Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms - Wikipedia

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

I have stated this earlier, and now I formally request a decision by the full Arbitratration Committee on the inclusion of administrator Guy aka JzG and now, additionally, editor Pete aka Skyring. Their latest involvement against User:SageRad came earlier today at AN/I: note mention of Monsanto in the opening. Prior to that is the remarkable statement "I know who you are" by Admin Guy, who had previously blocked editor SageRad. Involvement at Vani Hari and the Talk page there is significant. There is also ample evidence that both Pete and Guy should be included as involved parties in this ArbCom case at Talk:Monsanto legal cases, where Guy closed an RfC despite being involved, and Pete has erected walls of text.

I also formally protest my inclusion in the case as patent retaliation by User:Jytdog. Note that I had not once been mentioned prior to my statement, and Jytdog's addition of me came within minutes of said statement. If allowed to stand, my inclusion sets a precedent that effectively creates a "chilling effect" - speak up, and you become a target forced to spend time as a party to a case. I submit this is gaming the system. If there is a more appropriate place to file these motions, please let me know. Thanks. Jusdafax 21:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I definitely want Guy and Pete included, as they've been hugely obstructive in my experience, and quite flagrantly in violation of numerous guidelines. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any decision on the inclusion of JzG/Guy and Skyring/Pete yet? I am others have made this request multiple times, and the case is moving forward (evidence section closed now) and yet there is no answer.

The two editors continue to be obstructive, sometimes to an extreme degree, as in Pete's onerous obstructionism here. I would like to know that the question of involved parties is addressed. It's already become too late to add evidence, as this moves forward. I know that no process is perfect, but here we have such a long delay in raising questions and seeing resolution. SageRad (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Further request for clarification, after several days of no reply

A number of days have gone by, and I can't help but find the complete lack of response to the above to be a concern. Is this, as I ask above, the correct spot to make this request? If not, where would that be? And if so, how long is a proper period to wait for meaningful reply, or reply of any kind? Being unfamiliar with these proceedings, I am quite perplexed. Jusdafax 15:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jusdafax, my experience is that the Arbs simply have so many simultaneous demands for their attention that it can be difficult to get a timely reply, so it helps to ping them to get their attention. Consequently: NativeForeigner and Guerillero. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see this until I was pinged. This page is low traffic so I don't check it very often. I have already said that I am not going to remove anyone as a party and I am not going to make an exemption. Being a party does not mean that you will be sanctioned. As for adding parties, we are already discussing JzG and I will consider Skydog. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Very well. My thanks to Tryptofish for the assistance, as this is all new to me. I assume you mean Skyring, and I appreciate your consideration, as I feel the editing behavior of both parties needs scrutiny. Jusdafax 22:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad that helped. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: given the extent that in situ animal genetic modification has been in the news with CRISPR, including "discovery of the [multi-year period]" awards from extremely prestigious sources, do you think a scope limitation to agriculture is wise? Anticipating the same kind of both neo-luddite backlash and profiteer-driven paid advocacy motives down the road, I would rather that the outcomes apply to both agricultural and animal genetic engineering. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@L235: A statement was added to the page after the page was closed to further statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Tryptofish, done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I find it hard to articulate in a few words why Wikipedia has such problems with cases where ideology collides with science, and where the ideologues use faux-scientific articles to try to support their position. A blog post passed to me today, explains this very well: http://hatepseudoscience.com/2014/07/11/3-arguments-the-anti-gmo-crowd-should-stop-using-2/

It is normal not to want to use a certain kind of product because you just don't like it: the emotion of disgust is baked into us by evolution as a survival mechanism. It is normal to rationalise your emotive choice to prevent cognitive dissonance. It is a problem for Wikipedia when you choose to assert those rationalisations as fact. This has been a problem since the earliest days of the project, which is why Conservapedia exists. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed. And I'll blow my own horn by pointing to [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I broadly agree, though I would say that GMO labelling is actually a bad idea. I am coeliac, it's now mandatory to label all foods in the EU with common allergens [yes, I know it's not an allergy]. In the US, this seems not to be the case, my visit to Texas last month shows it has not changed in the two or three years I was last across the pond, so GMO labelling would add to label pollution, further increasing the sea of small print to wade through; and would give the impression that it's something worth avoiding. It's Morton's fork: If they have nothing to hide, why not label? / If it's harmless, why do they have to label it? And it addresses a non-problem while leaving an actual problem - under-labelling of things that are genuinely important - unaddressed. So it leaves the impression that GMOs are more of a risk than gluten is to a coeliac, which is, frankly, risible.

