Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Genetically modified crops/Archive 2) (bot |
David Tornheim (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RfC:_Should_the_.22Safety_Consensus.22_discussion_be_moved_out_of_the_Controversy_section.3F Here] is the RfC. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">คุ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">ก</font>]]</span>''' 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC) |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RfC:_Should_the_.22Safety_Consensus.22_discussion_be_moved_out_of_the_Controversy_section.3F Here] is the RfC. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#A0A0A0">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">คุ</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">ก</font>]]</span>''' 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it. == |
|||
The [[WP:RfC|Request for Comment (RfC)]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food#RfC_-_.22The_scientific_consensus_holds_that_currently_marketed_GM_food_poses_no_greater_risk_than_conventional_food..22 here] created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies/Archive_6#Request_for_comment_on_.22broad_scientific_consensus.22 this previous RfC] on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGenetically_modified_food&type=revision&diff=672317343&oldid=672059609 here] . There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated: |
|||
::Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording |
|||
I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation: |
|||
::... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight. |
|||
With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at [[Talk:Genetically modified food]] that I believe is more [[WP:NPOV]] than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles: |
|||
:*[[Genetically modified food controversies]] ([[Talk:Genetically modified food controversies|Talk]]) |
|||
:*[[Genetically modified food]] ([[Talk:Genetically_modified_food|Talk]]) |
|||
:*[[Genetically modified crops]]([[Talk:Genetically modified crops|Talk]]) |
|||
:*[[Genetically modified organism]]([[Talk:Genetically modified organism|Talk]]) |
|||
:*[[Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms]] ([[Talk:Regulation_of_the_release_of_genetically_modified_organisms|Talk]]) |
|||
:*[[March Against Monsanto]] ([[Talk:March Against Monsanto|Talk]]) |
|||
:*[[The Non-GMO Project]]([[Talk:The Non-GMO Project|Talk]]) |
|||
I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at [[Talk:Genetically modified food]]. |
|||
[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:28, 21 July 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject Genetics
|
Discussions on scientific consensus on GMO safety elsewhere
FYI. The claim of "scientific consensus" on GMO safety is being discussed here and was briefly discussed here. David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Information about research
@Jytdog: Why don't we want information about research projects in the encyclopedia? I think it's interesting to catalog the variety of traits researchers have either successfully or unsuccessfully genetically engineered into crops. We don't have to go into the details of each attempt, but look at something like List of unsolved problems in physics that gives a nice summary of the state of the field and the problems researchers are trying to solve. Given the nascent state of the technology right now, I think being more aware of the potential of genetic engineering is part of being an informed citizen. If it doesn't look like there are any interesting future applications for the technology, that can influence one's opinion of whether or not it's worthwhile to allow it. It doesn't have to go in this article, but there should be room in the project somewhere for it.-- Beland (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- hi, that is a very cool idea - the umbrella "list of solved problems". What I feel pretty strongly that we do not want, is a random collection of factoids along the lines of "this group modified X with Y to do Z" based on primary sources. but what you propose is really different from that, and a great idea. I will work on that and am guessing that others who work on this topic will find that interesting too. It is rare that anybody proposes strategic ways to improve the article... fresh eyes are a good thing. Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I like the general idea. The best thing to do here would be to find a review article that summarizes notable modifications that have been done. There's obviously a lot of stuff that's happened in the research world that was dismissed or tossed to the way side that don't get any mention, and some that could have been important too. Such a source would point that out what has been worked on and what is currently being worked on. Without that though, we're just listing random research projects without any WP:WEIGHT, which would be especially problematic because so many things just fizzle into nothingness. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food
See here Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC on the placement of GMO safety consensus - should it be located in the Controversy section?
Here is the RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.
The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here . There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:
- Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording
I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:
- ... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.
With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:
I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)