Talk:Organic Consumers Association

Cut & Paste Not Cool

The topic is an organization focused on an important issue, including its advocacy in that regard. That is good, and important, but that importance is not license to cut & paste the screed from their website here in Wikipedia. In fact, from an advocacy standpoint, it comes across as shrill and marginalizes their message. ENeville 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Absent any input, I removed the cut & pasted material. I endeavored to replace it, but couldn't find much third party info on OCA. ENeville 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms missing

I question WP:NPOV here. The extensive list of campaigns suggests a member of the Organic Consumer's Association is tasked with keeping it up to date. While I would not want to copy the text of the rationalwiki page on the Organic Consumer's Association verbatim, some of their criticisms seem to have merit and could be included in a WP:Criticism section. I don't have enough experience to make this call, so I'm putting this here for discussion. I'm happy to prepare a draft of the proposed addition if this seems reasonable and post it here for advance consideration.

Wurdeh (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Criticism page that you linked to specifically says that editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism. The fact that the OCA's campaigns are listed here does not mean that anyone is tasked with keeping it up to date. As a consumer advocacy organization, the OCA's existence is centered around its campaigns. The rationalwiki page is laughably biased and looks like it was written by Monsanto PR people, so copying their text verbatim would definitely be a violation of WP:NPOV. I wouldn't think a draft is necessary, but if there are specific criticisms that you think should be included in this article, please be sure they are reliably sourced and try to incorporate them into the article rather than making a separate section. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 10:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning this up has been a long-term project for me for a while, so if you draft something up I'll be glad to pitch in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it true the OCA is "anti-vax"? I can't find a reliable source but it's pretty damning an accusation if true. Sorry I forgot my password again... ugh. 81.97.100.208 (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Too much like an ad, ignores counterarguments

This article reads like an ad for the Organic Consumers Association. For one thing, there are lots of value-laden words thrown around in general. Who gets to decide what is a "pressing issue" or a "morally (healthier)" choice?
For another thing, lines like "However these foods are not labeled, leaving consumers unable to make informed decisions about their purchases." are direct political commentary. I personally am against GMO labeling for reasons like this: Food and Farm Discussion Lab It's OK if you disagree, but don't treat political opinion as fact.
For another thing, to the best of my knowledge, "smaller farmers who are currently being charged with patent infringement by Monsanto" is a myth. Here are a few references I found indicating that this is not true: NPR; Monsanto's website; Royal Commission on Genetic Modification; GMO Answers
Also given Wikipedia's anti-pseudoscience stance, the fact that Organic Consumers Association appears to be pro-homeopathy should give one pause: Organic Consumers Association search for "homeopathic". Looking further, they also appear to support 9/11 truthers and fluoride conspiracies.
Oh, I just found an interesting article about the Organic Consumers Association and its industry backing and magical thinking here: Biofortified
I suspect that there are other problems with this page, but I don't know what they are. I'm not super into Wiki editing- I came to this page because I honestly wanted to learn about the Organic Consumers Association. Lately I've had nothing but good experiences with Wikipedia, so I was disappointed. Nonnymonster (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Nonnymonster

Can you suggest what you want to change exactly? The OCA is entitled to their own statements, even if you disagree with them. prokaryotes (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a pretty old conversation that I let be even when I first watchlisted this page. The editor hasn't been active since the post, so I doubt there would be any response. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Links to USRTK

This should probably be referenced here at some point. SmartSE (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article; it also references an article by David Gorski about the USRTK. I'm not familiar with how reliable TheDailyBeast is other than what its entry in WP:RSP says. We don't have an article on USRTK... Pinging: @Robincantin: who is very familiar with the anti-vax space and funding. Thanks for finding this! ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Two reverts to inaccurate description of OCA in introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph should describe OCA using current information from its "about us" page, at minimum. The current paragraph includes an inaccurate and unreferenced statement, namely, that OCA "is a non-profit advocacy group for the organic agriculture industry." That is not how OCA describes itself, and is not accurate in my personal knowledge of OCA. There is no reference provided for this claim. I have attempted twice to rewrite this sentence with a direct quotation from the OCA "about us" page, which says that it is a nonprofit advocacy group "for consumers' right to safe, healthful food and other consumer products, a just food and farming system and an environment rich in biodiversity and free of pollutants," based in Minnesota. I added (info from that page) "It was formed in 1998 by activists Ronnie Cummins and Rose Welch after the U.S. Department of Agriculture's controversial initial version of their proposed regulations for organic food was introduced." An encyclopedia's readers should know an organization's mission and origin, according to the organization itself. Then the readers can compare that to important public actions of the organization (which will be presented in summary form below). The names of the founders are important background information for the readers of an encyclopedia. They do not need to be important public figures. Yet two editors have swiftly reverted my edit to an inaccurate and unsourced statement that OCA advocates for the organic agriculture industry, and they eliminated the names of the founders. These editors are the ones with the non-neutral point of view, not me.Downtowngal (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I add that stating that OCA advocates for the organic agriculture industry, without providing a source, is original research.Downtowngal (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Including the founders' names should be an uncontroversial addition. Ronnie Cummins is described as co-founder in 5+ RS sources on google news, and the article should mention the other co-founder for completeness.Dialectric (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an easy infobox change is someone feels strongly about it. So far though, we didn't really have anything worth mentioning in terms of source in the body of the article. KoA (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

As an FYI, we generally try to avoid WP:PUFFERY on WP:FRINGE group pages. We already describe what they do with sources rather than just paste their missions statements. Basic information that is ok for non-independent sources is already cited to the OCA page. KoA (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Downtowngal, an acceptable Wikipedia article about an organization primarily summarizes what published reliable sources that are independent of the organization say about it, not how the organization describes itself. Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements is worth reading. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with using published reliable sources for the bulk of the article below the first paragraph. But the key word here is "primarily." Not "entirely," which is what the reverting editors appear to be insisting on. They appear to have decided that OCA is a fringe group, because they don't like some of its stances. By erasing OCA's self-description they are preventing the reader from making their own judgment about whether OCA is fringe. Instead they impose THEIR judgment that OCA is an advocacy group for the organic agriculture industry, without even sourcing that claim. My edit of the first paragraph was objective and sourced. Theirs is not.Downtowngal (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I note that most of paragraph 1 and all of paragraph 2 in the introductory material for the ACLU are not referenced. Presumably this information comes from its "about" or "history" pages. I at least provided a direct quotation. Why aren't these editors going after the ACLU article and demanding citations in the mainstream press for its mission and stances on public issues?Downtowngal (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia doesn't present material that YOU think it should, we have POLICIES governing this. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not require citations, but should summarize the body of the article, where citations are required. Second, I agree with the WP:MISSION essay; we don't allow ANY organizations to characterize themselves: as an easy extreme example, we wouldn't allow white-supremacist organizations to characterize themselves, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.

If the founders are mentioned in RS's, than we can mention them, I was unaware that they were RSourced. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)