Talk:Genetic Literacy Project

US Right to Know

Whilst US RTK may have raised concerns, they are an unreliable source of information. They are neither a neutral source nor representative of the scientific consensus in regards to GMOs, nor the GLP, and they have abused FOIA requests to intimidate public scientists. Furthermore, the Eric Lipton article "Food Industry Enlisted Academics in G.M.O. Lobbying War, Emails Show" (citation 47) has been roundly criticised as not accurately reporting what was in the emails. This is alleged funding by Monsanto had nothing to do with the GLP, either. If not removed, I highly recommend adding the counter article addressing the concerns in the piece by Lipton. --Jaded Monkey Wu (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Genetic Literacy Project is untruthful, misleading and just another puppet that Monsanto funds. May they disappear along with Monsanto. See all the press and it will disturb you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.24.182 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Mate, I have read the literature enough times to know that that is not the case. That is why my comment has sources; can you provide valid citations to support your claim? --Jaded Monkey Wu (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerns over WP:BALANCE

I agree with Jaded Monkey Wu in the above discussion that US Right To Know is too partisan with regard to this issue to be considered a reliable source. But significant evidence for bias at the Genetic Literacy Project has been compiled by sources which (I would argue), while being liberal/progressive, still fall within the bounds of reliability. See this from the Center for Media and Democracy's Sourcewatch project: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Genetic_Literacy_Project The facts reported there in and of themselves don't seem to be controversial. See also this exposé from Mother Jones (listed as "Generally reliable" but "biased" at WP:RSPSOURCES): https://www.motherjones.com/food/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine/ I'd like to include some of the concerns/critiques mentioned in these sources in the article, but would first like to hear from the community to see if we can get consensus that they are in fact reliable in this instance. The question is not whether they should supplant the Genetic Literacy Project's self-presentation, but rather whether they can provide needed balance within the article. Any additional sources on this topic would also be very welcome. Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Further, it's come to my attention that the Genetic Literacy Project published an essay in 2018 by Kevin B. MacDonald, a well know promoter of anti-Semitic pseudoscience: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/05/02/kevin-macdonald-responds-to-criticism-of-his-theory-of-jewish-ethnocentrism-and-influence/ This seems like the kind of thing that should be mentioned in an article about an organization which claims to represent "science not ideology". Generalrelative (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This would be better discussed in a separate Talk section. It has nothing to do with agribusiness funding (if anything it endangers that) and GMO. It is also a nothingburger as it concerns credibility or mainstream-ness of the site. Entine and Cofnas are Jewish, and MacDonald's article was sandwiched in a stream, that included pieces outside the GLP site, of articles by Cofnas, with Cofnas given the last word (on GLP). Cofnas uses the word "pseudoscience" to describe MacDonald though I did not check if that is true of his GLP articles. In any case it is not credible that GLP is tainted by "ideology" (presumably anti-Semitism or rightism or something) simply for allowing and hosting the exchange. I don't think it would change the article materially to mention MacDonald-Cofnas or not, but neither their correspondence nor the decision whether to mention it here have implications as to BALANCE. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, but just to be clear: Agribusiness funding is not my core concern; my concern is the presentation of GLP as a reliable source of scientific information (see my comment responding to User:Crossroads below). Their decision to publish MacDonald would seem to be highly relevant to this issue. Presenting it as part of a "debate" would still represent an egregious act of false balance. We can leave aside Cofnas for the moment, who is a more borderline case, but whose work nonetheless, in the view of experts, does not adhere "to what we really know about the genetics of complex traits" (see https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/23/intelligent-argument-race). Generalrelative (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

See also this exposé from the Chicago Tribune: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-monsanto-0c06199a-692b-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205-20151002-story.html While the Chicago Tribune is not listed on WP:RSPSOURCES, I see no reason to believe that it is either unreliable or biased. Generalrelative (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

See also this allegation of misappropriation of material from the blog The Molecular Ecologist: https://www.molecularecologist.com/2017/07/no-i-dont-write-for-the-genetic-literacy-project-and-i-never-will/ Generalrelative (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Almost all of these sources are poor. Sourcewatch is a user-generated wiki, and hence completely unreliable. With Mother Jones, WP:RSP states, Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. On a politicized topic like this, where certain elements of the political left buy into the appeal to nature fallacy and see GMOs as a corporate conspiracy (and ignore that organic food is also big business), that source does not cut it. With Kevin B. MacDonald, while I think publishing that was stupid, that incident is not covered by WP:Secondary sources, so we should not choose to highlight if they have not. Note too that they published two essays rebutting him, and they explicitly disavow his views: The viewpoint is the author’s own. The Molecular Ecologist is just a blog post, again with no secondary source. The Chicago Tribune may be usable, but that doesn't mean it is WP:Due. Keep in mind that we should not be cherry picking sources to cast doubt on things the group is correct about, such as that GMOs are safe. [1] We need to keep WP:PROFRINGE in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You left off the assessment from RSP that "There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable.". We should not cherry pick sources to advance a position, but if there are articles with significant coverage of Genetic Literacy Project in RS sources, these could be reasonably included in the article without any issues with WP:Due. I don't see anyone arguing that sources should be used to argue against the consensus 'GMOs are safe,' which would in any case be outside of the scope of this article. The main point seems to be that US Right to Know has covered insufficiently disclosed connections between Agribuissness and GLP, and that better sources are needed, and may well exist, to support this view.Dialectric (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate both of your input. In full disclosure, my concern was sparked by someone commenting in an AfD discussion I started that the Genetics Literacy Project is a reliable source and that therefore MacDonald's piece is as well. Spurious as that argument may be on a number of grounds, I'm concerned that others may walk away thinking this group provides more reliable information than the balance of sources should lead us to believe. After all, if The Molecular Ecologist is "just a blog" with no weight on Wikipedia, it doesn't make sense for GLP's "bowdlerized" version (to use The Molecular Ecologist's language) of one of its posts to be considered reliable either. But the way the article is currently written makes it seems as though we should trust it as "an organization dedicated to promoting public awareness and discussion of genetics, biotechnology, evolution and science literacy." Notably there is no mention of controversy in the lede; one needs to scroll down past a list of funders (for a single fiscal year!?) to get to a brief and heavily defensive "Relationship with biotechnology industry" section. I think it's correct to label US Right to Know as "an advocacy group funded in large part by the Organic Consumers Association", but I also think that labeling GLP in a similar way would be correct. And that would imply that any views or statements it publishes should be given no more weight than those of US Right to Know. Generalrelative (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree entirely. As Dialectric pointed out, the objection to GLP's industry ties has nothing to do with whether one is pro- or anti-GMO. I'm not anti-GMO, but I'm opposed to conflict of interest, which is really the issue. And providing an outlet for a white supremacist and neo-Nazi's pseudoscience is not just "stupid" but is racist and anti-semitic, even if two statements objecting to MacDonald were also published. By no stretch of the imagination should Wikipedia have an uncritical puff piece about an advocacy group that falsely advertises itself as "science not ideology".

By the way, I don't think it's helpful to divide this into two separate discussions. NightHeron (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether GLP is a WP:RS is outside the scope of this article, and anything by MacDonald is WP:FRINGE automatically no matter where it's hosted. And yes, it's racist and anti-semitic, which is why I said it's stupid. Also, merely publishing two pieces by Nathan Cofnas and a rebuttal does not constitute significant coverage of Nathan Cofnas - feel free to say that at AfD. With this article, if anyone wants to add well-sourced (by which I mean at minimum WP:Secondary sourced) material, while not implying anything false about GMOs and not ignoring any positive sources out there, or wants to remove poorly-sourced material, then I of course support that. On a side note, I should have quoted RSP in full regarding Mother Jones. I had not because I was focusing on one aspect, but I do see now how leaving that off could be misleading. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Material added does not have to be at minimum secondary sourced. Information about criticisms, e.g. by Mother Jones, can be included if attributed, sourced to Mother Jones or other notable critics. NightHeron (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

As a side note I'd like to point out that the Talk page at the article on Jon Entine (founder of GLP) makes it clear that Entine is User:Runjonrun. He has edited the GLP article in minor ways under that account and has contributed extensively to his own page in violation of WP:COI, and for several years after being warned on the his user Talk page in 2009 and again in 2011. He was blocked in 2013 for "disruptive, anti-social, and anti-scientific behavior", and warned again in 2016 to stop editing his own article. His final edits under this user name, which were to the GLP page, occurred in 2017. Since he has shown no compunction about repeatedly violating COI policy in the past, it's reasonable to suppose he may still be editing under another name. Given this history, I believe that extra care is warranted to avoid POV on any article related to him. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:OUTING as well as WP:BLP here. I will note that your claim that the account in question was blocked for "disruptive, anti-social, and anti-scientific behavior" is incorrect. A different user leveled that accusation and then the account was blocked by a different account with a different rationale. jps (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've struck out my incorrect statement above. I appreciate the guidance and will endeavor not to be so hasty in the future. Regarding WP:OUTING and WP:BLP, I took a look at the policies and it doesn't seem to be prohibited to mention that a known person edits under a known user name when that person has outed themselves. I didn't provide the evidence above (it's discussed on the Jon Entine Talk page), but here's the diff where Entine identifies himself as Runjonrun: [[2]] Indeed, there is already a warning tag about this identity heading up the Talk page, noting that the "user has declared a connection." All that said, if I've misunderstood something and what I've said here is indeed a violation of policy I will certainly delete my comments ASAP. Once again I appreciate the guidance. Generalrelative (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you're okay, but these issues can get hairy in a hurry, so I just wanted to make sure everyone is aware of the particulars. jps (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reading over this, I guess I'm not seeing many specific things being pointed out in the article to warrant a tag. Multiple editors have looked over the article to suss out any COI issues by past editors, and I don't think anything has panned out from that. The USTRK stuff is appropriately described (it wouldn't get any mention if it wasn't for the NYT article), but the section header seems to imply industries relationships when the content shows more of a lack of the implication. Not really sure on what to replace it with.

The anti-semitism stuff is a bit out of my subject matter wheelhouse, but was there any secondary coverage on that to warrant any discussion here? Similar for Entine's political leanings, though that's best left for his BLP. I'm kind of lost as to what content this section is supposed to address. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I noticed you just edit-warred the tag back in despite this section being open for multiple days without focusing on specific content issues. Please undo that, remember WP:ONUS not to reinsert disputed edits, and follow the progression of the talk page instead. If you have specific issues with the article itself, you need to bring them up here. Please see WP:TAGGING for guidance.

So far, nothing specific has come up that either hasn't been dealt with already (e.g., checking for COI edits) or isn't really focusing on specific content. If there are legitimate issues, then propose focused edits with reliable sources as we need to be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM. Without that, there's no reason for the tag, and it doesn't stop people from looking for new sources. I forgot to mention it above, but WP:GEVAL policy is also an issue in the GMO topics at least considering who the detractors of GLP typically are in that subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, it seems to me that we'd reached a consensus here, prior to your interventions, that the article has POV issues which should be addressed. See in particular the section below which jps started. Note too that my revert took place before you'd made your first comment in this discussion. Though I see that you are a longtime editor, please re-familiarize yourself with WP:EW before using the term "edit war" in conversation with another editor. Thanks in advance for your collaboration. Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please slow down Generalrelative and watch the tone. If you hadn't quickly reverted, you would have seen the message on the talk page literally one minute later even though the edit summary had enough information to tell you that you shouldn't be reverting it back in (e.g., WP:EW, WP:ONUS namely the last sentence). If you carefully read the above discussion (especially see Crossroads comments), you'll see that specific issues are not currently substantiated that could result in content, and that is why I removed the tag per tagging guidance. You can't just declare "consensus" when that happens to reinsert it. The tag is just going to be removed if that stays the same anyways, so the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate something if you thought it was so important to tag the article.

As for the section below on Libertarianism, that's more about Entine than GLP. As both jps and myself agree there, actual sources relevant to GLP are needed to continue any discussion. This is a situation where if someone wants to assert the article is unbalanced where criticism isn't included that should be, you can't add a tag without having reliable sources, nor is a tag needed to continue that discussion if some are found in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I re-removed the tag. This talk page lacks sources that warrant a tag. WP:GEVAL precludes anti-GMO stuff, and the race stuff has had no sources about it brought forward despite multiple comments here on it. Unsourced complaints and personal feelings do not warrant a tag. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Not all criticisms of Monsanto are fringe. For example, the UN-affiliated International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed glyphosate as a carcinogen. Then Monsanto launched an attack on the IARC, which was the subject of award-winning investigative reports by Le Monde. See [3], which contains an article in English translation that criticizes the GLP for its role in that attack on the IARC and calls the GLP a "well-known propaganda website". NightHeron (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not impressed with Le Monde's criticism which seems to have missed the main issues in the Séralini affair almost to a fault. jps (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the glyphosate = cancer stuff is in fringe territory too, though not to such a degree as what we dealt with at WP:GMORFC. Basically every other respected science organization in the world, including other branches of the UN, disagree with the IARC's findings. While we're always skeptical of what companies are saying in science realms, that was a case where the company was justified in criticizing the agency on a scientific basis in that one case. To see that described as "attacks" is definitely a POV perspective not really appropriate here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If we're truly interested in following WP:RS and avoiding WP:OR then whether we're impressed or not is beside the point, no? Not only is the piece published in Le Monde, but the award it won is quite substantial: the 2018 European Press Prize in the category Investigative Reporting. There is at least one other reliably sourced article that discusses GLP's alleged ties to Monsanto on the same topic of glyphosate, by the way (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide). There is also a Minority Report by members of the US House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space & Technology that claims GLP obfuscated the science on this topic, but I'm not sure if that would be considered RS. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And just FYI, Monsanto lost the District Court case discussed in the Bloomberg article I linked to above, but then had damages slashed by another judge. Even the judge who reduced the damages, though, called Monsanto’s conduct in the case "reprehensible": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-judge-slashes-80-million-roundup-jury-verdict-to-25-3-million-idUSKCN1UA2CH I'll have to look into it more to see if I can find secondary-source evidence, but it seems at least possible that that "reprehensible" conduct involved Monsanto's dealings with GLP. Generalrelative (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, we're fairly far afield here. It's one thing to dissect the concerns that the French investigative class and had with Monsanto. It's quite another to look at their incidental identifications of various outfits who received funding from business as "propaganda arms". SOP in food science has been to be funded by industry. Like it or lump it, that's the game. I'd even wager such is problematic, but it's clearly not unusual. Funding already is well-discussed in our article. To dwell on Monsanto is playing into the hands of those who seem obsessed with that particular company for reasons that are sometimes baffling to those who are kinda amazed that, say, BASF gets a pass. jps (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, food scientists take money from industry. But industry also, it seems, looks for public relations firms to spin that science for the public. One of my concerns is that GLP is, at least in part, a PR firm of this type, but isn't characterized as one in the article despite some pretty substantial evidence. (As an aside, their ICANN info [[4]] shows that GLP's website is registered by Entine's personal PR company ESG MediaMetrics, though I'm still looking for a reliable secondary source that discusses this).

