will they acknowledge this report on their sources? Will they find new sources of similar quality? Will they produce high-quality sources to support their claim? And most importantly: was their misrepresentation of these sources (and omission of others) naive or deliberate?" As I wrote above, I find this disturbing. I feel like you are essentially inviting a witch hunt and you are directly calling the integrity of me and other editors into question. If it is not a personal attack, it is very close to one, and again, I am asking you nicely to delete this under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please. Imagine that somebody wrote something like that about you. I do not want to take this up on the relevant boards but this is very serious to me - I feel threatened. Please take it down. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant what I wrote. You will not guilt me away from the issue, as you did last August. I have not accused you directly, but I have raised a serious question—and I am hoping for an answer. groupuscule (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to guilt you out of anything!!! I totally forgot that discussion. But apparently you were doing the same thing last year. I welcome discussion on content. I know this get fierce but it is OK if it is about content. What I am objecting to is the remark above - which like your comment last year, was not about content, but about character. Out of line. On this go round, I and others have tried very hard to respond directly to all comments about content and sources, including yours. As I said last year, I am neither naive nor deliberately doing anything whitewashy or otherwise bullshitty. I think differently from you. I did my own research and arrived at different conclusions than you did. That does not make me evil or badly intentioned. It makes us different from each other. But your remark paints me into a corner of being an idiot or evil, and that is completely - completely -- out of line. You question is along the line of "does your mom know you beat your wife?" -- unfairly posed and has no answer. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the research under discussion in fact yours? As before, you took personal offense to a statement that did not mention you by name. If the research is yours, can you tell me why you interpreted the 2004 NRC study the way you did? Did you see this chart? Why did you think AgBioWorld was a valid source? Were you aware of the connection between AgBioWorld, Monsanto, and The Bivings Group? Do you still think these are valid sources for the 'scientific consensus' claim? groupuscule (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I am very happy to discuss content, on the relevant pages. Please don't change the topic. The bullet point is focused on contributors, not content. Wikipedia:No personal attacks starts out saying "Comment on content, not on the contributor." (emphasis in the policy, not added). When you write "We need to ask serious questions about the users..." you are not asking the community to comment on content as is proper for instance via an RfC - you are asking the community to criticize and judge specific editors (not named, but easy to identify) which is out of line. And the way you that you characterize me and other editors as "users who are fanatically promoting..." and the "they" in your several accusatory questions and finally "their misrepresentation" you are talking about specific editors -- you are not discussing content. That is why this is out of line, groupuscule. If there is behavior that I or other editors have done that is against Wikipedia policy, there are relevant procedures and boards to address that, and you should indeed pursue those avenues. I tried to think how it could be reframed to discuss content, not contributors, but I cannot do it. Please delete it. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Groupuscule/GMO

User:Groupuscule/GMO, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Groupuscule/GMO and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Groupuscule/GMO during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Your outpourings of original research are bordering on the absurd now. can you please stop with the original research. Read WP:OR, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well to be honest I consider your response not only unwarranted but also quite rude. groupuscule (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction

Hi Groupuscule. I recently got around to reading your GMO subpage, and I noticed that you quote one of my diffs. You wrote, "Arc de Ciel has dimissed Lotter's work because it...[might] not have undergone peer review by scientists." This is incorrect; I did not say that your citation was not (or might not have been) peer-reviewed, and in fact I said that it was. My direct quote is, "It appears to me that your first source [i.e. Lotter] is from a peer-reviewed journal, which is a good sign." As I said, the problem is that the journal is in the wrong scientific field; a sociology journal isn't a very good source on biology.

Please correct this. For reference, the full quote (including both your comment and my reply) is as follows. The relevant part of my reply is the first paragraph.

The comment I was responding to

This FAQ is condescending and disrespectful of the many Wikipedia editors (not to mention scientists) who don't agree that there is a "broad scientific consensus" on GMOs. Numerous scientific articles suggesting the contrary have been disregarded. Here is an excellent paper that directly addresses the fake consensus being promoted by the biotech industry. Here is some helpful secondary literature on that paper. groupuscule (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My response

Hi Groupuscule - thanks for the links! I see that your understanding of Wikipedia sourcing is improving. (No sarcasm - I consider that a good thing.) It appears to me that your first source is from a peer-reviewed journal, which is a good sign. However, it is a sociology journal, which is the wrong scientific field. (It's common for fringe authors to publish in journals whose reviewers lack the expertise for proper peer-review, but of course that's not necessarily what's happening here.) I'm not familiar with the author or the quality of the journal itself, so I'll avoid commenting on it other than that, but if everything checks out, then it might be RS for some article content, since controversy includes sociological aspects. (Note that RS status can change depending on what statement is being supported.) If so, we can definitely discuss additions to the article based on this source (preferably in a different section preferably, so we don't interrupt this discussion). However, even if this source is acceptable (even if it were in a biological journal, actually), it wouldn't be sufficient to overturn the "scientific consensus" statement. To challenge this statement, you would need to present sources of equivalent reliability to those in the lead, which include direct statements from major medical and scientific organizations. Also, remember that the scientific consensus described in the lead only refers to specific health claims and is not a "consensus on GMOs" - in fact, the topic is so broad that I don't think it's clear what that would mean. Other GMO issues may or may not have scientific consensus depending on what the issue is. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

--Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, changed it. Have you altered your opinion of the "broad scientific consensus" on comparative GMO safety, now that you have (a) seen flaws in the evidence currently used to support this claim, and (b) read dozens of reliable sources arguing that no consensus exists? Do you at least agree that some of the sources currently used to support this claim are not appropriate? groupuscule (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, sociology is definitely a science - specifically a social science. :-)

I will answer your question; you've certainly put a lot of effort into your analysis, and I'm impressed by that. However, I'd first like to ask a question of my own: what do you think my answer will be? What do you think my reasons would be, in each case (either agreeing or disagreeing)? Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So, no response? groupuscule (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like he had a question he wanted you to answer first. II | (t - c) 06:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Arc de Ciel does not see any problems with the current statement or the sources used to support it. They seem comfortable with the status quo version of the page. Would prefer not to speculate about their opinions or motives at this time; hence the question. Do they seriously consider Henry I. Miller an independent source? Are they familiar with the situation around AgBioWorld and Monsanto's covert publicity actions online? Do they, as someone who seems very invested in their self-identification as "a scientist", consider institutional press releases to be higher-quality sources than literature reviews? groupuscule (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The contradiction at issue, with regards to the last question (regarding press releases vs. peer-reviewed scholarly articles), is that appeals are being made to the authority of "Science" as a system based on experimentation and peer review, but most the sources being cited do not really make use of this system. (While others do and remain ignored.) Frankly it would seem more consistent within this stance to delete the existing sources and substitute the Snell et al literature review you highlighted. This change would be inadequate, given other articles in existence, but it would sort of make more sense. groupuscule (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I had actually stopped expecting an answer, but I expected that you would infer my position anyways from my continuing edits at GM controversies - as indeed you have. Also, in your second paragraph, you refer to "the last question" - is that my question? If so, I'm not sure I understand what your answer is. Arc de Ciel (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you please directly address the questions about source quality? groupuscule (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that you were trying to answer my own question, so I was waiting for clarification. (I was also unsure whether the questions were rhetorical, given that they talked about me in the third person.) Please note that I have not in fact read all of the sources, because after reading the first five I found them to be (much) more than sufficient. Therefore, I have no comment on Miller, or on AgBioWorld; I did not add these sources to the article. I am not aware of reliable sources describing "Monsanto's covert publicity actions online" but I'm not sure why this is relevant. If you're asking me to question the motives behind everything I read that supports a particular point of view, then I would become a conspiracy theorist.

With respect to "press releases," I assume you mean the AAAS source. This is a "position statement from a nationally or internationally recognised expert body" which is explicitly a WP:MEDRS-acceptable source. Here is the full list of AAAS statements; you will notice that among other things, the statements supporting climate science and evolution are in the same category. I agree that the statements are not peer reviewed; they are MEDRS-acceptable because they are generally issued by experts among the best in their field. In the case of the AAAS Board of Directors, it has 12 members plus a treasurer, and at least one of the members is often a Nobel laureate. As far as I am aware, all of them (other than the treasurer) are working scientists or have been working scientists. Here are the members at the time the resolution was passed. Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The report contains a description, based on published work in The Guardian, of how "AgBioWorld" was covertly created by a Monsanto PR firm in order to discredit damaging research. This is more of a conspiracy fact than a conspiracy theory. AgBioWorld is currently cited as a reliable source for the problematic statement at Genetically modified food controversies. Is that acceptable to you? You say you have "no comment" because you did not add these sources, but surely you would agree that they need to be removed if they are inappropriate?

Regardless of whether the AAAS is considered acceptable by WP:MEDRS, why do you think that this politicized statement by a politicized body is superior as a source to peer-reviewed published work? Why do you think it's okay to cite the papers we do now, many of which contain only a single sentence about GMO safety, and ignore whole literature reviews that address the topic directly? Why don't any of the scholarly peer-reviewed articles contesting the existence of a "consensus" affect your opinion about the five non-peer-reviewed press releases which you remarkably found "to be (much) more than sufficient"? groupuscule (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that. But no, I have no comment because I have not investigated it; thus I have no opinion in either direction. Feel free to raise the issue on the talk page, and unless I find extra time I likely won't participate. (I may comment if you start pulling in other issues, of course, so I suggest you stay focused.)

With respect to AAAS and the others (which are not press releases), yes in general I consider them superior. Like I said, they're generally issued by experts among the best in their field. By contrast, typical peer review has three reviewers; a smaller number, and (except for the very best journals, such as Nature) not always of the same caliber as those who write the above statements. If you disagree with me, I recommend you ask at a relevant talk page or noticeboard, such as Wikipedia talk:MEDRS.