You may also find this of interest: [2]. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The environmental movement has done some great things. I visited Hyderabad for work recently, the air there is a thick muggy yellow soup, pollution on a scale not seen in the West since the Clean Air Acts. The problem is that the movement is driven largely by ideology not science these days. Their opposition to nuclear power and golden rice is irrational. Understandable, but not rational, however hard they try to pretend otherwise. George Monbiot has now converted to supporting nuclear power, a brave move that has attracted a lot of crap from fellow-greens. That's what a properly skeptical scientific environmentalist should be doing: reviewing the facts, dispassionately, and then measuring them against core values, not randomly selected visceral likes and dislikes. Criticise the real problems - profligate energy consumption, waste, greed - and the rest comes out in the wash. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your cartoonish depiction of the so-called "environmental movement" is laughable. Exxon scientists knew conclusively of the risks of anthropogenic climate change by 1981, and instead of helping to transform their business model, they and their competitors spent thirty years denying it while secretly knowing what they were doing was wrong.[3]. You can try to distract from the real problem at hand, like the fact that the oceans are dying and that the entire food web could collapse as a result,[4] but instead of naming names and pointing at the real perps, you'll try and convince us that a few dirty hippies are responsible? Please. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention Semitransgenic _talk. 07:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say there are no issues to address, and I specifically said I agree in large part with Trypto's comments, which make the same point. I disagree with him only on the question of labelling, which IMO is not justified, for the reasons I gave. And I am fully aware of the evil Exxon behaviour - one of the interesting things about the environmental movement is that, as I said, it has done some great things, including exposing the oil industry.

That's part of the problem actually. The environmental movement has been campaigning on climate change for decades, and using science-based arguments to do so. They are 100% right on this (though their arguments against fracking are often specious). That leads to a situation where poeple trust the environmental movement when it cotes science on a big issue - and in the case of GMOs it turns out that they are largely not representing the science correctly. The environmental movement is not, as the climate change debate might lead you to believe, a science-based movement. It is every bit as much about cherished beliefs as the libertarian political right.

It just happens that they are correct on climate change, and the science supports them. That's actually largely coincidence, as an examination of Greenpeace's arguments on golden rice shows.

And the comments above also display the binary views of the partisans in this topic. If I identify with any political movement in the UK, it is probably the green party. I live quite near George Monbiot and of all media commentators on the environment his views are closest to mine. Much as Trypto said in the comment to which he linked, in fact: I have vastly more sympathy wth the environmental lobby and the precautionary principle than with multinational corporatism. But I dare to point out some of the bonkers things greens say, so I am somehow part of the agricultural-industrial complex or something. Ten out of ten for demonstrating why this is in front of Arbcom :-) Guy (Help!) 08:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

JzG, I have not mentioned a word about GMOs here. I think it is safe to say that you are entirely ignorant when it comes to the topic of "environmental movements", because everything you have written up above is either false or a distortion, both of which are tired conservative tropes repeated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and other discredited talking heads. That you would take such ideas up as your own says a lot about your thinking on this subject. The problem is not environmentalists or environmental movements, the problem is market fundamentalism and those who promote it. I have done extensive research and written quite a bit on environmental movements, and everything you've written up above is completely wrong. I would have to say, given the extent of your errors, it appears that you are the one who is partisan here. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The initial 'context' link is a blog post by semi-anonymous authors with no credentials in science. None of the arguments it raises have played out on the articles related to this case except for the occasional SPA or IP editor inserting some nonsense from a similarly-uncredentialed anti-GMO activist blog. The follow up by JzG is much more WP:SOAPBOX than context, and strays far from the topic at hand, which is Genetically modified organisms. Here is some on-topic context: GMO producers have for some time restricted the independent science and scientific publication around GMOs through restrictive rights agreements. Major publications including scientific American and the New York Times have covered this. Dialectric (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