I'm certainly quite far afield from my own interests here too, and have no strong opinions about Monsanto one way or the other, nor whether they're better or worse than similar companies. That said, it does seem as though the case involving glyphosate may add up to enough coverage to justify a paragraph or short section in the article, just going over the discussion in the media (and possibly the US House Committee). This is not a matter of saying "ooo, GLP are funded by corporate chem" but rather of discussing reliably sourced allegations that this funding was tied to specific outcomes, i.e. Monsanto's attempt to "'amplify' their message that glyphosate was safe [by] pointing to industry-sponsored studies and industry-placed news stories" according to the House report. Generalrelative (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we should not be using journalistic sources to say or imply anything about the science regarding GMOs or glyphosate. To imply that the correct position that the GLP takes on those matters arises only from corporate funding gives unwarranted validity to fringe anti-GMO activists. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I hear your concern. But GMOs are not the central issue here (as Dialectric and NightHeron have pointed out above). Let's work to balance the need to avoid implying anything scientifically false with the other concerns raised in this thread, e.g. the need to avoid implying anything that is institutionally false about this organization. While I don't have a scientifically informed view on glyphosate, a glance at the WP article about it suggests that the science on how carcinogenic it may be is not 100% settled. Certainly we can link to and even briefly summarize that science in the context of presenting allegations from at least one unquestionably reliable source (and a House committee) that GLP functions in some ways as a shadow PR firm. Discussing these allegations as notable public discourse can and should be done in a way that avoids implying anything scientifically misleading –– because they're not about the science. They're about what kind of institution GLP is. Generalrelative (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no expertise and no independent opinion about Monsanto or Le Monde (It is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération, and Le Figaro). All I know about Glyphosate and the brand RoundUp is what I read in those two articles, from which it's clear that, as Generalrelative says, whether or not they're carcenogenic is unsettled. Many scientists are on both sides of that debate. The issue, as in many scientific debates about safety, is complicated, among other reasons because (1) RoundUp has some additives that, according to an internal memo at Monsanto, might be more of a problem than the glyphosate itself, and (2) levels of exposure of consumers or of people using RoundUp for home gardening are minimal, but for agricultural workers are much more, so they more than anyone else are the most likely victims if the IACR turns out to have been correct. In any case, it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to sort out who's right and who's wrong, nor is it our job to declare one side of the dispute as fringe just because any criticism of Monsanto could play into the hands of anti-GMO people. I don't have anything against GMOs, but I don't think that they're such a wonderful gift to civilization from Monsanto that in gratitude we have to ban all criticism of Monsanto from Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

unsettled Let me explain the basic logic of measurements and results of studies that measure something. (This is rookie material. There are actual books with titles such as "How to Read a Study".) If you want to measure, e.g., the carcinogenicity, you are interested in whether it is bigger than zero (stuff causes cancer) or zero (stuff does not cause cancer).

But when you measure something, you never get a single value as a result. You always get a confidence interval (a value with error bars), and it either contains the value zero or it does not. If, for simplicity, we assume that the real value is somewhere in the interval - in reality, there is a small chance that it is outside - those two cases mean the following:

• The interval does not contain zero. That means the stuff does cause cancer.
• The interval does contain zero. That means that the stuff either does not cause cancer, or if it does, the effect is so small that no study has been able to find any difference between the effect and zero.

The second case is usually falsely interpreted by laymen, or even by some scientists, as "unsettled". This is such a case. If something does not cause cancer, it will necessarily stay in this category forever, so "unsettled" is a bad name for it. A better wording is "studies could not find any such effect." --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Hob Gadling. To clarify though, this issue has nothing to do with being unable to read a study. A US District Court has found Monsanto liable for endangering people with this chemical. And, as NightHeron notes, there appear to be legit scientists all along the spectrum of concern regarding its safety. Don't take my word for it. See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756530/ Generalrelative (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Things that happen in the American legal system have no bearing on reality (outside what they say about the American legal system). Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The point is that, all snark aside, we should trust them to be competent to read a scientific study. You may have personal reservations about that, but WP should not. Generalrelative (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not snark. Anything from the American legal system in completely unreliable for any non-trivial knowledge in the realm of science on Wikipedia. For medical content, in particular, the bar is waaaaay higher. Alexbrn (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's focus on what the scientists say then. See e.g. the second half of my response to Hob Gadling. Generalrelative (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be dealt with at great length at Glyphosate#Toxicity. Is there any proposed edit on the table for this article, about glyphosate? Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please everyone read the subsection of Glyphosate#Toxicity titled "cancer", from which it's crystal clear that the matter is unsettled. NightHeron (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I don't think you're correct. First of all, in this discussion unsettled does not refer to the results of a single study (or a single meta-analysis). It refers to a situation where reputable scientists, using different methodologies, arrive at different conclusions. Secondly, the interpretation of a confidence interval, including one that contains zero, depends on the context. Here's a hypothetical example. Suppose a study showed that an agricultural worker with heavy exposure to glyphosate has a roughly 10% greater chance of getting cancer than one who wasn't exposed. But the authors say there's a 95% confidence interval of plus or minus 10%. That means that there's a 95% chance that the true added risk is between 0 and 20%. So 0 is in the interval. Suppose they also say that there's a 75% confidence interval of plus or minus 5%. That means that there's a 75% chance that the true added risk is between 5% and 15%. Of course, the exact added risk is uncertain -- and it conceivably could be zero -- but it would be misleading to state that studies could not find any such effect. Monsanto would be pleased with "could not find any such effect", but the families of the workers who die of cancer would not be. NightHeron (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Cancer attribution, we know, is a fraught topic. There are even now advertisements that say that if you have any cancer and were anywhere in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001, you are entitled to compensation. The legal system in the US and many other parts of the world focuses a lot on attribution like this, but scientific work on cancer almost never comes up with direct attribution. It can only be done in a statistical sense and when it comes to extremely rare cancer clusters, the various fallacies that accompany such argumentation abound. We can point to any number of other claims of this sort. Wikipedia is no in position to document this kind of thing haphazardly and given that the sourcing is fraught, it is really not the place to include anything like this in this article. jps (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: No. Your whole basic concept of probabilities in studies is wrong, but that misconception is extremely common. This is exactly what I was talking about.

You cannot draw any conclusion about the probability of the real value from any measurement of it, because any such computation is based on the Bayes formula. The Bayes formula has the big weakness that you need to put in a prior probability, which heavily influences the result. It is a GIGO situation. This can be nicely demonstrated by homeopathy studies: since we know there is no medically active material in it, the prior probability that homeopathy works is zero. So, if I make a study and get a highly significant result, the Bayes formula will say the probability that homeopathy works, taking the study into account, is still zero, because I put the zero prior probability in. If I use another prior probability, I will get another probability of homeopathy working.

Without putting in a prior probability, you can never conclude things like "there's a xxx% chance that the true added risk is between xxx% and xxx%". The only sort of things you can really say without using your prior opinion is "if the true added risk is xxx, there is a xxx% chance of getting something like the result we got."

Every time someone says something like "from this study, the probability that hypothesis XXX is true has the value YYY", you know that that person does not understand how statistics works, and you should disregard his opinion.

But this is immaterial for the article, so I will stop now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Again, we are way far afield here. The subject of this article is GLP. That Le Monde thought fit to include some sort of critique of GLP in reference to their critique of IARC. This is tit-for-tat argumentation and while I think it is fair to acknowledge this kind of disagreement when it comes to journalism the problem here is that it is not really evaluating the substance of what GLP has said. Fair enough, we can discuss concerns over funding, but then the whole point of saying that there is something corrupt about the content of GLP when it comes to foodstuff is not really well-supported. jps (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, a PR firm can be entirely truthful in its claims about food science and it would still be false to say that it is not a PR firm. This, as far as I can tell, is the core concern about GLP for which reliable secondary sources exist. While it may not be advisable to contradict its self-presentation definitively, discussing the public allegations regarding its institutional role presented in these sources seems to me to be in line with WP best practices. Generalrelative (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If GLP is really acting as a PR firm, we would need more evidence than what has been provided. There is a difference between arguing over funding issues compromising integrity or independent can claiming that a particular website is secretly acting as the arm of a company (I suppose that would mean they're now acting as a PR firm for Bayer now?) jps (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm not suggesting we contradict their self-presentation definitively. I'm suggesting we present the allegations:

here: https://www.europeanpressprize.com/article/monsanto-papers/

here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-07-13/does-the-world-s-top-weed-killer-cause-cancer-trump-s-epa-will-decide

and possibly here: https://science.house.gov//imo/media/doc/02.06.18%20-%20Spinning%20Science%20and%20Silencing%20Scientists_0.pdf?1

Any counterpoint from GLP or its defenders would certainly be germane too. Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

W.r.t the Bloomberg article: accusations by plaintiffs in a case against the makers of RoundUp that GLP is a "front group" is not surprising to me, but it is certainly not established fact. We normally do not include that kind of thing without strict WP:ITA as it seems to me that claim has not been proven, right? That journalists report what is accused is fair enough... but why should we be in the business of reporting just what the plaintiffs say in a case, e.g. jps (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I've already commented on the Le Monde piece. I'm not sure what to make of a journalist who claims a website is "propaganda" without evidence. It's easy to call names. It's quite another to show that there is truly something duplicitous going on. The minorty report from the House is even worse, actually, and I suppose it's why you say "possibly here" as it doesn't seem to substantiate the allegations. We are very much aware that this topic is fraught: people who are opposed to Monsanto tend to attack those who support Monsanto with a viciousness that is rather remarkable. I think that deserves some consideration at least. It would be easy to fall afoul of WP:WEIGHT in such contexts. jps (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

These are all fair points. I certainly intend to observe WP:ITA quite strictly. At this point I think I have a sense of the kinds of objections y'all might raise, so I'll just get started on editing when I have time for it. We can circle back and disucss if the need arises. Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edits you're proposing since we don't really have any sources that have been brought up yet that can be used. On a related note, that last link isn't a report by the House committee, but one an unnamed group presented there to the committee. That source has come up before in this topic and generally isn't usable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Cofnas - Kevin MacDonald correspondence

Adding a section for analysis of this question. If GeneralRelative has no objection our existing comments on it can be moved here. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to continue the discussion here, but removing it from up top would render nonsensical one of Crossroads' comments. Further, as mentioned, I see it as relevant to the broader issue of WP:BALANCE. Generalrelative (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I copied our comments to here for reply. I don't need for mine to appear twice so if you end up removing any of yours above, I'm happy to have mine deleted on the same occasion. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Generalrelative (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I meant deleting our comments in the previous section and keeping/discussing them here, not the other way around. Since it does not look like you have any interest in doing that, and other people have not added comments here, it would make sense to delete this entire section or at least the back-and-forth metacomments on whether and how to use it. Sesquivalent (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I think y'all are almost at the right point here, but the fact of the matter is that Entine has a libertarian bent. He is an AEI fellow after all and the grant funding follows that line. The fact that GLP has in the past provided some counter to some of the more egregious claims associated with GMO conspiracy theories and the like was nice and all... much in the same way that Christopher Hitchens did some great investigative work on Mother Theresa. That does not mean he wasn't a neocolonialist, neoconservative, Islamophobic military fanatic (may he rest in peace).

So.

The race realism stuff on GLP is pretty atrocious. They clearly are of the bent that social science can go suck an egg. Thing is, critical race theory is the way race is defined. That theory does not behave the way the articles on the site either hint that it is behaving or caricature the "academic elites" as behaving. Even those Cofnases who are used as the "progressive" counterpoint on the site seem to veer dangerously close to race realist claims in their work (e.g. claiming that "no one" is "allowed" to talk about biology in the context of racism as though mere mention of melanin is taboo -- what world is he inhabiting?!) that make the entire GLP aggregate endeavor and both-sides-ism stink something awful. They haven't properly identified the relevant sides.

But that's what happens. Many of the people on GLP who are commenting on GMOs are doing so from a position of expertise. They study the things. The GLP people commenting on race are either philosophers of biology (cringe) or fans of psychometrics. Exactly wrong.

So.

Criticism is valid and necessary in this article. I think the funding question is an important one (and it's well discussed already). The focus on Monsanto is asinine; don't do it. The focus on libertarianism and intellectual dark web flirting is more justifiable -- if there are analyses of this sort to be found.