Also, please check your background assumptions when discussing with me; if you are not sure that I will agree with something, please don't make statements that take it for granted. This is a rhetorical device which I find a bit irritating, as it makes it more difficult for me to keep track of your argument. I disagree that the AAAS is a "politicized body," in the sense that although it is elected, it is not partisan. I disagree that it is a "politicized statement" as well, for the same reason. Similarly, I am unlikely to think that my own opinions are "remarkable" in the sense you seem to be using the word. You may of course present me with arguments to this effect, but that is not the same as me agreeing with you a priori. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I hope you'll agree that paper in a sociology journal is not an effective counter to scientific journals. It's probably a point-of-view which deserve to be included and is likely worth including in the body if there aren't better sources, but it seems clear that there are better sources in this case. Anyway, I'm somewhat inclined to change my vote on keeping your essay, as Jytdog makes a good point that it doesn't seem real conducive to dialogue focused around changing the article. I suggest making incremental changes. II | (t - c) 08:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The sociology of scientific knowledge studies the phenomenon of scientific consensus—of course it is a reliable source for information about this topic! The literature reviews are also worthwhile, but they hardly seem superior to Lotter's work in terms of assessing the state of "consensus". (Lotter is himself an agricultural scientist, with expertise on this topic, writing in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.) Jytdog is welcome to fork the page if they want a line-by-line debate. Or maybe they think ominous talk page messages about "HIV/AIDS denialism" are a better use of their time. Look, incremental changes are fine... and should be made ... but what is to be done about the very egregious single claim of comparative GMO "safety" which continues to glare from the article's lead? groupuscule (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

btw, you seem very happy to point out what you see as conflicts of interest with respect to the science produced by companies on the safety of food from GMOs. Why do you not think it is worthwhile to point out that Lotter has a dog in this hunt? As per his bio at the bottom of the article you link to, he worked for The Rodale Institute - he did his postdoc there and wrote for their magazine. Rodale is of course dedicated to organic farming. And if you peruse Lotter's website and publications http://www.donlotter.net/New_Farm_index.htm it quickly becomes clear that he is opposed to food from GMOs. So he is not exactly objective or an honest broker in the discussion, is he? Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How did I become plural, I wonder? :) my goal is not to be "ominous"... I have no idea how to dialogue about your essay as it outside the bounds everything normal in WIkipedia, so I put it here. You cited Mae-Wan Ho as some kind of respectable scientist. I wanted to address that, and while I was at it, was struck by the parallels in reasoning and rhetoric. moving on, groupuscule, you haven't shown that the consensus is not true - you haven't even addressed the evidence (the actual sentences in the actual sources) that we are using; instead you tried to do this deconstruction all around them. There are sentences set off in big blue boxes on the talk page that you did not even address in your essay, much less on Talk where it would actually be useful in discussion. This is one of my frustrations with your essay - it is not dialogue, it is a monologue. The claim that the consensus is false is just fringe. Like human-caused global warming is real, like HIV causes AIDS, the consensus is the currently marketed GM food is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional counterparts. There is no just no reliable evidence to counter that - not even a reasonable theory theory of how it might be harmful, no matter how much the anti-GMO folks wish it were otherwise. No matter how much big Oil wishes global warming were not true, no matter how much pseudo-scientists like Mae-wan Ho wish that exercise and aspirin could cure AIDS. I just don't get how people can persist on the fringes like this, with such company. You seem like a smart and reasonable person, outside of this issue. I don't get it. What is at stake for you in this? Do you actually believe that currently marketed food from GMOs is harmful to your health? If so, I wonder what your evidence for that harm is? (boy that was a lot of questions, sorry. i mean them all tho) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS denialism

[ comment deleted by Jytdog ]

This reads as a vile, bad faith comment, Jytdog, and if I were you I would delete it and try to stop writing like an asshole. Why don't you try as hard as you can to avoid straw-man arguments and stick to discussing the strongest sources profiled in Groupumuscule's essay? Why highlight Mae-Wan Ho rather than any of the number of other scientists with less fringe views, such as, Jose L. Domingo or David Suzuki? II | (t - c) 20:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

[ comment deleted by Jytdog ]

[ comment deleted by Jytdog ]

Jytdog finally took ImperfectlyInformed's advice—more than a month after the fact—after I described the actions of Thargor Orlando as harassment. As far as I'm concerned, this response comes too little too late, and looks like an attempt to conceal evidence of repeated abuse. groupuscule (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a more appropriate way to do it, thanks. The reason I deleted it today is because today you wrote to Thargor that "you and your buddies are harassing me...". I assumed that you included me in "your buddies" and that is the first hint I have had that you may have found this posting offensive. And I do apologize. I am not attempting to conceal anything (nothing can be concealed on Wikipedia once it is posted), but rather to respond immediately to your statement of harassment. As you know I am very concerned with civil behavior and when any user states such a concern it should be addressed ASAP with clear apologies. I have no desire to offend you, Groupuscule, and I am sorry that I did.Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for teeing up the RfC on the GM food controversies page so simply and directly. Elegantly done. I debated whether to add my framing remark as the first comment - if this would dishonor your gracious act. I decided to do it, as I did not want the RfC to go off the rails with comments about everything under the sun. So thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If your first comment is included as a "framing remark", it should probably not present as fact your assessment that the issue is "solidly supported by the science, hotly contested politically". As you know, this opinion is contested but you have refused to give any ground on it. That's why the RfC was necessary. If you appreciate the neutrality with which I framed the RfC, perhaps you would reciprocate in your framing statement. groupuscule (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair request, and resolves my feeling of ambiguity. Done. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still feeling like there's a lot of "echo chamber" going on, with many of the "usual suspects" chiming in to applaud each other and denigrate opposing views. The Request for Comment is supposed to be an opportunity to hear new voices, but instead we are hearing a lot from you, Arc de Ciel, Black Hades, IRWolfie, and others, who already feel very confident in the current wording. (Tryptofish keeps emphasizing that they're new to the discussion, when in fact they're already in the thick of it at March Against Monsanto.) The same people who demanded that my report be deleted are now reappearing at the RfC to support the existing version. groupuscule (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We did get The Banner with whom I interacted on some organic articles, and Wayne, but neither brought much in the way of substantial arguments. Bezet and DanHobley are new to all GM pages that I have worked on; Spectravalor and trypto are new to all GM articles (outside the March page where they have indeed been active). So that is 6 new voices, next to the folks who have been active in the GM pages (me, arc, aircorn, wolfie, blackhades, and you (who are relatively recent) - 6 of us). Thargor is relatively new to the GM articles (he by the way argued to "keep" your essay). So it is actually about even steven between new people and the usual suspects. Wolfie, by the way, spends a lot of his editing time beating back pseudoscience in Wikipedia. Very respectable editor. Like you! This will be no surprise to you but I will be surprised if anybody comes with anything substantial. The statement is accurate and solid under wiki guidelines. There are several reasonable arguments to oppose GM food but this is not one of them. Really, it's not. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