All of this reminds me of the early years of the tobacco lawsuits—the companies loved to produce "scientific studies" arguing there was no "proof" that cigarette smoking "caused" cancer. Some of the same logic (or lack thereof) is now coming out of the pro-GMO crowd. If WP wants to be truly NPOV, then a standard of what is or is not appropriate in these discussions has to be consistent across both sides — one reason we are here is an inconsistent application of existing rules; iffy studies with serious funding bias and/or design flaw sometimes get a free pass if they are pro-GMO, while equally valid if not stronger studies with a pro-environmentalist or anti-GMO set of conclusions get held to a more rigorous standard. Also, a discussion of the public political controversies is within the standards of WP:RS, not WP:SCIRS or WP:MEDRS; we must figure out how to discuss the political controversies separate from scientific findings. Simple fairness would be useful here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You know, it's the tone here that exhibits the problem, that and the implication that anyone who questions certain viewpoints that label themselves "scientific" are, by the fact that they raise questions, immediately labeled as "fringe" and guilty of "pseudoscience" or other fuzzy thinking, to the point that any attempt at dialogue is shut down, viciously. Such reasoning is, itself, filled with the logical fallacies and lack of AGF. I for one am old enough to remember the days when "science" claimed that DDT was the most wonderful thing, ever, and promoted thalidomide as the cure for morning sickness. It is reasonable to "teach the controversy" and raise legitimate challenges or questioning of peer-reviewed studies, so long as it is done from a position that is within the policies of wikipedia on reliable sourcing and verifiability. A healthy skepticism about GMOs and the studies supporting them is appropriate, particularly when the funding behind many of the published studies was provided by the companies producing them. For example, if I raise the possibility that organic crop growing methods may have long term benefits - and present evidence in support - this does not automatically equate to me being some lunatic with a belief in a flat earth and homeopathy (which I think is nonsense) or other magic pixie dust. Comments and attitudes like those above are a big reason why this is at arbcom. Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, there's some truth in this, in that partisans tend to identify disagreement as membership of the opposing camp. The problem here is that "pro-science" is Wikipedia's official stance. Science is the best method ever devised for separating truth from falsehood, and in matters amenable to scientific inquiry, it is policy that we follow the science. The interesting thing about GMOs is that much of the science aligns quite closely with what a pro-industry POV would look like, tot he point that an anti-GMO partisan may be unable to tell them apart.

DDT is a poor example, though. The science that shows it works, was correct. The adverse effects became evident through scientific inquiry (Rachel Carson is a scientist). There is pseudoscience around DDT, but the pseudoscientists are the ones promoting the Stockholm Convention as a purported cause of mass death due to malaria. IWith GMOs, the "evidence" comes form studies like Séralini, which it is difficult to characterise as anything other than fraudulent.

It's like an astronomer on earth looking at a binary star: you need a really good telescope and a fierce determination to be strictly accurate, to tell that it is two objects not one. From the point of view of a planet orbiting one or other star, the difference is pretty easy to spot.

The same applies in reverse to climate change, but in that case the twin suns of climate denial and the fossil fuel industry are close enough that they share an atmosphere. It is extraordinarily difficult to find any piece of robust independent science that contradicts the mainstream view, because the mainstream view already encompasses and acknowledges a large range of uncertainty and gets its confidence from consilience. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You see, this proves my point; I have no objection to "pro-science." Your immediate move to the pseudoscience POV is an example of the very problem — with 40+ years since Silent Spring we now acknowledge Carson was right, but in her time she was dismissed by the chemical companies as a hysterical female lunatic. Climate Change has the benefit of a huge scientific consensus, but other issues that sit a bit closer to 50-50 with scientific evidence are what we are addressing here. GMOs may be the DDT of our time — or not —but we need a way to "teach the controversy" in a way that allows the reader to have the intelligence to evaluate what's out there. Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, there are significant numbers of people in the US, mostly free market fundamentalist libertarians, who continue to attack Carson as a pseudoscientist to this day in numerous books and papers funded by think tanks and foundations with strong financial support from chemical companies. In fact, I seem to recall reading that in certain US states, she's not even mentioned in textbooks or coursework. Scientific consensus on climate change was reached in the 1970s. Because corporations played the deny, delay, deflect, defend strategy (which JzG is very familiar with), environmental activists came to the foreground in the late 1980s to help inform public opinion and counter the massive disinformation strategy by corporate America. To make matters worse, these same corporations and foundations spent the intervening decades infiltrating academia and government. University endowments were setup to help promote and publish singular partisan views while a revolving door was created in Washington, placing the top industry executives in positions where regulatory capture was enforced. After a brief stint in public office, the same people who were supposed to be regulating these companies would end up back at the same corporations, and the cycle continues to this day. The very people who are supposed to be regulating these companies are intimately connected to them from the inside. The entire political process has been co-opted to favor private industry over and above the public they are supposed to serve. The system is rotten and corrupt to its very core. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