So on to sourcing.

jps (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing is definitely the big thing for someone like me who's been out of the loop on GLP for awhile outside of their GMO stuff where they've been generally reliable. I agree that if there are appropriate sources basically saying something to the effect that GLP is crap on race topics, that would warrant some inclusion. It's not uncommon for good sources to veer out of their wheelhouse and turn sour in the new topic they ventured into. It's also possibly they decide they aren't doing that anymore and the subject really never rises to WP:DUE by not gaining attention. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous characterization of Christopher Hitchens, ජපස! Military fanatic? Neo-conservative? The man was firmly left-wing his entire life and never had any time for the military. "Islamophobic" is just as slur here - where on earth did you get that? You're not thinking of the other one, small-state throwback to Victorian Christianity, darling of the Mail on Sunday, hang-'em and flog-'em, and Covid-denialism? GPinkerton (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol! I was waiting for the quibbles. Labels make people touchy was rather my point. I'll let you sift through where those particular lines of criticism against CH have been leveled. PH doesn't even deserve a second glance :) jps (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Concerns over WP:INDEPENDENT

As an addendum to the above discussions, I'd like to raise another issue here: the fact that this article is largely sourced by material published by GLP itself and/or authored by Jon Entine. This appears to raise concerns about WP:INDEPENDENT with regard to much of the article's content. Some of it might also qualify as WP:SELFSOURCE as well, but in any case that policy states that the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources, and this article clearly fails that test.

Of the 29 references (not counting one which is a duplicate: Séralini et al.), I count 15 which are independent of the organization. Of these:

3 are primary sources related to funding.

6 are primary sources related to the Séralini affair or secondary sources on that topic that do not mention GLP.

1 (a review of Entine's book [edit: t.v. special] is used in an arguably deceptive way. Entine's book [edit: t.v. special] Black Athletes is described using a quote saying that it "sparked a constructive public discussion on misunderstandings about genetics and human differences", which is followed up by two citations. The latter is the book review, but the quoted words do not appear in that review. It must come from the other source then, which is GLP's 2017-18 Annual Report. I'd argue that the review doesn't actually refer to anything the article is talking about and should be cut.

That leaves only 5 independent secondary sources that actually speak to GLP's notability with regard to some issue, and all are clustered into three of the shorter paragraphs. Does most of the material in this article even meet the criteria for inclusion in WP? At the risk of sparking another seemingly endless discussion, I'd like to hear thoughts from the community on this. (Note that I may begin adding sources while this conversation is ongoing, so the numbers might change. The numbers listed here reflect totals before I've begun revisions.) Generalrelative (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think collecting reliable sources for this article would be a worthwhile endeavor. Would you care to list the five sources in a separate section? jps (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your survey of the quality of sources is eye-opening. I find it puzzling that a few editors gave pushback against using an award-winning series of articles from Le Monde and other independent sources (the UN agency for cancer research, US court cases, etc.) that criticize Monsanto, glyphosate and/or the GLP, essentially arguing that such criticisms are fringe. But they did not seem to be bothered by the heavy reliance on spam-sources in the current version of the article. Despite the poor state of the article right now, I don't think there's a strong case for deletion, since the GLP, despite its drawbacks, seems to be notable. So the best solution is the one you propose, namely, removing bad sources and adding good ones. NightHeron (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still trying to figure out exactly why the Le Monde piece was awarded a journalism award. Do we know what their criteria was? jps (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

From the European Press Prize website: INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING AWARD – For discovering and revealing facts, exposing hidden news to the public. Investigative reporting is one of journalism’s core duties. It means journalists – either alone or in teams – discovering and revealing facts that would otherwise remain hidden: stories of corruption or neglect in business, secret deals in politics and hidden crimes of war, from an international scale to that of one hospital or one person. Some winners have shown personal bravery in the face of power that wishes to silence them. Equally, international networks of data investigation have exposed some mighty scandals. Investigative journalism serves the public interest. It tells voters in democracies what they need to know. It is one definition of the purpose of journalism itself. NightHeron (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. However, I'm trying to figure out how this criteria was applied to this particular article. Did the journalist show personal bravery? Was there a war crime I missed? Were there any facts uncovered that would have otherwise been hidden in this piece? Most of this stuff seems regurgitated from USRTK, e.g. jps (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I see two citations to USRTK in the long article. Do you have evidence that most of the article is "regurgitated from USRTK"? Is it really our role as editors to try to evaluate the judging procedure for the European Press Prize and decide whether or not we agree with it? And why belittle the importance of investigative journalism on pesticides? True, it's not about a war crime. But if the claim that glyphosate is carcinogenic is correct -- at present an unsettled matter -- then the lives of agricultural workers who are exposed to glyphosate are at risk. That's a lot of people. We shouldn't sneer at journalists who look into this issue. NightHeron (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I just did a comparison of claims in the article to datestamps of claims in USRTK. Many of them were found there before they appeared in Le Monde. I cannot verify that this is where the journalists obtained the claims, but it seems that priority, at least, goes to USRTK in terms of many of the claims. I am not interested in whether or not we should agree with the prize. I am interested in why the prize was given. Absent a statement as such, it could be that it was just the anonymous opinion of the panelists in the realm of a beauty contest. That is fine, but it is no more indicating that a source is reliable then would the Oscar for Best Documentary. Our task here is to decide whether the article is a reliable source for the claims it is making about GLP. The award was mentioned as relevant information. I am trying to understand why that award is relevant vis-a-vis WP:RS. I am not sneering at journalists who look into the issue at all. I wish there were more sources on this subject and not less. But right now I'm trying to figure out what exactly people are seeing in this article that is relevant to this page that would indicate something WP:WEIGHTy. Help me out. jps (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, I find it puzzling that some editors still don't understand, e.g., why Le Monde and US court cases are not reliable sources for criticizing glyphosate. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Major court cases that determine a product to be unsafe provide good evidence that (1) the product is controversial, and (2) some mainstream people believe it to be unsafe. That's what citing a court case shows. Obviously court cases cannot be used to support a statement in wikivoice that a product is unsafe. As for Le Monde, my understanding is that it's more or less the French equivalent of the NY Times, and is similarly regarded as RS on most issues, except in cases where there's specific evidence of unreliability. NightHeron (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Major court cases about glyphosate are mentioned at that article. But this is not an article about glyphosate. This is an article about GLP. As for whether the New York Times should be considered a "reliable source" for fringe claims, I would direct you to some of our recent dust-ups regarding certain articles about UFOs being published in that newspaper of record. To be clear, I think that there are likely places the Le Monde piece can be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article on Monsanto, for example. But this is an article on GLP and the secondary nature of the claims and insinuations that GLP is a propaganda arm of Monstanto strikes me as being somewhat difficult to verify here given the nature of the controversies surrounding the larger subject. jps (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all for the thoughtful feedback. I agree with NightHeron that this issue isn't egregious enough to call for the article's deletion, but rather for some pretty substantial overhaul of content. Meanwhile I was glad to see that two other users (JimRenge and Smartse) have begun making needed changes on their own initiative. In reply to the above I'll just reiterate that any mentions of the Le Monde article or court cases I make will strictly adhere to WP:ITA and if there are still issues with them we can revert and discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that the court cases generally belong in the glyphosate article and not in this one. However, the Bloomberg source does refer directly to the GLP ([Monsanto] funneled money to front groups, according to a plaintiffs' court filing... with names such as Genetic Literacy Project...). So the Bloomberg article could be an appropriate reference in the GLP article.

An important point to make on this talk-page is that there are many mainstream sources that question glyphosate's safety, especially when high levels of exposure are involved, as in agricultural work. Skepticism about glyphosate's safety is not fringe, and should not be conflated with anti-GMO. Some editors seem to think that all criticism of glyphosate is in fringe territory (as one editor put it), and that it's okay for GLP to shill for Monsanto because Monsanto is simply opposing fringe. I don't buy that. NightHeron (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think where WP:FRINGE comes into play is in regards to the claims that there is scientific evidence that glyphosate causes certain rare cancers... as was essentially the basis for the eye-popping jury award. I am sure you are aware that there are chemophobic arguments made that glyphosate is POISON that may or may not be motivated by a general hatred of all things Monsanto. The landscape of this discussion is that there certainly are some chemicals that have been maligned inappropriately (monosodium glutamate, saccharin and aspartame) while others have been maligned appropriately (asbestos, benzene, formaldehyde). jps (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for maligning glyphosate; it's a great weed-killer, and I have a large container of it in my shed. Nevertheless, reading the section Glyphosate#Cancer, I see that there's a real division of scientific opinion about whether or not it's safe for humans who have high exposure levels, i.e., agricultural workers. Concern about that by journalists and others is not fringe. Wikipedia should not put Monsanto on a pedestal. The slogan "science not ideology" does not mean shilling for Monsanto.

Rather than responding to the Kingofaces43 comment below, which would be out of place here, let me just urge editors to read the Bloomberg Business article [5], which shows that the truth of the matter is not as simplistic (Monsanto=good-science, critics=fringe/bad-science) as suggested by that comment. NightHeron (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, the Bloomberg article's strongest point are the notes by Dr. Taioli about her group's statistical evidence for a link between glyphosate and NHL. She mentions estrogen and breast cancer as a comparison, and I see many recent papers on the subject that are demanding the kinds of studies that would reach the level of something like this NEJM review on breast cancer and estrogen exposure (or the famous aspartame paper if null results are more your thing). Anyway, the final word is almost certainly in the works given the noise around the subject. jps (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Part of FRINGE is also related to the shill comments NightHeron made. Fringe groups often resort to tactics saying Monsanto just paid someone off to say something. That's the old Monsanto shill gambit. That the plaintiffs simply asserted that in court without substantiation isn't something we'd normally give weight to here. WP:GEVAL applies there, and doubling down on GLP being a "shill" group still without any appropriate sources for it isn't appropriate at this point.

Some of it also has to do with the current state of the science where practically every agency agrees glyphosate isn't a carcinogen (or a significant risk to be technical), and that the IARC was the outlier (decent summary from a few years back). The only "uncertainty" left occurs when studies are done with those looking at the heaviest overall pesticide users and finding occasional correlations with a rare cancers. Those users are heavily confounded by them using many different types of pesticides or other ag. exposures, so that group is going to pretty easily autocorrelate with the most commonly used pesticides (e.g., glyphosate) even without an underlying causation. When you have groups treating glyphosate as the new boogeyman in place of GMOs[6], we still need to be wary in terms of fringe with groups or some media cherrypicking data, muckraking in journalism, etc. That's nothing new in this subject, but hopefully that helps address some of the tangents popping up on this talk page.

This isn't a WP:FORUM to continue that discussion on that broader concept though. This talk page needs to focus down on specific edits and sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to refocus on my initial question: Does most of the material in this article even meet the criteria for inclusion in WP? Perhaps we can start by discussing the "Background" section. It seems to me that nothing there meets WP:INDEPENDENT. If that's correct, the question then becomes 1) do reliable independent sources on GLP's background exist? and 2) if not, should this section be substantially reduced or eliminated altogether? Generalrelative (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, if folks think that the interview on YouTube should be considered independent (I've seen nothing to indicate an institutional relationship between Entine and the interviewer), it does violate WP:UGC and WP:YTREF, right? The fact that the channel cited has only 99 subscribers just suggests how bottom-scraped the barrel really is here. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn't there a strong case for eliminating the "Background" section entirely, both because it has no independent sources and because it gives undue attention to Entine's personal opinions (suitable for a blog, but not encyclopedic)? NightHeron (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, the "Overview" section can be pared down. There's no need to elaborate on GLP's views with supporting references for them that do not actually discuss the GLP. For example, the Washington Post article [14] does not mention the GLP. If we find hardly any independent sources that give significant coverage to the GLP itself, then it's reasonable to make the article a lot shorter. NightHeron (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey you're right! Looks like I'd given the article too much credit in my original post for this section. I went and checked the 5 independent sources and found two more that don't actually mention GLP (the Nature Biotechnology editorial and Lipton's NYT article). That leaves only 2 sources that are independent, secondary, and mention GLP: the Bloomberg article "How Monsanto Mobilized Academics to Pen Articles Supporting GMOs" and the NYT blog post "A Risk Communicator Says Industry Should Embrace Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods". And the latter does not discuss GLP in any substantial way; it just quotes Entine and identifies him as affiliated with the organization. I understand that many here feel that the views of journalists discussing GMO-related issues should be avoided on WP, but that one Bloomberg article appears to be the only independent secondary source currently cited that discusses GLP in any depth! Generalrelative (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point I'd be curious to see if someone can find any independent secondary source that discusses GLP without calling into question its self-presentation as a platform for unbiased scientific information. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We've all been accepting as obvious that the GLP is notable, and hence the article should not go to AfD. I still believe that, but I'm puzzled. It's an organization that publishes extremely controversial opinions on hot-button topics -- from supporting Monsanto to providing an outlet for Kevin MacDonald's anti-Semitic pseudoscience. You'd think that would attract a lot of attention. Then why is it so hard to find RS that cover the organization? Perhaps it just merits a stub (but not a puff-piece stub). NightHeron (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, frankly, most websites (even fairly high-traffic ones) are pretty thin on good sourcing. jps (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As for laudatory independent sources, they certainly exist: [7]. jps (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is scienceblog RS? Is it okay to use with attribution? The article definitely needs laudatory independent sources to balance the negative ones. NightHeron (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

ScienceBlogs are essentially the opinions of the authors. jps (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your 'laudatory independent source' consists of one sentence describing GLP as a publisher of "well-informed, science-based articles"; it has the same lack of substance as Le Monde calling GLP a propaganda website. Independence is also questionable given that Pamela Ronald, the author of the sentence, directs the Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at UC Davis where GLP's Entine was a Senior Fellow.Dialectric (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "lack of substance" in this context. The query was made as to whether "any independent secondary source that discusses GLP without calling into question its self-presentation as a platform for unbiased scientific information." I find your attempted impeachment of the independence of this source disappointing. If you think that Pamela Ronald is somehow conflicted wrt to Entine, you're going to need to do better than that letter! jps (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If GLP were an important website, wouldn't SPLC and ADL have something to say about GLP's decision to publish an anti-Semitic screed by Kevin MacDonald? Both organizations certainly have a lot to say about MacDonald, whom SPLC calls "the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic". But I've been unable to find any mention at all of GLP by either organization. NightHeron (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced the site is all that important. I think I would be okay with a merge to Entine's BLP. jps (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea! Should we start a new section here to see if other editors agree or oppose? NightHeron (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 to that. And not to quibble, jps (well maybe to quibble a little), my question was whether anyone can find a source that discusses GLP without calling into question its self-presentation. The example you cite, as Dialectric has pointed out, is really just an assertion with no constitutive reasoning presented. Even the Le Monde article contains much greater depth of discussion, including citing primary sources, e.g. "Boobis admitted that the Genetic Literacy Project was not famous for its rigour". Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing, if you agree with the approach a website is taking it isn't highly motivating to go out and create some in-depth piece about it. When you don't like it, well, the incentive is much stronger to go on at length. jps (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say, start the section, NightHeron. jps (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Some context

• I think it is important to contextualize all this mess with the back-and-forth between the organic food industry (and its billions) and the conventional food industry (and its billions). This article from Chicago Tribune doesn't exactly thread the needle, but it is much better than the Le Monde article: [8]. jps (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In the broad concept, I agree, but I'm not sure what would be relevant specifically to this article. It's probably better to get into individual cases at their articles (e.g., Benbrook, COI stuff by roundup plaintiffs, etc.) where there's more documentation, but given the lack of sources on this subject, I wouldn't really expect being able to do too much here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction re. "consulting" / GLP mission statement

I just checked GLP's mission statement (citation 2 in the article): [[9]] It states that the organization's founder and executive director Jon Entine "does no lobbying and no consulting." However both the GLP article and the Jon Entine article currently identify him as a consultant. Indeed, his consultancy firm ESG Mediametrics is the entity that registers GLP's website: [[10]] For Entine's role as founder of ESG Mediametrics (and self-identification as a consultant), see his own statement here: [[11]] How should we approach untangling these apparently contradictory claims? Generalrelative (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Beneath the mission statement the GLP states: We have no affiliation, informal or informal, with any corporation. I assume that was poorly proofread and should read We have no affiliation, formal or informal, with any corporation. Yet Mother Jones says: Entine also runs a consultancy, ESG MediaMetrics. The firm’s homepage lists Monsanto as a "select client". Assuming Mother Jones is correct (the links to ESG MediaMetrics from the article are dead, so I couldn't check), this is another contradiction.