btw I am really delighted that the conversation is remaining relatively civil. I was afraid of ugliness breaking out. Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How many people use this account?

I ask because I've noticed you using the plural "we" and "us" on multiple occasions when discussing various issues. Could you shed some light on that? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What a bad faith question! I see Groupuscule using "we" and "us" when referring to himself as a member of various Wikipedia editors who are looking at the same thing. It's normal English, normal behavior.

If you have any serious concerns about Groupuscule's editing behavior you can file a WP:RFCU. Your own behavior here might become a discussion item. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I figured, instead of just running to whatever noticeboard is around, I would ask and see if it could be sorted out. You know, not jumping to conclusions. Something you could use a lesson in, for the record. And be sure that, in the event I do escalate it further, I will let groupuscule know. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Groupuscule has described her/himself elsewhere as a dolphin brain controlling a human body to explain the "we" (which G regularly uses). FWIW, I'd chalk it up to running gag rather than account abuse. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I like that template. That's...weird. Where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a handy one. I don't specifically remember where the comment was at this point (Maybe on 13th amendment or Thaddeus Stevens); you could search G's user contributions in the Talk space if you're interested in running it down. I've worked with G on several articles, though, and I'd be surprised if they turn out to be a joint account; their contributions are consistent in style, interests, major strengths (terrific research) and minor weaknesses (typos, repeated words, etc.). -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Groupuscule, is your continued use of "we" dolphin brain or something else? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm really tired of being harassed on my talk page because I contest the GMO industry's talking points. Are you concerned that I'm pulling the ol' "reverse sock puppet"? We'll use whatever pronouns she wants, thank you very much. groupuscule (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No one's harassing you. Multiple use of accounts is not allowed is all, and part of the reason why is because, if multiple people are using an account, it's impossible to keep a consistent conversation going. Is it a yes or no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't owe you an answer. Are you having trouble understanding my position on the statements you advocate? Does it seem inconsistent to you? You—and those marching in lockstep with you on the GMO issue—are harassing me, and other users who disagree with your perspective. Kindly excuse yourself from my talk page. groupuscule (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Group account

I have opened a query about the possibility of this being an account used by multiple people, and that query can be found here. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You and your buddies are clearly harassing Canoe1967, Viriditas, me, and anyone else who challenges GMO industry talking points. You should be ashamed of yourself, whoever you are. More importantly, I hope you know that in the long run these tactics will only discredit you and the corporate interests you are protecting. And once again, we'll use whatever pronouns we want—we are not the disruptors here. groupuscule (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have reached out to an off-wiki third party to investigate. We should all do the same since in-wiki doesn't seem to see the issues. This is the latest drama board--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Cat's out of the bag... petrarchan47tc 08:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like this investigation and have told Thargor so on his/her Talk page. I am sorry about this, groupuscule.Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding to what you wrote above: I am sorry that you feel harassed. Earlier I deleted my comment about HIV denialism as this is the first blush I have seen that you may have found it offensive. I apologize for posting it. You are unfailingly civil and I respect that about you.Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally, there are no "camps" and there is no "war" - there are no "good guys" and no "bad guys" and this camping-off is really, really toxic. There are actually a range of views among all the people talking about GMOs, which is often surprising to me - these differences and nuance emerge more, and better content is produced, when people are given space to speak and are listened to. That cannot happen if everybody puts on a battlefield mentality and pounds on one another over ridiculous/petty things. We need to find ways to move away from camping-off and ramping-up and toward real communication. Differing on content happens all the time and it doesn't mean anybody is bad or a big terrible cheater in some way. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, you are talking a good talk. I hope we will substantial article-space changes as a result. As petrarchan eloquently commented, no amount of politeness and good behavior makes up for heavy-handed control over content. groupuscule (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi groupuscule, Thank you. As I wrote to Petrarchan between those comments and as you know better than most, civility has nothing to do with sticky sweetness, and truth and civility are not mutually exclusive. We can (and may well continue to) disagree over content. I hope all of can work toward consensus more fruitfully and with less acrimony. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the request based on other evidence I found. My apologies for raising it, the evidence suggests I was wrong on this. I hope you can accept this apology, although I understand I am not owed such a thing nor are you under any obligation to do so. The error is mine and mine alone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done User:Thargor Orlando, although I think something got garbled there.  :) Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