THer is some rationality in the above, both in regard to this topic in particular and to at least a few others. It would be nice if the Arbs could address it, but, honestly, probably irrational to expect anything from them regarding the possible cases of academic bias in all sorts of areas from this particular case. To my eyes as well as apparently to the eyes of others here, there seems to me to be a rather remarkable failure of the scientific community to recognize that at least some of its conclusions are based on something other than good science. I suppose the arguments about the Historicity of Jesus could be seen as falling into the same camp, although, honestly, in that case, it seems to me, who was a bit of a history student, that their actions in basically premising that there was, effectively, virtually concurrent belief in the existence of Jesus are more in line with the standard methodology of history than some of the points made in perhaps the global warming debate. But, if there would be any way to get the Arbs to maybe request that we develop some form of explicit policy or guideline be developed for cases, maybe even including medicine, pinging @Anthonyhcole: here, for scientific topics, maybe including in some cases possible long-term effects of medicines which haven't been around long enough for long-term results to be known, and some of the other intractable controversies which seem to have at least some degree of reasonable scientific/academic "expert" opinion on disagreeing sides. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not following the arguments on this page, but I do think that, as a rule, the defenders of science on Wikipedia are too arrogant and rude. I know why this is: they have to deal with an endlass stream of egregious loonies and POV-pushers. But I do wish they (not just you Guy) would reset their attitudes. Really. It's not necessary and makes for a very unpleasant atmosphere.

On the safety of GMOs, many topics in science, medicine and history are lacking in certainty. In those cases I try to clearly convey the degree of uncertainty to our readers. If it is true that all the real science on the safety of GMOs is paid for by the companies selling them, then I'd like to see that point mentioned (and the implications of that fact made clear) in the article. Presumably, the point is made in some good, reliable sources. (There is some very good science out there demonstrating the effect of industry funding on published medical trial results.)

Sorry if this is redundant, I'm on a mobile at a flea market just now. I'll look at the article and talk page later. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rachel Carson had solid evidence and a plausible mechanism of harm. Scientists were concerned about the safety of DDT from the 50s at least, a decade later Carson wrote Silent Spring, a decade after that it was banned. We're three decades down the line with GMOs and when you ask for evidence of harm the best that can be provided is the fraudulent Séralini study. You can't prove absolute safety, but the scientific community is broad enough, and enough has been spent by well funded and motivated environmental groups, that GMOs being acceptably safe is a viable working hypothesis. Glyphosate is somewhat different, in that it's wholly plausible that it might cause environmental damage - in fact it would be remarkable if it didn't - so the issue is unpicking inherent risk from risk brought on by practices (like using antibiotics on livestock, which is legitimate as a treatment for disease but profoundly problematic as a growth promotion technique). And over all of this is an anti-corporatist mindset that simply hates Monsanto for all that it represents, also not without justification. But there's no smoking gun, as we now have with Exxon. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the comments here nicely describe the situation. I am sympathetic to those who get frustrated with an ongoing onslaught of fringe views and general tendentiousness, but there are those of us who, as here, raise legitimate discussion and who are summarily dismissed as if we were the same as the trolls. I appreciate all the comments here and the insightful observations. More of this would probably have avoided the need for ArbCom involvement. Montanabw^(talk) 03:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Montanabw I did not participate in the content related WP:SOAPBOX exchange of the prior section, but rest assured, I share your content related opinions (and would love for you to be an administrator!) - Just not this one: Re "More of this would probably have avoided the need for ArbCom involvement". i respond with a decided "Au contraire!". we have been having content discussions to the wazoo at the embattled pages (plse see ongoing Talk:Monsanto legal cases, Talk:Monsanto, Talk:2,4D, Talk:Glyphosate to no avail. ArbCom involvement has been overdue and is last resort to constructively act against the tolerated rule breaking and rule bending of a handful of editors, so entrenched that one has to assume WP is captured. I am glad the case was accepted and look forward to the decision. --Wuerzele (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