Both GLP and ESG MediaMetrics seem close to being one-man shows. (According to [12], ESG MediaMetrics has 2 employees.) NightHeron (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we merge with Jon Entine?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that there is a consensus to merge. While participants appear to agree that the GLP (the subject of this article) is probably sufficiently notable to support an article, it was a widely shared view that the GLP is extremely closely tied to its founder (both in terms of its activities and its coverage in reliable sources), and that it can be better covered as part of his biography. Participants are invited to carry out the merge. JBL (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Per discussion above, esp. toward the end of the Concerns over WP:INDEPENDENT section above, let's discuss the possibility of merging anything usable here (i.e. NPOV, supported by independent secondary sources) with the article Jon Entine. Pros? Cons? I'll say that it seems like a good idea to me, but I'd also be fine with leaving this article as a stub. Generalrelative (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, I've written up this suggestion for a stub version of the article, which could also serve as the basis for a section on Jon Entine's page:

The Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) is a website that hosts articles on topics related to genetics, biotechnology and evolution. It was founded by Jon Entine, a science writer and consultant who serves as its executive director. The staff produces articles focusing on human genetics, food and farming issues (including genetic engineering), the use and impact of pesticides, and pollinator health. It also aggregates articles from various published sources. News organizations have drawn attention to allegations that the site has undisclosed ties to the biotechnology industry.

Sources

Generalrelative (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would tend to support this if for no other reason than I think Entine retains complete editorial control over the project and it hasn't grown much beyond him. I know he solicits for articles and aggregates others, but the website has not lived up to expectations to become a clearinghouse as it could have been on the trajectory to become some years back. jps (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I don't think this meets WP:ORG/WP:NWEB by itself. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are few independent RS that mention the Genetic Literacy Project, and apparently none that cover it in depth. The GLP seems to be basically a vehicle for Entine, representing his viewpoints and those of the people he selects. The current version of the GLP article has much promotional coverage using non-independent sources, and this could be trimmed to a stub before merging. For example, something very similar to the above stub proposal by User:Generalrelative could simply be made into a section of the Entine article, and I think that would suffice for a merger. NightHeron (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose WP:GNG/WP:NWEB technically is just satisfied (especially the mention of smaller websites), but I don't subscribe to the idea that notability always = a separate page. That said, Entine's page doesn't seem like the best home since I get WP:COATRACK vibes having it there. The better option is just to trim this article (probably more start class rather than stub) using independent sources establishing what it does, and sourcing basic information to the GLP website that we normally would for any other organization page.

It's also been a major holiday over here, so I haven't been checking for sources much yet, but when universities mention the site as a reliable consumer information resource[13], that contributes to independent notability on top of some of the mention in sources like Bloomberg. It's difficult to search for sources because Entine writes so much, so in terms of WP:NODEADLINE, it's probably better the work on what exists and take some time to look at sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just tacking on a little bit for a couple additional sources:

• But in most of the US, the genomic revolution is occurring out of public sight and mind, unless somebody takes the initiative to go online and read about what is happening on websites such as the Genetic Literacy Project. Think about that the next time you see a pair of socks. If nothing else, they represent a powerful metaphor for the information gaps that plague our world — gaps that we all need to take active steps to plug.[14]
• The Genetic Literacy Project, a group dedicated to increasing the public’s understanding of gene research, wrote this year that “parents worried about passing on genetic disorders to their children have hope: Gene editing.”[15]

Basically, there are enough independent sources out there saying what the organization is, here's what they do, and some saying they are reliable for consumer information. That would be around at least stub quality in terms of notability for most any other organization. Not anything to brag about, but WP:NWEB does have related small site guidance When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites. We're not going to find big flashy stuff for notability like big websites get, but more of people just briefly saying this is a website to look into. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I also took a look through WP:NMEDIA, specifically:

• are frequently cited by other reliable sources

With that, we have already satisfied notability there since notability is presumed just by meeting one criteria. You don't have to look very far on places like Google Scholar to find GLP being frequently cited at even a quick glance (with very few if any of the GLP articles being authored by Entine):

• https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/06/04/581033.full.pdf
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645698.2017.1413522
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2015.1017424
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645698.2017.1289305
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919218301088
• http://people.forestry.oregonstate.edu/steve-strauss/sites/people.forestry.oregonstate.edu.steve-strauss/files/Strauss_NatureBiotech_2016.pdf
• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137394750_12
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645698.2018.1454192
• https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1329&context=ncjolt
• https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/59240/n01309.pdf?sequence=1
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40009-019-00829-7
• https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zwhpDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT274&dq=%22Genetic+literacy+project%22+gmo&ots=DW2fH3H1FQ&sig=6y7_5xtGsYTWJ46YJhhqeq57dMk#v=onepage&q=%22Genetic%20literacy%20project%22&f=false
• https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2466&context=vulr
• https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1986&context=lawreview
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19409419.2019.1678348

There is also a case for #3 are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area. When university libraries specifically point out GLP is a site that should be used for the subject, and can't be dismissed as just being "one sentence mention". That could be satisfied by other scientists endorsing GLP, but that isn't something I've had time to go looking for specifically yet.

Given some comments here, we also have to ignore claims of not significant enough coverage in terms of weighing WP:CONSENSUS. That is not how notability works for media orgs, and is outlined at Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Why_separate_criteria that would be violated by making such claims:

Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition." Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources.

As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope. Accordingly, the notability standards for media organizations and content are designed to be as inclusive, not restrictive, as possible within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources. (my bold)

Nothing in this document, however, is to be understood as extending media topics an exemption from having to cite any sourcing at all. The basic claim of notability must be verifiable in at least one reliable source which is independent of the topic itself before the presumption of notability is granted. A media topic's own self-published content about itself is not sufficient sourcing to get the presumption of notability. . .

That dovetails with my comment about small websites in terms of NWEB above. Small orgs that meet the use criteria but don't have a ton of detail in sourcing are already a norm for passing notability requirements, so we'd need a good reason to make an exception to that here. In those cases, you're usually going to get exactly what we have here, notability in terms of use, and not a lot of detail from sources to create content. That usually just ends up with an article being an initial description from independent sources, often in the lead, then basic uncontroverisal descriptive information that is sourced to their own website (infoboxy kind of stuff). We're moving the goal posts otherwise. This is just a pretty standard meets notability but will have underwhelming content subject like many others out there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

First, WP:Notability (media) says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, it says just that Wikipedia should provide neutral and verifiable information about them, which does not mean that there always has to be a separate page. No one is suggesting not covering the GLP. The main reason for the merger is that the GLP is the creation of and is run by Entine, who determines its policies, actions, and views. It's a vehicle for him. NightHeron (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As the conversation has progressed (here and under other headings on this talk page), I'm persuaded that GLP is essentially, as NightHeron observes, a vehicle for Entine's views and close to being a one-man show. So I'll shift the weak support implicit in my opening comment to strong support for the merger. Generalrelative (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge to Jon Entine. Genetic Literacy Project lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. One or two sentence mentions are not enough to establish notability. Those few sources that do give GLP more than a passing mention also mention Entine's role, and as such support the view that the org is closely related to the individual and that the two articles could be merged. Looking over the current sources, I see only the following independent refs, only one of which has more than 2 sentences on GLP: Numbers in parens refer to the ref number in the GLP article:

• (3). libguides.muw.edu/ - one sentence mention
• (4). washington post - one sentence mention
• (5). nytimes - one sentence mention of org, with focus on Entine
• (10). dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com - one sentence mention of org, with focus on Entine
• (12). washington post - no mention of org or Entine
• (14). nature.com - no mention of org or Entine
• (15). nytimes - no mention
• (16). bloomberg News /chicagotribune.com - the most extensive coverage of GLP, with focus on articles that Entine "got", per the several sentences on entine at the end.

Dialectric (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI Dialectric, the Bloomberg article in citation 16 is the same as the the Chicago Tribune article discussed elsewhere on this Talk page: [[16]] It's freely available there so I've been referring to that source preferentially. Generalrelative (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - I've updated my comment above.Dialectric (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion it may be worth quoting from that article a bit: "I got independent articles written by independent professors," Entine said Tuesday by phone. "I ended up working with the professors to edit their pieces and I had total control over the final product. ..." (emphasis added) This just underscores how much, as Dialectric points out, the org is closely related to the individual. Generalrelative (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a good find since editorial oversight is actually hallmark of distinguishing a blog site from a media group. For any other org, the editor would do copyediting, etc. with the writer, so it's odd to pick that as something that stands out. Especially since you left out There is nothing to disclose. at the end, that definitely looks like a run of the mill comment being taken out of context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It recent years it's become easy and common for an individual to set up a nonprofit organization and a website, invite some colleagues to be nominally on a board of advisers, and basically use the NGO and website as a vehicle for advancing the individual's views and visibility. There's nothing wrong with doing this, but I don't see why Wikipedia needs two separate articles, one on the individual and one on the website. In the case of GLP, I haven't seen any evidence that anyone other than Entine is involved in running it. NightHeron (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that I did leave off Entine claiming There is nothing to disclose because it's meaningless. The phrase "nothing to see here" has the connotation it does for a reason. Generalrelative (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to a participant closing this discussion as a consensus for merging? There are 5 supports and 1 oppose, and there has been no recent comment (just a comment of mine 6 days ago and no other comment since July 8). If someone objects, then we can ask for a closure at WP:ANRFC. NightHeron (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objections to turning this into a stub as suggested above?

If anyone objects to turning this into a stub (possibly temporarily en route to a merger with Jon Entine) as suggested in the above section, let's discuss that here. If there are no objections that we can't work through in the next few days I'll go ahead and use the version I've suggested there. We can of course keep editing as appropriate, and continue with the deletion/merger discussion as well. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your version above seems fine to me, except for one typo: allegions --> allegations. NightHeron (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for catching that. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There's plenty of room for trimming, but as mentioned multiple times on this talk page, use of sources like Le Monde (or anything citing the "Monsanto Papers") to assert fringe POV of plaintiffs is not appropriate (as well as WP:UNDUE) and should not have been reinserted into any new proposed edits or asserted as "going ahead" with it anyways. Unless something is substantiated, we just don't mention such undue points of view, especially with WP:NOTNEWS policy in mind with the way reporting works on court proceedings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that the stub has to be completely positive about the GLP, and that the three sources cited for criticism of the GLP -- Le Monde, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Chicago Tribune -- are only expressing fringe? You seem to have an extraordinarily broad definition of fringe (e.g., asserting before that any suggestion that glyphosate is carcinogenic at high exposure levels is in fringe territory). NightHeron (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, You've already been cautioned about misrepresenting what I or others have said here. Please don't cast aspersions like that, and the DS are clear on that.

If there is legitimate criticism not tied to ambulance chasing litigation counter to the science on this subject, then show it. Nothing of that sort has been brought up on this talk page yet though. If it's just standard unsubstantiated shill gambit stuff that happens all the time in this subject, we don't include that as a serious encyclopedia. I'm not aware of anyone trying to insert overly positive language into the article, and much of that WP:PEACOCKy language was removed awhile back already. All that really remains right now is a nuts and bolts description that's likely going to be pared down even more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as the warning template you put on my talk-page was unnecessary, so also this implied threat is unhelpful.

The article in its current version is entirely favorable to the GLP, giving its self-description in wiki-voice (a website that promotes public awareness and discussion of genetics, biotechnology, evolution and science literacy ... nonpartisan). The only reference to criticism -- criticism by the USRTK -- is immediately discredited in wikivoice by citing a COI (an advocacy group funded in large part by the Organic Consumers Association). No mention is made of the fact that Jon Entine, who runs the GLP, has Monsanto as a major client of his consulting firm. In this article there seems to be a double standard for what constitutes a COI.