GMO Myths and Truths

GMO Myths and Truths has a link for downloading a 123-page report titled "GMO Myths and Truths" ("An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops"). Many references are provided.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that I am sorry to trouble you with this. I am unhappy it came to this.Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

wikipediocracy

In case you don't know about it already, i thought you might like to see this page http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/wikipedia-as-a-political-battleground-after-a-gmomonsanto-content-dispute-longtime-wikipedia-contributor-viriditas-is-blocked, which has a thorough breakdown of the involved editors. I tried to help balance several GMO articles including M.A.M a couple months ago but got tired out by the argumentative circles from the pro-GMO crowd, which is their aim i think. El duderino ^(abides) 12:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias

You are quoted as saying: "Contrast the vehement labelling of Ayurvedic medicine as a "pseudoscience" (also see "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience" and "Wikipedia:Fringe theories") with the praise for string theory ("many theoretical physicists believe ... a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature"). The accumulated wisdom of generations versus today's hot topic; centuries of evidence versus virtually none; yet the former is policed and the latter extolled."

Wow, seriously wow. I applaud people who are legitimately trying to make Wikipedia be more objective, but that statement shows you are only interested in adding your own bias to the project. An attitude like yours will probably get you blocked sooner or later. DreamGuy (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you care to elaborate? groupuscule (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GMO "scientific consensus"

Hi Groupuscule:

I use Wikipedia daily to look up and supplement any research on a wide variety of subjects. If I find a Wikipedia entry that has problems, sometimes I will try to correct them. Recently, I have seen a number of false claims of a "scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. I wanted to see how Wikipedia handled it, and was floored to see that this false claim was repeated in the article I looked up. I was tempted to fix it, but I also know that correcting a blatant falsehood like that is likely to meet with substantial and unreasonable opposition (from my experience on the Lennar_Corporation page) and that contentious pages are can be more or less "owned" by a small group of watcher with a particular slant on the subject, and if one or more of them is an admin, they often threaten novice editors with their power to censure and block, their greater knowledge of the process and connections and credibility (deserved or otherwise), making any attempt to challenge their slanted view almost hopeless, except for those with extreme patience and perseverance.

So before jumping in to correct the bogus "scientific consensus" claim, I decided to see where it came from and who the players are on that page and what kind of resistance I am likely to encounter by stating the "inconvenient" truth.

The "scientific consensus" claim was added to Genetically_modified_food_controversies by a now defunct user "pathogen5" on 14 December 2010 (23:48), with a host of other strong pro-industry statements, some of which were quickly identified by Gandydancer on 24 April 2011 (11:14) and eliminated. Unfortunately, the "scientific consensus" sentence survived and I was unable to find any debate on it on the talk pages there. I looked up Gandydancer and this is how I found you, Viriditas and Petrarchan47. From reading Gandydancer's talk page about the March Against Monsanto, I saw your comment "I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page. I get that you see the 'scientific consensus on human health' claim as a lost cause, and maybe you're right." From my limited review of user talk pages of that time period on the subject, I got the sense that a number of the four of you were met with heavy resistance (some even blocked) for trying to put in the truth on this and related subjects. I definitely understand, I have been there too on a page that will remain nameless, but for which I did get the truth in after a 3 year wait!

So, I am contacting you and asking any advice on how to proceed with addressing the issue. I will likely write up my proposed edits and see what the 4 of you think, before I jump into the water of sharks with them...

David Tornheim (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings David Tornheim. I share your concern about the "scientific consensus" statement and have already done some work researching and analyzing the available sources—to determine how well they support the claim. This material is compiled here. You'll notice that the first section deals only with the sources given, and the second section explores alternative sources which provide positive evidence of dissensus. shalom groupuscule (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and all the work you have compiled!! I am very glad I asked you first and will try to review all your work before making any edits on the aforementioned page. The articles I was going to rely before I saw your page were these (I am including them in case you had not seen them):

• Short Summary article
• Full Article mentioned above in PDF
• Another short article

David Tornheim (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have spent hours reading and researching this issue. I spent some time reviewing your excellent work and criticisms. I think my three sources above take on many of the same objections you raised--certainly not all--and fortunately, they are secondary sources and not original research. I am feel the desire to jump in, make the edit using these three sources and see what happens. However, I am willing to listen to reason about a more cautious and less bold approach. If I am missing a good secondary source, please let me know. I would replace this sentence:

While there is concern among the public that eating genetically modified food may be harmful, there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from these crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[1][2][3]

with:

GMO proponents are now claiming that the "debate is over" and that there is a "widespread scientific consensus" that GMO's are safe. [with example articles making such claims.] However, others dispute this consensus, insisting and that quotes attributed to scientific bodies are not representative of those bodies and that, in fact, those bodies listed usually call for more, not less testing. [citing the 3 articles I mentioned].

The second sentence is:

The safety assessment of genetically engineered food products by regulatory bodies starts with an evaluation of whether or not the food is substantially equivalent...

This assertion has no direct reference (but I does point to the "substantial equivalence" page), and I believe is only true in the US and Canada. I would like to remove it if it is indeed incorrect.

The last sentence says:

No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from genetically modified food.