What I really think is needed here is some sort of essay with a lot of input in it to deal with cases where there are questions in some reliable sources of whether the existing dominant position in other reliable sources is said by some to be subject to a form of bias itself. I guess maybe one way to start input on that would be to maybe create a page for such an essay, like that at User:John Carter/Claims of bias or incomplete information among mainstream academic or expert sources and see if there is some way to get together principles for dealing with them. At this point, the page is open to being edited by anyone, but, as it is in user space, at least for the moment, I hope everyone realizes that it may and probably will be substantively reorganized and edited before being moved to wikipedia space. John Carter (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm hoping you all have seen this. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and it's not surprising, nor does it change the fundamental fact that after over three decades of use nobody has produced any scientifically sound evidence of actual tangible harm from GMOs, only from practices around their use. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your are incredibly dishonest to suggest that one can separate such harms or that distinguishing such harm is any way meaningful. "GM foods and the herbicides applied to them may pose hazards to human health that were not examined in previous assessments. We believe that the time has therefore come to thoroughly reconsider all aspects of the safety of plant biotechnology. The National Academy of Sciences has convened a new committee to reassess the social, economic, environmental, and human health effects of GM crops. This development is welcome, but the committee's report is not expected until at least 2016."[5] Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any scientifically responsible person would encourage continued examination of the question of GMO safety. I support continued study of atrazine, despite roughly 6,499 of the 6,500 studies conducted on it to date finding no significant harm to humans or environment at ecologically possible doses. But JzG is correct; currently - and I do emphasize currently - there is no scientifically sound evidence of tangible harm. Could that change in the future? Certainly, and then those such as myself who abide by what the scientific process has found will change our opinions and support addition of such material to WP. But until then, it is incredibly dishonest to suggest that proof of harm has been found in studies not objectively tainted by junk science and/or by scientists who violated their ethos by conducting studies in support of foregone (or funded!) conclusions. Until objective, verifiable, reproducible, independently conducted, and scientifically rigorous evidence is produced, any attempt to inject material that calls GMO safety into question in a way that frames that material as fact is similarly dishonest, misleading, and POV.

Now, for the flip side. I also think removing any mention of GMO safety concerns from these articles is problematic. I think most of us would conclude that that material has a place, so long as it is not framed as undisputed fact, does not preempt/drown out the body of evidence that contradicts it, and is itself critiqued within the main text. Similarly, we have - for the most part - only discussed human health issues of GMOs. Discussions of social, economic, and other non-health issues may similarly belong. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I find it interesting when people look at a single source and use it to jump to all sorts of conclusions. That NYT piece has been heavily criticized, for example here. And this is the most recent development of such FOIA requests, showing a stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits. To be a nonbiased editor you need to be able to look at all RS's, and it's a bit telling where a person's ideology lies when they are cherry-picking sources that confirm their bias and not reporting on others. Wikipedia already has a clear policy against WP:RGW, and it's not a place to get ahead of research. After such a report is made, then we can use the results as WP:DUE. Until then the current scientific consensus stands. Adrian (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyone who claims that there is a "stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits" is clearly not competent to discuss this issue, so you've only discredited your own position by promoting fringe claims with zero evidence. The biotech industry spends hundreds of millions to lobby for GMOs, and actively undermines legislation in the courts to that end. You're either deliberately lying or one of the most ignorant people on the planet. The "scientific consensus" on monetizing the food supply and increasing the levels of pesticides and herbicides which damage the environment and impact animal and human health is settled, and the consensus is against GMOs. No amount of denial, delay, distraction, and defense of the indefensible will change these facts. The people don't want GMOs. Now, who runs the government? The people or the biotech industry? Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just to tack on to what you've said, Viriditas, our GM suite of articles has a very strong local (US) slant. The rest of the world treats the issue much differently than we do, as I'm sure you know. But try including any such content in the articles ..... A comment I just left on the talk page of Genetically modified food addresses some of the issues you mention and suggests that we start thinking about how to more comprehensively incorporate the available information: [6]. Minor4th 00:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are on VERY thin ice bringing personal insults to this conversation and claiming consensus where there is none, Viriditas. In at least North America, your statement is demonstrably false. Even so, if people "don't want GMOs" as you claim, how much is that due to falsified evidence, bad science, and outright lies? Do you really want to speak in favor of mob mentality? And, since it has been proven current levels of food production are impossible without GMOs, who gets to decide which additional people (beyond those already starving due to supply chain problems) are going to starve to death? Is that really a morally viable position? Now, I have no problem with the anti-GMOers having their say within GMO articles, and bringing what evidence they can. In fact, as stated above I think it's the right thing to do. But I have a BIG problem with people who start lobbing insults and spouting falsehoods as if they are undeniable truths. And that is why we're all here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (EDIT: Proof of GMOs increasing food production by 22%, decreasing the need for pesticides by 37%, and an explanation that articles claiming "GMOs don't increase yield" are incorrect, as those articles falsely claim that the yield protection GMOs provide cannot be counted as yield increase: [[7]])Reply