The fact remains that we have not found any independent sources that cover the GLP except for brief mentions. The GLP's notability is inherited from Entine; the GLP is a vehicle for his views. NightHeron (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NightHeron's comments above. As you yourself have said, Kingofaces43, please watch the tone and keep the discussion focused on substance. With regard to that substance, I will note that my proposed sentence News organizations have drawn attention to allegations that the site has undisclosed ties to the biotechnology industry is in no way assert[ing] fringe POV of plaintiffs. Your suggestion to the contrary is an example, to use your phrasing once again, of misrepresenting what I or others have said. And your assertion that any of the citations I use to back it up should not have been reinserted into any new proposed edits is simply a claim to authority that neither you nor your arguments possess. Please see in particular WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and let's move forward collaboratively. On that note, I'll say that I very much appreciate your recent edits to the article itself! Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, please do not misrepresent what I've said and please WP:FOC. Behavior issues should not be interjected on to talk pages like this, and when they become unavoidable, you shouldn't go after those trying to get someone back on course. Please listen to what has been discussed on this talk page about your proposed edits or sources rather than "going ahead" with them.

As NightHeron mentioned above, the only criticism in the article is already portrayed as coming from industry-affiliated groups that aren't substantiated. That current language is required in a WP:DUE sense if the claims are going to be mentioned, if at all. If there is legitimate sourced criticism of the organization, then it should be brought up.

There already have been plenty of other discussions at other articles of how to handle the "Monsanto Paper" stuff with extreme caution, so we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel here without a compelling reason. If someone has sourced criticism of Entine in terms of WP:NOTINHERITED (which goes both ways), that belongs at the other page. In the meantime, I'll be looking in on sources both for what hasn't been brought up here and cleaning up existing text for a stub/start where the current independent sources would warrant such a brief amount like any other similar organization. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I expressed a content disagreement with you. Based on what I read in Glyphosate#Cancer, especially the last paragraph, I've maintained that the notion of a "compelling link" between glyphosate and cancer is not fringe. A 2016 review/meta-analysis funded by Monsanto found that there is no link, and a 2019 review/meta-analysis found that there is. So it's unsettled. For that reason I said that your claim that relating glyphosate to cancer is in fringe territory shows an overly broad definition of fringe. I was not raising behavioral issues, and I was not misrepresenting what you said. Nor do my comments on the unsettled nature of the glyphosate safety issue merit two warnings from you (one on my talk-page). You claim to be trying to get someone [me] back on course, referring to my comments as an "unavoidable...behavior issue". What I said in my last comment was that USRTK's COI and Entine/GLP's COI should be treated evenhandedly. I've been raising relevant content issues. It's you, not me, who seems to be trying to interject a behavior issue that does not exist. NightHeron (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, I'll note the obvious WP:HYPOCRISY issue with your first paragraph, Kingofaces43, but in the future I'll simply ignore this behavior to the extent possible. Regarding the rest, it seems that the time may be approaching to ask for a dispute resolution with particular focus on the appropriateness of including a sentence stating the existence of allegations against GLP and the three citations used to back it up. We seem to agree, frankly, on many of the other issues raised here. For now I'll be happy to back off from this thread and see if any new voices care to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, there is an expected behavioral decorum in this subject, which is what the DS notifications (not warnings) were about. Nothing hypocritical about trying to briefly point out the issue that needs to stop so content can actually be focused on, so there's no reason to go after me for dealing with WP:NPA against me. That's as far as I'll go on relevant meta article talk that pertains to how content discussion is supposed to go though.

At the end of the day, it still boils down to sources. What you're proposing is asking us to violate policy in what it suggests are sensationalizes in vague language. Instead, the current version is much more descriptive even on just what USTRK and others have tried to assert without any evidence presented. GLP wrote some articles supportive of biotech (which is their thing since they write on science), and Monsanto previously asked them without money or perks involved if they could write on certain topics in general. There's nothing to disclose there in the first place as opposed to if the company had any actual say in what was written. That's really no different than if one of the companies told university extension staff at a meeting that there's a need for a Bt trait table for the traits different companies have. Researchers, etc. take suggestions on topics that need to be covered all the time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Monsanto is a major client of Entine's consultancy company, and Entine also runs the non-profit that Monsanto asked if they could write on certain topics. You don't see any COI? NightHeron (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

With respect to if they could write on certain topics, I already answered that in my above post, mainly that we don't insinuate nefarious doings simply due to a request. You've made it very clear you want more critical material of GLP, but we don't put the cart before the horse. The only organizations criticizing the group have been ones considered not credible or WP:UNDUE themselves (USTRK or litigants). Again, you have to have sources that are appropriate for that (we don't go sleuthing on our own for criticism), so please bring them up on this already long talk page if you actually do have any. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sussing out compelling links to cancer and fringe theories

@NightHeron: Arguing that there are "compelling" links between certain factors and cancer are evaluations typically done by looking at the evidence. Let's step away from glyphosate for a bit here. Would you say there is a compelling link between aspartame and cancer? If not, why not? If so, why? I ask to determine the broader scope of how these arguments are being made and I think it relevant to this discussion since we keep coming back to this argument. We need to know where people are starting form. For example, there are some arguments that the precautionary principle might be considered compelling. jps (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This article does not currently mention glyphosate, RoundUp, cancer, or related litigation, and there was only a passing mention of glyphosate without elaboration in the previous version. As such, this comment/question is not relevant to improving the content of this article, and as a question posed directly to another editor, should be moved to their talk page..Dialectric (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks jps - I think this subsection can be removed now that you have brought the issue to their talk page.Dialectric (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we remove the Funding section?

First, the section seems WP:UNDUE, since we don't normally list all the funding sources for a small organization (or any organization). Secondly, it is self-sourced. Thirdly, it reads like an implicit defense of GLP against COI charges from critics. That's misleading, since the COI comes not from GLP's direct funding sources, but from Entine's consultancy company. Does anyone object to removing the section? Thanks. NightHeron (talk)

Sorry -- I see that User:Kingofaces43 removed the section a few minutes before I posted the above question. NightHeron (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As a reminder, we don't give undue deference to most of GLP's critics since they've pretty much been unsubstantiated. That funding section was appropriate being self-sourced since where they get their money is basic information that applies to any org and this was a fringe topic where it would be justified. The reason it was removed is it was easier to trim it down since we address actual funding or lack of funding from specific groups elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we remove the last sentence defending GLP against COI charges?

In wikivoice this sentence defends GLP against COI charges. The sentence is misleading, because the COI comes from the fact that at the time Monsanto was a major client of Entine's company ESG Mediametrics. Monsanto is found in the company's archived list of clients here: [17]. NightHeron (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the final sentence is misleading. My recent edits were intended to be an incremental improvement, given the contentious nature of the discussion surrounding this article, but I'd also be keen on cutting it if there is support for that. Generalrelative (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

An alternative to removing the sentence would be to modify the last paragraph as follows:

The advocacy group US Right to Know, which receives funding from the Organic Consumers Association, raised concerns after emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that a series of articles supportive of crop biotechnology run by the GLP in 2014 had been solicited by the American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto, which was a client of Entine's consultancy company. According to Entine, the authors were not paid for their articles and he had "total control" of the writing and editing process.

Sources

NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. If we're focusing on USRTK as the source of the allegations then we should accurately present them, and Entine's COI as a client of Monsanto was indeed at the heart of those allegations. Generalrelative (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please remember that we don't do WP:SYNTH like that. Right now the only sources we have that cover the subject in totality say that Monsanto asked GLP to write on certain subjects, which is very different than the insinuations. If a usable source went into more depth, then we could go further. We don't have anything like that on this talk page though. To be frank, you'd think investigative journalists would be chomping at the bit if there was substance on that train of thought.

I also restored the content back to the status quo with the synth and POV issues in mind. Words like solicit have specific meaning, and have precision issues if someone mistakenly used as synonymous with request or ask. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that Generelative's comment above mine appears to be a WP:BLP violation. Entine already very clearly stated the only relationship he indirectly had with Monsanto that lead to it being listed on the website was 9 years before GLP for a $2,000 project. You cannot assert a BLP has a COI without evidence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-partisan?

As NightHeron has pointed out in an edit summary, this seems like a dubious description, especially given Entine's affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute. Further, two of GLP's major funders, the John Templeton Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation, are widely considered to be right-leaning (as discussed in each of the linked articles). Another user has restored the descriptor after NightHeron cut it, so I think it's best to discuss in a new section. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

First Generalrelative, you need to undo your most recent disputed edits. This article is under 1RR, and the expectation is that you gain consensus for disputed edits, not reinsert them. That was specifically considered WP:GAMING back when we first formulated that part of the DS if someone made changes, they were removed, and then added back in again.

As for non-partisan, that was sourced verbatim, which if I recall correctly, we had a tag requesting a source on that language. That's been sourced for a little while now. Please remember we focus on what reliable sources say. Even if we could engage in WP:SYNTH, there's no indication GLP has been partisan, and I haven't seen any red flags in their climate change coverage. You are insinuating partisanship, which would require a specific source specifically stating such, so your comments are kind of putting the cart before the horse right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

First, please be careful about making accusations or implicit accusations against other editors. According to Wikipedia policy, a series of edits with no intervening edits by another editor counts as a single edit for purposes of 1RR. So Generalrelative has just 1 edit (in this sense) in the last 2 days.

Second, just because something is sourced to RS, that does not mean that it belongs in the lead phrased as if it were a factual statement. Starting the Donald Trump article with "Trump is a US president who deserves to be impeached" (sourced to the NY Times) would violate NPOV.

Third, nonpartisan has two meanings. From dictionary.com: (1) not partisan; objective. (2) not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like. The claim that GLP satisfies this definition is controversial (and dubious, as Generalrelative and I have pointed out), certainly not a fact. It's true that GLP, as a tax-exempt non-profit, by law cannot support a US political party. So if nonpartisan is intended simply to mean that (which is not the way the word is commonly understood), then it's redundant to say both non-profit and nonpartisan, since all registered non-profits in the US are required not to support political candidates or legislation. NightHeron (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works and please watch the tone. This is an article talk page, so we need to focus on content or structure of that content discussion. An edit was made, it was removed and disputed on the talk page, and just reinserted anyways. That is slow edit warring, and as mentioned already, not something we can do in this subject since it interferes with the content discussion process.[18] 1RR doesn't mean you get one "free" revert a day. Those are the expectations we are supposed to follow if someone chooses to edit in this DS topic. If you add something that is disputed, you are supposed to gain consensus for it, and at that point, 1RR is just the "bright-line" for automatic sanctions in this case to use the language from WP:EW that applies to normal 3RR topics.

As for the content itself, it doesn't seem the content was specifically addressed. If you have evidence of your assertions, you need sources directly saying so per WP:OR. The reality is the source uses the language, and no reliable sources seem to be seriously disputing it. If you don't want the language, we need policy and source-based reasons to do so. Basically saying you don't agree with what the source says is against content policy here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 had no issue with removing a referenced descriptor from American_Council_on_Science_and_Health despite its being supported by reliable sources. What makes this situation any different?Dialectric (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If that edit summary was somehow not clear to you Dialectric, I suggest you move your comment (and mine) over to that page. That was something needing consensus, and the term didn't match the source. Otherwise, it's just personalizing this conversation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC) And if it wasn't clear enough on "personalizing the conversation", in addition to the other article, editor talk pages are another place to asks questions not relevant to this talk page when the question was focused on my actions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Just in this thread you've made conduct accusations against three editors who were disagreeing with you about content issues -- Generalrelative (accused of violating DS), Dialectric (accused of personalizing this conversation), and me (warned about my tone). Once again I implore you to please observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and converse with us about content, not conduct. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

+1 to that. I'll just add that I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around the nature of Kingofaces43's complaint against me. To my knowledge, only one of my recent edits restored content that had been cut: [[19]] And my edit summary made my rationale clear: Restoring uncontroversial (per Talk page) description of Entine as journalist and consultant. It seems this was reverted in one swoop along with other material. If there is a reason for cutting this, let's discuss. Re-checking this talk page just now, I don't see any dispute surrounding Entine being described as a journalist and consultant. Am I missing something? Generalrelative (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the actual topic of discussion here, WP:ONUS makes clear that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Seems to me like a pretty cut-and-dry case for excluding "non-partisan" in this instance. Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

First to NightHeron on please observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and converse with us about content, not conduct., that is what I have been asking this whole time, so please refrain from commenting on editors and please follow WP:FOC policy.

As part of WP:FOC, the reminder above was bout 1RR restrictions and the expectation that a reverted new edit needs to get consensus when it's been disputed. That's unavoidable in content discussion at this point. That did not happen, so that it was that content issue was being discussed. That is why I reminded Generalrelative to self-revert and gain consensus for the edits as part of that procedure. Part of the issue was too many things going on at once in their edits, so they were all briefly mentioned here to see if they would gain consensus in the respective talk sections.