I'm not sure that is correct either, but I am not yet prepared to remove or qualify it without a reference. Certainly ill health effects have been found for Monarch Butterflies, which is easily documented. If they are going to say there are no problems for humans, then it should be equally okay to say there have been problems for animals, right?

I also see that various groups are labelled as GMO "opponents". Most groups I have read about are not "opponents" of any and all GMO, but are advocating the pre-cautionary approach of doing the testing first, including epidemiological studies and upset about the a wide-spread release of GMO's with inadequate or not required testing and no consumer notification. I would like to delete that label "Opponents" with something more appropriate. "Cautious groups" perhaps? Oh, I see "Fernando Aleman" tried to fix that and Jaytdog shot him down somehow.

Any thoughts on where it is a good idea to try these edits now? Or take a more cautious approach?

David Tornheim (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the GMO page you made, you mentioned that "An acrimonious edit conflict erupted at March Against Monsanto over whether the “broad scientific consensus” must be mentioned as a counterweight to activists' claims." I noticed talk about this on Gandydancers talk page. Can you point me to the relevant dates or text that makes it clear who said what and what the result was, since you are more familiar with this dispute? You also said that in the GMO food controversies that the consensus claim had been "moderated". I would like to learn more about that as well. Can you point me to that? I would actually put both references in your document for anyone else who reads it.David Tornheim (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Things really heated up, from my perspective, in May–June 2013, and you can see evidence of said heat by scrolling up on this talk page. This debate was going on across numerous articles as I'm sure you have now seen. (Example.) You will find a lot of material in the talk page archives.

The idea about the strong claim vs. the moderated claim refers to different articles. While the statement at Genetically modified food controversies had been slightly qualified due to editor outcry, the statement at Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms was more overt. (See May 2013 version of same page.) The phrasing and context on the different pages have been somewhat tweaked and equalized since then. Of course as you have noticed all pages still repeat the same fundamentally questionable claim about a "broad scientific consensus" when none such exists.

The gist of your proposed change seems reasonable. The more precise you can make the statements, the better. ≥ groupuscule (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for further feedback. Jytdog has already noticed what I wrote here, and has written to me about it on my talk page and I have responded to him there. I have been reading the RfC s/he pointed to and taking that into consideration in next steps. I am tempted to start discussing my proposed changes on the Talk page. One thought is to preface the language of the RfC with "GMO proponents are claiming" and then follow that with the objections raised by the 3 articles. This would be far more *balanced*, a clear goal of wikipedia policy. There is no question the GMO proponents have taken great liberties with the truth and made misrepresentations in their propaganda in the media outside of Wikipedia, so if the Wikipedia GMO articles makes criticism of individuals or groups that are cautious or opposed to GMO's for any misinformation disseminated, then proponents must be taken to task for such misinformation with equal vigor to make an article balanced. Hopefully all for tonight. Hard to stop thinking about this subject!David Tornheim (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you look at how the discussion turned out on my talk page with Jytdog. I pointed out mistakes it the articles and assertions Jytdog was providing and instead of address them s/he tried to confuse matters and got all pissy saying, "I'm done talking to you."David Tornheim (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Ignorance is one thing. I can work with people who don't know things. But I have nothing to say to people who don't know what they are talking about and make disgusting ad hominem attacks on a very good scientist to push an agenda. The low road will get you no where, and fast. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't attack Pamela Ronald: I reported that *someone* had and provided the well written article about it. It was the first thing that came up when I Googled her. I didn't write the article, an independent non-profit that does not take corporate money did. I'll bet you wouldn't react this way if I found an article criticizing the reputation of the author of the retracted rat study, would you? Of course, not. That's different, right?David Tornheim (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks

Hi, Groupuscule - since you participated in other discussions about this essay, I was hoping you would provide input at User_talk:Atsme/sandbox_Advocacy_ducks#Preliminary community survey before I take it to project namespace.  Thank you.  Atsme☯Consult 13:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Talk:Genetically modified food, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Alexbrn (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigorous defense of intellectual property. You are quite right that I did not ensure the copyright status of the website before linking to it. One small thing: I notice that you accidentally deleted the name of the study itself, as well as the link to it. Naturally readers of that talk page would need to know citation information for the article in question—"A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants", by José L. Domingo & Jordi Giné Bordonaba, Environment International 37 (2011)—and I would think that we are on solid legal ground with a simple citation—are we not? In the way you edited my comment, all reference to this article is deleted, so it would be impossible for someone to even find. This is a shame because it really pertains closely to the discussion at hand. So I trust you will go back and add that information. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Paging Alexbrn! ~ groupuscule (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Lucky I saw this as pings don't work unless they're part of a newly-signed edit (i.e. you can't easily retrofit them). You are of course free to amend your own comment: I suggest referring to this paper by putting "PMID 21296423" which will be converted to a nice link like this PMID 21296423. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and fix it, please? You censored my comment so that readers were unable to see what article I was referring to. If you thought it was wrong to link to the article on the web you could have simply deleted the hyperlink but instead you deleted the whole reference and replaced it with the word "Redacted" in the middle of my comment. groupuscule (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For reference the discussion in question lies buried Talk:Genetically modified food/Archive 6. Naturally, talk pages for controversial articles must be constantly archived so that no one is needlessly reminded of obsolete unpleasantness. groupuscule (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible arbcom case on GMO-related articles