Viriditas, I suggest you strike the accusation of dishonesty. You do not seem to allow for the fact that someone might look at the facts and come to a different view from yours, which is a problem described in the long-standing essay at m:MPOV. My view on this subject is honestly held. I acknowledge that while honestly held it might also be wrong, and I actively look for information that might show it to be so. Most of what I find standing against my current view displays clear evidence of motivated reasoning, leading me to conclude that opposition to GMOs is ideological and not scientific - a point made by several independent sources, so certainly defensible even if it turns out not to be correct. The widespread use of Séralini by some anti-GMO activists certainly speaks to a cavalier attitude to scientific rigour, if they care at all. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is entirely dishonest (and counterfactual) to claim, for example, that there is a "stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits". That statement is so incredibly wrong, it borders on delusion. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

That argument basically exemplifies my criticism here, Viriditas. When we have actual evidence that there is scientific misconduct to attempt to support one industry (organics), and nearly zero evidence of scientific misconduct to support another industry (biotech crops), that does not support the position that science is owned by the biotech industry. There is currently no scientific consensus for the idea that GMOs impact animal and human health in a way that is uniquely different than non-GMO's, and virtually no evidence to support it. Could there be scientific misconduct? Sure. Could it be possible that GMO's adversely affect us? Yes. But no RS's have put forth the evidence to suggest this.

When it comes to lobbying, you are being harsher about the supposed "hundreds of millions of dollars" of lobbying being done by the biotech industry, while ignoring the lobbying being done by other involved industries that is a factor here. You've made it clear that your POV is a belief that the biotech industry runs governments and slants the scientific perspective. Which is an interesting position considering that the oil industry, which dwarfs the biotech industry immensely, can't seem to sway scientific consensus at all regarding global warming. Adrian (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Again, pure ignorance and misinformation. There are dozens of books specifically about how the oil industry managed to successfully "sway" the scientific consensus on climate change for three decades by confusing the science, attacking the scientists, and preventing any type of political solution from being implemented. At this point, I'm totally convinced that everything you write is false. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

And yet science still endured. Had Wikipedia been around during the time before a scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change, it would not have been included then. This is a feature, not a bug. However, your comparison of the oil industry to the biotech industry, which is much much smaller, is less than apt. And writing off other editors because you're convinced without evidence that they are liars, ignorant, or shills after disagreeing with you is the epitome of incivility. Adrian (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are you still claiming that there is a "stronger industry bias in the other direction to fabricate scientific data to challenge the mainstream view on GMO's in order to win lawsuits"? Please put up or shut up. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've already showed evidence supporting my claim, which was meant as an example of people ignoring certain sources that don't agree with their POV. Incidentally, you seem to have ignored it so I will summarize here: As a result of the FOIA requests, which you attempted to use to support your position, Benbrook was discovered to have solicited funds from Kailis, an organic food lobbyist, for the purpose of actual deliverables by way of a published scientific study that questions GMO safety, and charged $200/hr to act as an expert witness in the lawsuit the research was solicited for. That is actual scientific misconduct. Along with the discredited, and retracted, Seralini study that was disingenuous and unethical at best, there is evidence showing an attempt by a particular industry to slant scientific evidence regarding GMO safety. And that industry isn't the biotech one. Adrian (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can I remind people of WP:FORUM. Funny that some people have a lot to say here yet offered nothing by way of an actual constructive contribution to the arbitration process when it was possible to do so. Semitransgenic _talk. 08:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have zero interest in this topic. I came here only because I saw rampant disinformation, misinformation, and outright dishonesty being peddled as facts. Anyone the least bit familiar with the history of environmental devastation caused by the companies promoting pesticide and herbicide use to monetize their control over the food supply knows exactly what's going on here. This tired old game has been played many times before, with the United Fruit Company one of the most notable examples. What these people don't understand is that it is now the 21st century, and the world has moved beyond their greedy, crony capitalist shenanigans that leaves ecological destruction in its wake. It's like trying to debate someone from the early 18th century who argues that the benefits of slavery outweigh abolition. These people are psychologically stunted and stuck in an archaic mindset that no longer has any relevance. They truly believe it is still 1840 and fail to understand that the world has moved on to environmental sustainability concerns that leaves little to no room for their useless products that nobody needs or requires. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

judging by the word count, you do have an opinion, one that could have been offered, in the appropriate way, and in the appropriate place, here it's just hot air. I would encourage you to see here and voice any opinions/concerns you might have. The outcome of this process does have consequences for the community at large. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but no thanks. I have no interest. My concerns are historical. This is my last comment on this case. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Original discussion

Original discussion

Original discussion