For the subject of this section on non-partisan, that is the WP:STATUSQUO. That has been sourced, and no sources are directly contradicting it. That's to a point where it can't be removed carte blanche under ONUS alone. It's clear some editors would like it removed, but we don't have sources to justify there's something wrong with the sourced statement that doesn't go into WP:OR territory. If there are, that can be discussed, but removal does need to be justified. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument above against it is WP:OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR. The three sources cited by Generalrelative (Le Monde, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Chicago Tribute) dispute the claim that GLP is an objective (i.e., nonpartisan) source. The term nonpartisan is an opinion, not a fact, and does not belong in the first sentence. NightHeron (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Which quote says they are partisan? Crossroads ^-talk- 13:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Per NightHeron's definition 1 (definition 2 having been shown to be redundant): Monsanto documents show the company commissioned scientists to publish papers rebutting IARC. Reminiscent of tobacco companies, it also funneled money to front groups, according to a plaintiffs’ court filing. The groups, with names such as Genetic Literacy Project and American Council on Science and Health, published articles praising the EPA and attacking IARC, which they called on Congress to defund. –Bloomberg Businessweek

The attacks of the Brussels blogger were also echoed by well-known propaganda websites, such as the American Council on Science and Health and the Genetic Literacy Project. Fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries, the latter published an article about Christopher Portier and IARC signed by Andrew Porterfield, who describes himself quite simply as a “communications consultant for the biotechnology industry.” –Le Monde

Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

By the same token, can one of you point to the language in WP:OR which supports your interpretation that we are forbidden from making basic inferences as a means of establishing consensus in content discussions? I reread the policy and can't find any text that supports it. (For the moment I'll leave aside the issues with opposing editors' argumentation that would result if it were a valid interpretation of policy.) WP:ONUS, on the other hand, is super clear: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question, WP:SYNTH. Personal opinion has been an issue on this talk page in place of sources as discussed previously that is supposed to be dismissed in terms of WP:CONSENSUS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I see where your confusion is, Kingofaces43. WP:SYNTH refers to article content, not to talk page discussions. This is made unequivocal in the WP:OR policy's lead: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. (emphasis added) I hope that this clears things up, and that we can work together to continue to improve the article. Generalrelative (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There was no confusion. We don't use editor personal opinion in place of sources as discussed previously. That is still WP:OR especially if it influences content decisions. As mentioned previously, WP:NOTFORUM is the policy that further clarifies that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're not persuaded by such clear-cut language then I'm not sure what to say. You've asked for sources and I've supplied them, both for policy and for secondarily sourced content. If we can't come to an agreement on what basic policies say then I'm afraid we'll likely have to make recourse to outside adjudicators at every step, as is being done in the RfC below. As I've said before, I'm sure you mean well, but this evident WP:STONEWALLING is quite frustrating behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As discussed previously, those sources didn't gain traction for such use like Le Monde. Please don't confuse that for STONEWALLING. If you are frustrated by how things are supposed to work, this isn't the page to vent on that. As for clear cut policy, let me make it clear from what I cited If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion. That is why I've been repeating that caution related to various content edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hoping to get more editors' input to help break the deadlock, I'm starting an RfC on this. NightHeron (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the word nonpartisan for the Genetic Literacy Project

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to remove the word nonpartisan. Generalrelative (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

---

Should the word nonpartisan be removed from the first sentence of Genetic Literacy Project? That sentence currently reads as follows: The Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that promotes public awareness and discussion of genetics, biotechnology, evolution and science literacy. NightHeron (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

Remove as the OP. The claim that the GLP is nonpartisan is an opinion, not a fact, and so it shouldn't be stated in wikivoice in the opening sentence, per WP:NPOV. Jon Entine, who runs the GLP, belongs to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and many have questioned the accuracy of the GLP's self-description and its slogan "science not ideology". Controversy concerning the objectivity and reliability of the GLP has been covered in multiple RS, including Le Monde, Bloomberg Businessnews, and The Chicago Tribune: [20], [21], [22]. NightHeron (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment Crossroads has placed a non-neutral notification at WP:FTN, asking: Editors with experience with fringe theories, especially as that intersects with the GMO topic area, are requested to weigh in. That inaccurately characterizes the RfC question as being about GMOs, and is clearly inviting editors who might be expected to support the GLP as nonpartisan because of its stand on GMOs. According to WP:CANVASSING, notifications must be neutrally worded and it is not permitted to preselect recipients according to their established opinions. Instructions at WP:RfC concerning notification say: When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC. Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. The claim in the notification that the RfC is somehow about GMOs is a distortion that undermines the RfC process. The same notification also invites those editors to weigh in at the above discussion about merging this article with Jon Entine. The merger question is also not about GMOs. NightHeron (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's rich coming from an editor who only showed up here after Generalrelative canvassed at Talk:Race and intelligence with such neutral language as Currently the article presents the organization as non-partisan and unbiased, while the weight of evidence seems to suggest it is anything but –– with regard to both GMO and genetics-of-racial-difference issues. I'll leave the merits of your accusation for others to judge. And why did you say, it is not permitted to "preselect recipients according to their established opinions."? You seem to be implying that posting a notice at the fringe theory noticeboard is improper. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: My recollection is that it was not Generalrelative's notice at Talk:Race and intelligence, but rather their comment at the AfD/Nathan Cofnas that drew my attention to this article, see [23]. At the time I was following that AfD discussion closely (and later weighing in). Also, by no means am I suggesting that it's improper to post a notice at FTN. I was taking issue with the non-neutral wording. The notice [24] that I put at NPOVN was brief and neutral, as per WP:RFC. NightHeron (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I see that I was wrong to identify GMO as a major concern with GLP in that post. As a relatively new editor I've learned a great deal about the process of negotiating contentious and preexisting controversies through my ongoing attempts to make progress on this article. The real issue with the way GLP was presented in the article at that time had nothing to do with GMO science but rather with its self-presentation going unchallenged, especially given the existence of critical allegations published in RS. We're still working on that core issue of WP:BALANCE, clearly, but at least much of the former POV-puffery is now gone. If my post was an example of canvassing, I'll try to learn from the mistake and work on more neutral ways to draw editors into a discussion in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate this, thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove while non-partisan usually means "free from party affiliation, bias, or designation" (Webster's)[25] the term could leave readers with the impression that it has no political bias. In fact it promotes the use of GMO food. Note that this position is supported by the majority of politicians in both political parties, but has opposition among the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Ironically, there is an overlap between the GLC and climate change denial. TFD (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The safety of GMO food is a scientific matter, not a political one, as it is a fact, not a government policy. Likewise, the reality of climate change is a scientific matter, not a political one, and an organization can be both non-partisan and support the science. I see no evidence of overlap between the GLP and climate change denial. But it would be helpful for participants to keep in mind that GMO safety denialism is actually analogous to climate change denialism, but with the political polarity reversed. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    That is exactly how it is. Framing anti-GMO folks as "progressive" is a pretty bizarre way of putting it, BTW. They are just as anti-science as climate change deniers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have replied in the discussion section below.TFD (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove The answer for this question comes down to what these discussions always should come down to but instead often obscure: follow the sources. Most of the points raised above about connections to other organizations and "denialism" are useless fluff and do not help answer the question. The article gives four sources for the claim, "...is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that promotes..." One is a self-cite, one is a research guide from the library of a college, one is an opinion piece. That leaves one actual independent, reliable source for the sentence: Rochman's Washington Post article. The full description given in the only RS cited for the organization is: "a group dedicated to increasing the public’s understanding of gene research". That doesn't take any stand on the partisanship of the organization and neither should we. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, four sources were never cited to that. They were all just at the end of the sentence as normal formatting. This was the only source relevant to the question at hand and presented that way because people were fine with the text as long as a source was there at the time. If someone wants to say "science journalist Anthes described it as X", that was always an option if the opinion matter was an issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove. +1 to NightHeron and Eggishorn above. I'll add that Entine, the sole arbiter of content on GLP, has certainly weighed into political controversies from a decidedly anti-regulatory and race-realist perspective. For an example of the first, see his book Let Them Eat Precaution: How Politics is Undermining the Genetic Revolution. (If you think that critiquing "politics" is inherently apolitical, I would direct you to [[26]]) For an example of the second, see his book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It, which was described by the biological anthropologist Jonathan M. Marks as "make-believe genetics applied to naively conceptualized groups of people." Entine's decision to publish the notorious white supremacist Kevin B. MacDonald (and create a false balance by publishing as the other party in the debate another race realist, Nathan Cofnas, as discussed above in this talk page) on the GLP website just adds clarity to the picture. Given this anti-regulatory and race-realist bent, it is no wonder that the John Templeton Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation, both of which are widely perceived to have right-leaning biases as discussed in their respective articles, are two of the GLP's three major funders. Generalrelative (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove I find Eggishorn's argument persuasive. Non-partisan is a fluffy term that could have a very weak meaning (not officially affiliated with any political party) or a strong one (e.g., demonstrably willing to criticize politicians from any party). Using the term without sources to back up in detail what it means invites equivocation between these senses and serves our readers poorly. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove As Crossroads said above, GMOs are a scientific question, and "partisan" is part of a political vocabulary that would shift the subject in an arena where it does not belong. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. Forget for a moment whether they are or are not nonpartisan; to be in the very first sentence a descriptor has to be a defining attribute. I would go farther and remove "that promotes public awareness and discussion of genetics, biotechnology, evolution and science literacy" as being PR fluff. I wouldn't go as far as sourcewatch and call them " a corporate front group that was formerly funded by Monsanto"[27] but I think "a non-profit organization that promotes the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)" would be an accurate description. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• No real preference. The original issue from before this talk page was really active was that non-partisan wasn't sourced. I just added in the source as requested, and Anthes is a science journalist[28] from what I could see in searching appeared to be reputable as an expert in the area. I didn't really care much whether the language itself was in there or not since it wasn't really a big deal. The later issue was not having sources that really refuted that over personal unpublished opinion on the talk page though. The Bloomberg source says nothing about GLP having a partisan bent or really even hinting,[29], and the Chicago trib source is the same.[30]. The "Monsanto Papers" related source is WP:FRINGE stuff related to litigation attorneys (more at FTN)and is pretty much automatically undue considering how we decided to barely use mention of the group with extreme care at related pages[31]. In the end, it was sourced as requested, and when there were claims it actually was partisan, they weren't really substantiated in sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Those with the time and interest can read through the talk page above to judge for themselves whether this statement accurately summarizes the discussion thus far. I would suggest it does not. In particular, nothing about the "Monsanto Papers" piece in Le Monde is WP:FRINGE. Legitimate objections above have focused on the authors' apparently hyperbolic use of the term "propaganda website" to refer to GLP, but no one has suggested quoting that language in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

On Le Monde, it was discussed at FTN as linked in that regard, and we discussed its lack of use on this talk page. If you wish to make general comments about my !vote, please do so in the discussion section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove as fluff not supported by the sources (as Eggishorn notes) and not defining (as Guy Macon notes). -sche (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as ambiguous and more trouble than it's worth. Maybe not partisan in terms of two party US politics (though no-one is saying its bipartisan) but certainly partisan in the politics of the issue. Sounds like that which puffeth up. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per the many clear reasons given above. --JBL (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove - it seems more a lack than a dominant feature or that they have any commitment to staying non-partisan, and it is not mentioned so seems UNDUE to give prominence to the matter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Crossroads, Hob Gadling: As I mentioned above, there is an overlap between the GLP and climate change denial. The founder of the GLP, Jon Entine, was a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute,[32] which promotes climate change skepticism. Apparently the GLP received funding from Monsanto: Bayer which bought Monsanto said they stopped funding them.

The food safety issue is only one of a number of controversies over GMO. Even if they are right on this, juries have recently awarded millions of dollars to people claiming that glyphosate, which is the herbicide used for GMO crops, causes cancer. The main use of GMO products is animal feed used in intensive farming, cooking oil used in preparing fast foods and high-fructose corn syrup, used in soft drinks. Others object to government subsidies of foods contributing to obesity and its related illnesses.

See: "Omega-3 GMO canola oil, poised to reduce over-fishing, ready for sale into global aquaculture market." Here the GLP rightly points out that replacing fish with canola oil as a source for Omega 3 will reduce over-fishing of anchovies and herrings. But it leaves out how salmon farming is destroying fish stocks through loss of habitat for wild fish, such as wild salmon. The objective is not improving scientific literacy, but promoting an industry. When science supports their arguments they will use it; when it does not they will ignore it.

Also, if GMO is not a political issue, then why do we describe the site as non-partisan? We wouldn't for example describe an astronomy website as non-partisan, even if it debunks misconceptions.

TFD (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You say there's an overlap with climate change, but that's looking like WP:OR so far on this talk page. I haven't seen anything in sources stating such. As for the article you cite, to be clear, that wasn't originally posted by the GLP, but as part of its aggregation that used a agriculture newspaper.[33] Of course a farming publication is going to have a more narrow scope, especially when they already established they wanted to replace salmon farming anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." It is a reasonable conclusion without evidence to the contrary that a person who was a fellow of a politically biased think thank shares their political objectives. I didn't see any articles by him defending climate change scientists on the American Enterprise Institute website or opposing any of their other political views. Even though the salmon article is a repost, it's an example of what types of article they choose to repost. Do they repost articles from reliable sources that are critical of the GMO industry? TFD (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The point is that the term non-partisan has two meanings and its not clear what the sources mean. I accept that they are not pro-Democratic or pro-Republican. But clearly they are industry funded and their objective is to defend the industry. Do you disagree with that statement? TFD (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "GMO industry", any more than there is a "climate change socialist plot". Any sources promoting the idea of either are WP:Fringe. Agribusiness exists, of course, but so does the organic food industry (worth tens of billions), and agribusiness is not GMO science, just like Big Government is not climate science. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact GMO products are being produced: soy, corn, canola, cotton. And it needs both public and government support in order to succeed. That's why the GLP exists. This isn't something that might happen well in the future. TFD (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to be a broken record or anything (since I've mentioned this in the talk page above), but WP:OR states very clearly in the first paragraph: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Indeed, comparing and contrasting well sourced facts seems to me like an indispensable part of establishing consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're proposing to remove a sourced statement based on personal synthesis, that's a proposal to add OR to the article, which we can call OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, Crossroads, but that interpretation doesn't appear (from what I've seen) to be based in the policy itself. The sentence I quoted makes explicit mention of evaluating article content as an exception to the prohibition on OR. I'll emphasize that I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something here; just wanting to note that I don't find the rationale as stated to be persuasive. Generalrelative (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

juries have recently awarded millions of dollars to people claiming that glyphosate, which is the herbicide used for GMO crops, causes cancer But according to pretty much every scientific organization, it does not. Only a group of people in the WHO, using clearly innumerate definitions, believes it does. So, on this point too, GLP and science are on the same side, and "progressives" plus some Wikipedia editors are on the other. Oh yes, and lawyers. Pfft. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You are leaving out why government should spend billions of dollars subsidizing an industry whose main contribution is food high in calories and fat. TFD (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see no connection with anything discussed here. Are you trying to switch to another subject where you are on the right side? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned it above at 21:45, 11 July 2020 "Others object to government subsidies of foods contributing to obesity and its related illnesses." Can you explain how science is on the side of government subsidies? TFD (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• On partisan meaning. It looks like there's some confusion over what partisan can mean. The idea that advocacy ≠ partisan (but partisan generally = advocacy) is a thing. There's no doubt this is an advocacy group. There's a lot of guidance out there on how advocacy groups can also be non-partisan though.[34] Basically, we can't default to advocacy being partisan. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• You are saying that since non-partisan can mean does not support either party, we can mislead readers into believing that they do not have a political agenda. Why would we want to do that? TFD (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Please remember WP:ASPERSIONS. I said nothing about misleading readers. We already make it clear what they advocate on (as should be done for any non-partisan advocacy group). As I said above, I only added the source that said non-partisan at a request and don't really consider it a big deal one way or another (still not sure how this became an RfC). I'm just clarifying parts as we go.