Hi Groupuscule, You may be interested in this recent request for arbitration regarding GMO articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case.Dialectric (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Hi there, it was good to see you at Slim's page. Well, I entered some info at the glyphosate article with the expectation that it would soon be deleted, as it was. What did surprise me is that not one of the old people that used to work on an opposing viewpoint than that of Monsanto's showed up. I thought I might try to enter it at the Monsanto litigation article but am pretty sure I would again be faced with the same RECENTIVISM (or whatever they call it) and this, that, or the other WP policies to politely explain to me why my addition was deleted. And with no support, what a(nother) waste of time. You talked about creating a new article. IMO we have more than enough info to start one on this ongoing lawsuit. Here's a good web page to bring you up to snuff if you need it. [1] What do you think? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, I agree with you that there is enough material for a page on the lawsuit, the noteworthiness of which most likely equals or exceeds that of Mitt Romney dog incident, Engagement announcement dress of Catherine Middleton, etc. (Also I think there ought to be a page on Monsanto's public relations practices; though perhaps to purify ourselves of all SYN a better title would be Monsanto public relations activities.) Do you have a title in mind for the lawsuit page? I see that some articles are talking about the "Monsanto Papers" released in connection with the lawsuits but maybe this wouldn't be comprehensive enough for a title.

Had seen the lawsuit before. The evidence strongly suggests that Monsanto has not abandoned its practice of using sockpuppet identities (and paid shills) online to promote their point of view. Unfortunately, then, this is not only an important topic for an article, but an existential threat to Wikipedia itself, which should be taken just as seriously as the threat from garden-variety trolls and vandals. (Perhaps we are facing genetically-engineered Roundup-Ready factory-farmed trolls?)

Regarding the article on glyphosate: I find it odd that Roundup, a major product with ingredients besides glyphosate, doesn't have its own page (they were merged several years ago). Yet many of the studies and articles are about Roundup not simply glyphosate. Is that right? What do you think? Of course a lot of things are odd in this sector of the encyclopedia.

Regarding RECENTIVITY it seems to me that this policy is intended more to deal with minute-by-minute breaking news and incorrect reporting. Especially in the case of the leaked information about their public relations campaign, I don't see this as something unsettled since its occurrence in March ([2]). Is Monsanto saying the documents are forged? If not then then why are they too recent too include?

Meanwhile the glyphosate talk page is indicative of the overall situation, with papers being "red flagged" for exclusion because they cite Séralini, who is apparently now an official bad guy.

Thanks for the message; how have you been? Well, I hope. groupuscule (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Good thoughts and thanks. I'm going to just throw a few comments out.

• Re RECENTIVITY, he does that all the time when it comes to Monsanto lawsuits as Jdog used to as well. Knowing full well of course that they go on for years and years before being settled.
• About a separate Roundup article. Yes, it should have its own article but considering the present editors that's not going to happen. Jdog separated them in 2012 using a discussion that was several years old.
• If you haven't already take a look at the comments that were made for deleting all of my Monsanto copy. It's almost laughable. Huffpost's science editor is not acceptable because she's written books (though I note she's been used in the article when she wrote about WHO's "probable cancer" decision without being deleted). And The Guardian does poor science reporting. And so on. Also look back to June 19 when a rumor was flying around that the lead author supposedly said his study was not used in the decision and that was kept in the article at that time. [3] So that is the sort of editors we have to work with. Not very encouraging at all.

Reading your suggestions I'm thinking that your ideas are better than a lawsuits article (though at this time there are over a thousand people involved). If it's about the Monsanto disclosures rather than the lawsuit we'd not be having the constant claims that the info is not admissible for this or that reason -- or at least less likely to. Plus, it would be argued that the info should just go in the existing lawsuits article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I forgot to mention that my above (deleted) copy for the glyphosate article is not exactly correct because when I did my research I went back to I think it was January when the info first came out, at any rate before the judge ruled that the Monsanto papers could be opened to public eyes. So at first it was thought that Monsanto had time to prepare a response after Rowland from the EPA clued them in in 2015. That is not correct as they began to prepare in 2014 because they knew that the WHO would find a probable cancer connection.

I ended up doing a lot of reading on this -- I tend to be a bit of a gumshoe so it was right up my alley. Not at all surprising...and still really quite surprising since in my heart of hearts I think people are all good and honest, I learned that the EFSA and the F??(forget the name but they are the German group that provided the info to EFSA) are quite close and friendly with Monsanto and the other Ag giants. As thick as thieves, one could say. Anyway, to my surprise, I learned that before they publish their report they let all the big players (but not the little ones) read it to voice any probs they may have with it, which are then worked out. Not only did the WHO's IARC not do that, they did not allow the "secret" company studies in their conclusion, which was then endlessly touted as a shortcoming (per the spin doctors) in their findings.