That said, we're talking about partisan as an adjective here. The gist of all dictionary definitions boils down to a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance[35]. Other definitions use blind adherence. If there were sources saying they were prejudiced or unreasoning in support of GMOs, etc. (a really high bar given the science) then I'd have no problems with claims they are partisan on the talk page. Personal opinions in place of such sources though don't belong in terms of content policy though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that anyone who reads the above section #Non-partisan? will see why this became an RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need to say that it's partisan, it just needs not to say that it's non-partisan. Not all articles' subjects need to be described as one or the other! GPinkerton (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether they should be called partisan, but whether they should be called non-partisan. I would not call them partisan for the same reason I would not call them non-partisan: the term has various meanings as you mentioned such as firm adherence to a party and prejudiced and unreasoning in support of a cause. We don't want to mislead readers by using ambiguous language. TFD (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this? Everybody seems to agree it should be removed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there is clear consensus, I'll go ahead and close per WP:RFCEND. Generalrelative (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed sentence on allegations

Since discussion surrounding the presentation of allegations against the GLP has been contentious, I'd like to propose a sentence here before adding it to the article. This is a revision of the much-debated sentence I proposed above, modified by subsequent reflection:

News organizations have drawn attention to allegations that the GLP works in coordination with the biotechnology industry in its public relations efforts.

Sources

In my view, this sentence represents a real compromise between the various positions debated above. It makes note of the allegations in a general way and cites the RS without taking sides on their veracity or dwelling on them in depth. I would further suggest that this sentence could take the place of the current final paragraph which focuses on USRTK (which consensus has determined is unreliable). Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be putting the cart before the horse in terms of why propose a change in the first place? As discussed many times previously, this would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE given the previous reasoning given for wanting the changes. Not to mention you're still trying to using Le Monde, and issues with that have been discussed here and at FTN. Overgeneralizing to remove due criticism of the claims is a policy issue. Since the claims haven't been substantiated and have even been contradicted, we can't engage in leading language like that. In order for such a statement to be due, there needs to be actual coordination to criticize, not just requests to cover general topics.

The current version already appropriately handles this very unambiguously:

The US Right to Know, an advocacy group funded in large part by the Organic Consumers Association, raised concerns after the GLP ran a series of articles in 2014 supportive of crop biotechnology after the scientists had been encouraged to do so by American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto. The GLP stated Tthe authors were not paid for their articles and the GLP had control of the writing and editing process. _{tweaks to wikivoice made}

It starts off by acknowledging that USRTK engaged in the barrage FOIA requests on US scientists where this originated for their PR. We are supposed to be cautious when writing about Climategate type PR things by organizations where emails are easily cherry-picked. There are more details we could get into as to how that process with USTRK is linked to this, but that's largely outside of the scope of this article. The sources on GLP mention that the USTRK emails are where the claims came from, so that background is sufficiently there in sources for readers too without getting into the weeds for this article. Those sources on funding are also there due to previous requests to have sources for that statement.

It appropriately documents groups outlining what actually happened, and has the required WP:DUE that there wasn't any payment or control by the company. If you want to bring up the allegations, you have to include that last part in terms of policy. Otherwise, we're violating WP:GEVAL policy by giving validity to the Monsanto shill gambit trope that is pervasive in the topic even by generalizing. We cannot override that part of policy here. If there are issues with the current version, that needs to be discussed and grain traction first, but I haven't seen anything so far that would say there are sourcing issues with the current version to entirely scrap it. If there are good edits to propose that don't sacrifice precision, those should be proposed, but we're at a point where needed change hasn't been demonstrated. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the passage in its present form is not okay. It's in clear violation of WP:NPOV, since it states in wikivoice that The authors were not paid for their articles and the GLP had control of the writing and editing process. There is no independent verification of that. The Chicago Tribune cites Entine/GLP for the statement. A self-sourced justification like that at the very least needs to be attributed. In addition, sources noted that Monsanto was a client of Entine's consultancy company (and that's simply a fact that can be verified from the archived website of the company). So there's a COI on both sides. But the passage strives to give the impression that the COI is only on the USRTK side. NightHeron (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

On Wikivoice, you know there's an easy fix for that right? At the time, those statements were reported uncritically, so it was used in wikivoice.

As for the rest on claiming COI, that was a BLP violation further up and a WP:BLPPRIMARY danger of going beyond sources as editors. Entine already clarified how their were listed on ESG and was clear the only funding he ever related to Monsanto was way back in 2003 or so for a $2,000 project and that he never had funding to do with them since. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Then we should include both the fact that Monsanto was a "Client" of his company (per the company website and the USRTK allegation) and then also include Entine's response that you're citing. Where did Entine say that? (I'd like to read what he said.) Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's at his BLP and has been in sources since 2012. That is why I cautioned against BLP violations and making assumptions about sources. Just a note that talk page consensus over time is that the source (Philpott) needs to be used extremely carefully due to POV issues discussed elsewhere. As for including all that, we shouldn't be jumping to include the USRTK allegation like that. Entine already clarified they weren't such a major client even well before GLP. We are getting into BLP issues otherwise to a degree, and the GLP statement of no involvement already takes care of it for this page. Entine and ESG stuff belongs over on his BLP instead. The focus of content on this page is GLP and being asked to write articles. We can't get into side speculation about the ESG stuff here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see the statement and date. But I'm confused. The webarchive of Entine's company's website [36] is dated May 2012, and it lists Monsanto under "select clients". The quotation in Entine's BLP says that the last affiliation with Monsanto was 9 years earlier and that "That’s the entirety of my Monsanto relationship." Do you understand what Entine means? Isn't "select client" an affiliation and a relationship?

The relevance to this article is that both ESG and GLP were Entine's creations and run by him. A company can influence a non-profit not only directly, but also indirectly, if the director of the non-profit also runs a company that depends upon consultancies. NightHeron (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That article quote was basically saying Monsanto was listed on the website related to that ~2003 relationship. It's not really in our purview to discuss what the criteria were for including companies on that page beyond that, but Entine was clear there was no relationship as GLP was started when you follow the timeline. As a slight side note, it looks like the website wasn't significantly updated after 2011 (at least the copyright notice) until it went defunct. There is at least the appearance that consulting stopped around then, especially based on the no consulting statements on the GLP website, but if we were going to have a statement at the BLP page on the years he was active with ESG, we'd need a source on that.

As for the second point, that wouldn't really be relevant to this conversation because it's more personal speculation, and Entine directly contradicted it as well. As mentioned previously there need to be actual sources demonstrating that such a link. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if US Right to Know is unreliable and has cherry-picked sources, that only prevents us from citing them. It does not prevent us from relaying what has been reported in reliable secondary sources such as news media. They decide if the allegations are credible and worth mentioning. TFD (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This was my thinking as well. Generalrelative (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, do you have any quotes from sources that form a basis of what we want to say? The problem I have with your phrasing is that if allegations are mentioned we should mention who has made them and if they are facts we should not report them as allegations. There's no need either to begin with "News organizations have drawn attention to." TFD (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I've summarized the allegations below. And I'll be happy to revise the language based on whatever consensus we can arrive at.

1) The Chicago Tribune article is about Monsanto Co.'s undisclosed recruitment of scientists from Harvard University, Cornell University and three other schools to write about the benefits of plant biotechnology. It reports that emails obtained by USRTK under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Eric Sachs, who leads Monsanto's scientific outreach, wrote to eight scientists to pen a series of briefs aimed at influencing "public policy, GM crop regulation and consumer acceptance" and that those five who accepted published their articles in the GLP. The article quotes further emails from Sachs to participating scientists where he says "I need to step aside so I don't compromise the project" and "I am keenly aware that your independence and reputations must be protected". The article goes on to quote a lobbyist for the Environmental Working Group who says "It says something that Monsanto can't defend the safety of their own products, that they have to resort to hiring a PR consultant and get academics to spin the science" and then Jon Entine defending the whole thing: "I got independent articles written by independent professors," Entine said Tuesday by phone. "I ended up working with the professors to edit their pieces and I had total control over the final product. There is nothing to disclose." The issue here, in brief, is that the "recruitment" was "undisclosed" (i.e. despite Entine's denial that such lack of disclosure should be newsworthy). Note too that several other RS newspapers covered this story (e.g. [[37]] and [[38]], belying Entine's point) but this appears to be the only one which mentioned the GLP explicitly.

2) The Le Monde article (winner of the European Press Prize in the category Investigative Reporting in 2018) focuses on efforts to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in the wake of its ruling that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic". Its title refers to the "Monsanto Papers" -a collection of the company's internal documents that a U.S. court started to make public in early 2017 as part of ongoing lawsuits. I won't go into all of the "Intimidating maneuvers" it describes (and the scientists it quotes objecting to these maneuvers). What's relevant here is that it reports how the GLP published an article arguing that the IARC "should be abolished" by Andrew Porterfield, who describes himself quite simply as a "communications consultant for the biotechnology industry." In this case the allegation is from the reporters themselves, who characterize the GLP as a well-known propaganda website that is Fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries. While that phrasing is too hyperbolic to appear in WP, a neutrally worded reference to the allegation itself is not.

3) The relevant part of the Bloomberg Businessweek article is about a District Court case on whether Monsanto was negligent for not having a warning label on Roundup. Similarly to the Le Monde article, it reports that Monsanto documents show the company commissioned scientists to publish papers rebutting IARC. It goes on to describe the plaintiff's filing in the case, and in so doing brings in GLP's alleged involvement in Monsanto's PR efforts: Reminiscent of tobacco companies, it also funneled money to front groups, according to a plaintiffs' court filing. The groups, with names such as Genetic Literacy Project and American Council on Science and Health, published articles praising the EPA and attacking IARC, which they called on Congress to defund. The plaintiffs claim that Monsanto established a program called Let Nothing Go, through which it made payments to people with no apparent industry ties to post online comments defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs in news articles and Facebook posts. The article quotes Monsanto as denying this, but goes on to substantiate the rationale and context for the plaintiff's allegation. (For additional context, it may be worth noting that Monsanto did lose this case. Though according to the judge the plaintiff did not establish that glyphosate causes cancer, Monsanto was nonetheless found liable for failure to properly investigate its risks and warn the public about their potential, conduct which the judge described as "reprehensible". See [[39]] and [[40]].)

Finally, since it's become a perennial issue on this talk page, I'll emphasize that I do not think this article should state or imply anything about the safety of GMOs or glyphosate. I believe that it is possible (and necessary) to report the allegations in a neutral way given that they are the focus of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Generalrelative (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not an improvement per Kingofaces43's detailed explanation above. And this page cannot become a WP:POV fork to advance anti-GMO talking points about Monsanto and so forth, even under the reasoning that 'oh, we're just talking about GLP'. This is per WP:PROFRINGE and WP:GEVAL. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate, it is possible (and necessary) to report these allegations in a neutral way without implying anything about the safety of GMOs or glyphosate. Failing to do so would be cherry-picking sources and failing to apply WP:DUE. These sources together represent the majority of reliable secondary discussion of the GLP and make no claims that can reasonably be considered WP:FRINGE. Further, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone here is seeking to advance anti-GMO talking points (as NightHeron, Dialectric and I have insisted since the beginning). Generalrelative (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of editor motive, presenting it that way has the effect of giving undue weight to a Climategate-esque fringe POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I hear your concern and I see that it comes from a real desire to protect WP from harmful content. I just wonder if some who have been in the trenches fighting Climategate-esque fringe POV for so long may be seeing it where it doesn't exist. That's why I'm hoping we can get some fresh eyes on this topic –– experienced editors who are not yet heavily invested in related issues. Any suggestions on where to post a neutral invitation about this beyond FTN would be very welcome, by the way. Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, the fact is, a substantial group of people desperately want glyphosate to be carcinogenic because that gives them something tangible with which to attack "Monsatan" now that the evidence sows unambiguously that GMOs are safe. They hold Monsanto responsible for them being wrong (rather like certain other popular entertainment characters we could name). And yes, this article is going to be turned into a proxy for that. Guy (help!) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative, none of these stories say that the GLP worked in coordination with the industry. In the first case, Monsanto enouraged scientists to submit papers to the GLP which edited and published them. There is no suggestion that Monsanto asked them to do this. Incidentally, I would reword the paragraph. The fact that the GLP published these papers is more important than the fact that Right to Know found them information and should be mentioned first. By mentioning Right to Know first, it questions whether the information is accurate.

The second article and third sources say that the GLP published an article discrediting the IARC, which was under attack by industry for its claim that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic. it also mentions an accusation by plaintiffs that the industry provides funding to the GLP. (If this is a proven fact then we should say so.)

While it's clear to anyone reading their site that they are an industry mouthpiece, similar to the pro-gun, pro-tobacco and climate change skepticism organizations, we can't actually say that. Mentioning that they published pro-industry papers tells us nothing because academic journals do the same thing provided they meet publishing standards. The sources don't say that they don't publish anti-industry papers as well. We lack sufficient reliable sources to produce an informative article. It's probably best to merge the article into Jon Entwhistle. It's not as if Wikipedia is the only source of information readers have available to them.

The defenders of the GLP have a point - unlike similar organizations in support of the oil, tobacco and firearms industry, they don't have to cherry-pick or falsify scientific findings. Instead they leverage the consensus that GMO is not harmful to advocate government legislation and funding to aid GMO.

TFD (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's why I proposed a merger above. Regarding the rest, I'll just reiterate that my goal was to show (as requested) that the three sources support the wording I suggested at the top of this section, and it's still evident to me that they do. The allegations are of coordination, which is clearly alleged in all three pieces, and not about the safety of GMO –– or glyphosate. Generalrelative (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

For brevity, I'll just mention the first case. There is nothing in what you quoted that says there was coordination. Monsanto encouraged scientists to submit articles to the GLP, which edited and published them. I could encourage you to submit a paper to the Harvard Law Review which they then edit and publish. That doesn't mean I coordinated with the editors. There is no evidence that Entine was aware that Monsanto had encouraged the scientists or that he had any contact with Monsanto over the decision to publish. In fact that would have been unneccessary, since the GLP's raison d'etre is to publish pro-industry material. TFD (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

In that first case, Entine claims "I got independent articles written by independent professors". That seems to me like a clear admission that he was an agent in what the article describes as undisclosed recruitment of scientists. Apologies if I hadn't made that clear. Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And for your reference (not suggesting this should go in the article, or that it's even necessary to make this case), here is one of the primary documents referred to in that article: [[41]]. It's two emails from Erich Sachs, who leads Monsanto's scientific outreach according to the article. The first states that the GLP is now the primary outlet and ... is building a merchandising plan with CMA. (emphasis added) CMA, as you'll recall from the article is the PR firm working with Monsanto. The second email states Jon will develop lead-in verbiage that will position the series. He will also have a short lead-in paragraph to each brief. There will also be a thumbnail of the .pdf that readers can click on and download the formatted version. He’ll be working to get this all in place this week, and is planning to join us on this Thursday’s regular call to talk through it. (again, emphasis added) None of this primarily-sourced stuff is necessary, though, since Entine is quoted in the Chicago Tribune stating that he "got" the articles written per Monsanto's request and then didn't disclose the request, which is the substance of the article's allegation. Generalrelative (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Minor correction, TFD. It's Jon Entine, not Entwhistle. We would definitely not want to say that The Who coordinated with Monsanto. :-) NightHeron (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What Chicago Tribune article is it? There is a link to "How Monsanto mobilized academics to pen articles supporting GMOs" BY JACK KASKEY and BLOOMBERG, but it doesn't quote Entine discussing his conversations with Monsanto. TFD (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's my citation #1: [[42]] It was written by Kaskey for Bloomberg but the Chicago Tribune published the non-paywall version, which is why I've been referring to it preferentially. Upon reflection I see that Entine saying that he got independent articles written by independent professors could mean that he received the articles (as in "he got them in the mail") rather than that he played a role in soliciting them (as in "he got the articles written"). Is that what you were thinking? That reading hadn't occurred to me but I suppose it's a valid possibility. If others think that this is the meaning here then I'll be happy to retract this source and proceed with the other two. Though the emails upon which this article was based do clearly show coordination between Sachs and Entine (and therefore Monsanto and GLP), the author didn't choose to make that explicit. The article does imply that the decision not to disclose was the GLP's when it says Folta said he has no problem were the Genetic Literacy Project to disclose Monsanto's role in the series but I suppose that's weak-sauce when compared to the force of opposition here. Generalrelative (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can use the emails except to the extent they have been reported in secondary sources. I don't think Le Monde article, "Monsanto Papers" says anything useful: "The attacks...were also echoed by well-known propaganda websites, such as ...the Genetic Literacy Project. Fed by PR people linked to the pesticides and biotechnology industries, [they] published an article about Christopher Portier and IARC signed by Andrew Porterfield, who describes himself quite simply as a “communications consultant for the biotechnology industry.” I don't have a link to the Bloomberg Businessweek article, but from what has been quoted it merely says that the GLC receives money from the industry and publishes stories friendly to them. While both facts should be mentioned, we cannot draw any connection. Obviously Entwile publishes an industry friendly website and they fund him. But we don't know what if any communication occurs between them. TFD (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding not being able to use the emails, I agree. That's why I said so in the parenthesis before introducing them, and emphasized in my comment just above that the author of the Chicago Tribune article didn't mention them explicitly. But of course we do know that Entine coordinated with industry in that instance because of those emails. There's no ambiguity about it. We just can't discuss it in the article because it would constitute WP:OR. Regarding Bloomberg Businessweek, it's linked in my initial comment for this section. But it only mentions the GLP once and I quoted that in full under 3) above. Generalrelative (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

A minor point in the last sentence

I have tried to correct a minor point for accuracy in the last sentence but have been reverted by Kingofaces43, so I'm starting another section to discuss it. It seems onerous to me to have to turn even minor points like this into in-depth textual exegesis but that's clearly the state of things at this point so here goes.

The sentence currently reads: The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles and the GLP had control of the writing and editing process.

I tried to change it to: The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles, and Entine claimed total control of the writing and editing process.

In reverting, Kingofaces43 stated: Not "accurate" as the last edit summary put it. The source clearly states the group made a statement on this. Please stop trying to reinsert this language when it hasn't gained consensus.

The first relevant quote from the article is: Monsanto Co.'s undisclosed recruitment of scientists from Harvard University, Cornell University and three other schools to write about the benefits of plant biotechnology is drawing fire from opponents. The company's role isn't noted in the series of articles published in December by the Genetic Literacy Project, a nonprofit group that says its mission is "to disentangle science from ideology." The group said that such a disclosure isn't necessary because the the company didn't pay the authors and wasn't involved in writing or editing the articles. (emphasis added)

That quote supports the first clause, i.e. The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles. Note that it makes no mention of the GLP exercising control; it just denies that Monsanto did. (The "company" here is evidently Monsanto, not the GLP, since the claim is that it wasn't involved, and we see below that Entine, who runs the GLP, was.)

The second relevant quote is: John Entine, the executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, also defended the handling of the articles. "I got independent articles written by independent professors," Entine said Tuesday by phone. "I ended up working with the professors to edit their pieces and I had total control over the final product. There is nothing to disclose." (again, emphasis added)

That quote supports the second clause, i.e. and Entine claimed total control of the writing and editing process. Note that it quotes Entine claiming that he exercised this control directly.

There are only two other mentions of the GLP in the article, and neither refers to the topic in question. If anyone can see a reason why my version of the sentence is indeed not accurate, please let me know. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your version is accurate, and the current version is not. NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that your version is accurate, and clearly supported by the refs. Hopefully Kingofaces43 with self-revert so we will not have to have an rfc over so minor a detail.Dialectric (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well--this is perfectly clear. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Good to hear that I'm not completely crazy. Generalrelative (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

just 'total control of the editing process' is closer to the source. He selected the writers, but didn't write the articles for them.Dialectric (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I'd change it but wouldn't want to run afoul of 1RR, which I'm aware is zealously enforced here. Edit: Just saw that you did it. Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the initial reverts were done due to inappropriate reverts. In short, the piece that the GLP had editorial control was reverted as inaccurate even though such a claim was misleading. Whether GLP or Entine alone had editorial oversight didn't matter since Entine is acting as part of GLP there. We've also been dealing with WP:POV violations at this article sometimes hyper-focusing on Entine above to the point we need to be careful about a WP:COATRACK effect.

We also have to be careful about cherrypicking of Entine's "total control" comment as discussed previously. WP:CLAIM comes into play there. I would remind editors that consensus is needed when edits are disputed like that, and that it requires grounding in policy, not simply agreement that a few editors want it. I also added a bit that Entine said on there being nothing to disclose, which we do need from a WP:DUE perspective as well as to avoid WP:BLP violations due to previous insinuations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No one has supported your repeated framing of other editors' good faith edits as 'violations'. Your repeated description of others edits or comments as violations is borderline WP:Battleground. Please stop doing this or take it to an admin noticeboard.Dialectric (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, Kingofaces43 advances an argument based entirely on personal feelings while dismissing consensus based on textual exegesis as agreement that a few editors want it. Simply name-dropping policies like WP:DUE and WP:BLP doesn't amount to a persuasive argument if one is unwilling to lay out one's reasoning in a persuasive manner. Generalrelative (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

With regard to WP:CLAIM, the guideline calls for extra care because To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. However there doesn't seem to be any danger of that here. Specifically, we don't say that Eninte "claimed that he had total control"; we say "Entine claimed total control", which is simply economical English. As the guideline's header states, WP:CLAIM is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. That said, I'm far less invested in issues of style like this than I am with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, and I'll be happy to be persuaded. Generalrelative (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not just say WP:say. AIRcorn (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason is stylistic. Compare:

The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles, and Entine claimed total control of the editing process.

with

The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles, and Entine said that he had total control of the editing process.

The latter is simply awkward. But as stated above, I'm far less invested in issues of style like this than I am with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, so if others think that sticking to the letter of WP:CLAIM is paramount, I'll be happy to go along. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm still not persuaded that this sentence even belongs in the article since it seems to misdirect from the nature of the COI claimed by USRTK, as discussed above. But for now, incremental improvements (along with reasoned objections to edits that would worsen existing WP:NPOV issues) are fine with me. Generalrelative (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes NPOV trumps style every time. Anyway there are other ways to say said. e.g The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles, with Entine adding/saying/stating/remarking/mentioning... that he had total control of the editing process. AIRcorn (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll go ahead and make a change along those lines. Generalrelative (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's in WP:FIXIT territory if someone just wants a synonym. Help:Reverting#Before_reverting has some guidance on that rather than blanket reverting.

Also Generalrelative, this edit was recently removed claiming no consensus. I see no mention of it on the talk page in order to claim that. I mentioned BLP because we had insinuations about Entine discussed on this talk page, so we need to be careful about leaving similar insinuations open in content like that. We've already had discussion on this talk page that this generally isn't something to disclose, so there really isn't an argument that it's somehow undue either. The point is that the source saw fit to quote that much, so there is a point where context of the entire statement matters. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it's not as though we haven't gone over WP:ONUS before: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus doesn't exist until it's created, so saying I see no mention of it on the talk page in order to claim "no consensus" seems to me to misrepresent of how WP:BRD works. That said I'll assume good faith (and simply sloppy language use) and reinsert your content without the hard wikivoice that I saw as causing additional WP:POV issues once 24 hours has elapsed since my last edits. We can revisit the larger debate over WP:DUE WP:BALANCE another time.

If someone else would like to do it in the meantime, I'd suggest:

The GLP said the authors were not paid for their articles. Entine remarked that he had total control of the editing process and that there was nothing to disclose.

Generalrelative (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Based on your comment, you're suggesting you reverted primarily because I hadn't gotten consensus for new content here first, that is not how it works and is not what has been explained about how ONUS, etc. works. There needs to be a substantive reason to revert an addition like that out.

What is odd is that you comment about hard wikivoice when that wasn't used at all. Entine's comment was just paraphrased within the comment about what he said like we are supposed to. Nothing was in Wikivoice (just saying Entine said this and that), and what you're suggesting above is substantively no different than what you reverted out. If you wanted slightly different phrasing as you indicate above, that is not a reason to blanket revert, so I am asking again what your reason was. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Um, first of all, didn't you just (immediately below) respond to Dialectric asking you to relax by telling them to WP:FOC? And then you respond to me with two paragraphs about supposed wrongdoing despite my evident willingness to compromise with you? Laying aside the bewildering WP:HYPOCRISY one has to wade through when dealing with you, I'll reply that, no, I have not suggested that I reverted you primarily because you hadn't gotten consensus for new content here first. I reverted you, as my edit summary stated, because putting such a clause in wikivoice exacerbates current WP:NPOV issues. Despite how repetitive this issue has become, I'll go on assuming that you're not misrepresenting what I or other editors have said intentionally.

Regarding your question, the answer is very simple: In the sentence as you'd written it, Entine said he had total control of the editing process, so there was no disclosure to be made, the second clause, so there was no disclosure to be made reads as an independent conclusion in wikivoice because of the conjunction of the comma and the word "so". Reading it as subsumed under Entine said is grammatically plausible but unlikely to be a first-time reader's sense on their first read-through, and therefore adds to existing WP:NPOV issues with the paragraph. (To get even deeper into the weeds here, because, I mean, you asked, the logical relationship between the clauses denoted by the word "so" is not contained in the article, so represents unacceptable WP:SYNTH). I hope this clears up the issue for you. Generalrelative (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

First, please slow down. I've been discussing content and related procedural discussion focused on that except when trying to briefly steer people back to content (as opposed to a WP:NPA2 situation). I wouldn't be discussing that now if it hadn't been brought up, so I just ask the same.

As another procedural note, please follow WP:THREAD on these article talk pages. I've had to fix threading a few times now. This reply is an example of how to set an outdent in the correct position since there is a separate reply below. If you have further questions on how that works, a user talk page would probably be the better venue.

As I mentioned before, no wikivoice was being used by any reasonable read, so that claim was dismissed. Normally if WP:VOICE changes (e.g., Entine to Wikipedia), there is a full sentence stop, while continuing it has some sort of continuance like conjunctions semicolons, etc. Even the version you added is functionally no different than what I added in that regard. Originally in my edit, a semicolon was used to distinguish GLP's base quote compared to Entine's, and the comma was used to paraphrase separate sentences while still indicating Entine said both ideas accurately in terms of WP:PARAPHRASE. At the end of the day, the source was documenting that GLP/Entine said in response to the question of why there wasn't disclosure that authors were not paid, regular editorial oversight occurred, and there was nothing to discuss in terms of disclosure with those reasons in mind. There's nothing particularly controversial there. This isn't really something to continue a content dispute over though since it ended up being so minor of a change compared to my original edit. I'll add the quotes to the citations though as recommended though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dialectric, please WP:FOC. I've been focusing on content policy or guideline violations. That we've had repeated issues that led to requests at noticeboards that originally brought me back here isn't something to remark towards me about here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)