Groupuscule, I would get down on my knees to beg for Petra's help on this. She is like a bloodhound and once she gets the scent nothing will stop her. Plus, she's smart and writes well. And much more. We need to get her involved IMO. BTW, if I haven't given you this site it's a good one to sum things up. [4] Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There are the PCB cleanup lawsuits going on as well. See this one from Washington state. [5] Gandydancer (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer and Group, I would delight in helping. And I certainly don't feel holier than thou, I'm sorry that my words gave that impression. I did see the recent activity at Glyphosate and it's an example of exactly why I've given up on WP. It's wrong, it's ugly, it's not fair, and it's unencyclopedic - the rules don't apply when it comes to Monsanto, and there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto, whilst those still trying to make WP into an encyclopedia are few and far between. I was saddened but unsurprised to see Gandy standing alone with three or four people working seamlessly in tandem to ward off her innocent edit/update. This describes my last year or two at WP. Frankly I'm in awe at the grace with which Gandy handled that conversation. Monsanto mafia. No ones wants to deal with them. Yet Gandy sticks in there, speaking her truth. Amazing. Hat: off. petrarchan47คุก 04:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well my friends, since offering to help here I have been feeling sick to my stomach about it. I just can't shake it, thought it would only be fair to let you know: i may have to revoke my offer. Remember that one of my last experiences here was being taken to ArbCom. I spent a good month investing time and energy into a system that is completely broken. Do you know that at least 3 people who were taken to ArbCom along with me were outed? Also from what I understand, if I remember correctly, even the Arbs didn't escape harassment. My assessment that WP is truly broken and a waste of time comes in large part from that experience. After that, we participated in an RfC where the "community" who showed up to vote, agreed that it would be cool to lock in the agreed-upon facts regarding GMO foods, and to make it extremely difficult to update as new facts roll in, proving that WP is not science-based but instead all about the narrative. petrarchan47คุก 21:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's" sanctioned statement on the safety of genetically engineered foods—despite professed conservatism regarding health claims—continues to amaze. There is no such blanket statement about the safety of consuming bananas or corn but apparently it's okay to broadcast to the public the existence of a mythical scientific consensus on the relative healthfulness of all "currently available food derived from GM crops". With terrible sources. Mandated by wiki-law. Just incredible. groupuscule (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And all was done with a straight face. Here [6] is my input on the now cemented claim. petrarchan47คุก 22:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC) For the record, I just noticed that my submission was edited by someone other than me, calling my second source a "predatory open access journal" DUN DUN DUN. People questioning the safety of poison are VULTURES I tell ya. petrarchan47คุก 23:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Glyphosate/Roundup

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please understand that I am not trying to imply any wrongdoing on your part, I promise. However, because you have been discussing the Roundup merge at Talk:Glyphosate, this applies, purely in an informational way. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, these are very curious findings; did the committee which produced them investigate systematic pro-industry editing? Do they suppose that Monsanto's notorious public relations operatives are inactive on Wikipedia? groupuscule (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The case conducted by the Arbitration Committee is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. A subsequent consensus by the community as a whole is at WP:GMORFC. If you are aware of any editor who is editing on behalf of Monsanto, the appropriate place to raise that concern, with evidence, is at WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, how would I go about proving something like that? I suppose you know that Monsanto historically uses a sophisticated system of internet sockpuppets to control public discourse on topics of interest? groupuscule (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that you need to prove it, but simply have good enough reasons that it isn't just a personal attack or a content dispute. Obviously, the first "tell" would be editing in a consistently pro-Monsanto POV way, and the second would be editing as a single purpose account, only making edits about this one topic. Those things are not definitive one way or the other, of course. If you see something like that and it doesn't "smell" right to you, the best thing to do is to go to WP:COIN and politely describe your concerns, without being nasty towards the editor in any way, and say that you are suspicious but not certain about it, and ask other editors there to take a look at it. There are editors who are "regulars" there, who have a lot of experience with this sort of stuff, and who are very dedicated to preventing violations of Wikipedia's Terms of Use (which is what "undisclosed paid editing" is). If you are aware of any evidence at other websites, you need to be careful about WP:Outing. Also, it's important to bring it up at COIN, and not to discuss it at an article talk page where there is a content dispute (see also WP:RGW). If you think that there are multiple accounts working together as sockpuppets, you can take that to WP:SPI, following the instructions there. Always keep in mind that it's possible to make a mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick note that the WP:GMORFC has a much narrower scope (currently available food derived from GM crops) than the earlier Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms; the rfc final statement makes no mention of agricultural chemicals, and as such does not cover Glyphosate / Roundup.Dialectric (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right about that, sorry that I did not make it clearer. I just wanted to provide complete information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Monsanto public relations activities for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monsanto public relations activities is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsanto public relations activities until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kingofaces43, if you think that the article about Monsanto's public relations activities is somehow not written in a neutral way, can you advise me on how to improve it? I did some general searches and wrote based on the information I found. Do you think the title "Monsanto public relations activities" is somehow not neutral? Your actions here lead me to suspect that you simply don't want this noteworthy and verifiable information included on Wikipedia—but I would love to be persuaded otherwise. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on Sockpuppet_(Internet)

I noticed you're attempting to edit war content back in at Sockpuppet_(Internet). Please remember that edit warring is a violation of WP:EW policy, especially since one of the expectations of the 1RR restriction discussed at ArbCom you've been alerted to is that editors are not supposed to WP:GAME the restriction by reverting their own new content back in without discussion after it was initially removed. Please undo your revert as you are already on extremely thin ice in this topic. This is as much additional warning as I'm going to give as you've been around enough to know better. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got some nerve threatening me like that. groupuscule (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Notification

An enforcement case has been filed that involves you at WP:AE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How very rude, Kingofaces43. Do you feel I am casting aspersions against you by talking about public relations for biotech? If it doesn't apply, let it fly. groupuscule (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)