m Added {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, talk page general fixes & other cleanup per WP:TPL using AWB (10310) |
David Tornheim (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I don't know how to fix the issue but this organization seems to be chasing a superstitious fear of the un-know by inciting panic via bandwagon appeal. (leveraging the power of the marketplace) granted 'Kosher' foods are legal which has the Homonym whose synonym is 'Okay to eat' with 69 other homonyms no one really bothers to understand its roots. when wars have been fought over Homonyms It becomes A Necessity to Clarify and de-obfuscate the issue GMOs is far too Controversial There ought to be a rating system like 1951 Heirloom, 1970 heirloom, horticultural Heirloom, germline Heirloom(inevitably), 50year H,100y.H. Comercial H, Open pollinated Heirloom, and of course patented/patent pending, or perhaps for something to be considered heirloom its genome must be appended to a list of patented codes of Heirloom Zea, Z. Mays (just for example) If GMO's have to be patented then why not Heirlooms? they are after all claiming ownership of that tradition of passing down said seed code, root, clipping or otherwise they could then go around and attempt to collect royalties for patent infringement why should the rules only apply to some people/corporations/non-profit organizations and not others. [[User:LightForge|Lightforge]] ([[User talk:Lightforge|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.228.57.119|68.228.57.119]] ([[User talk:68.228.57.119|talk]]) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I don't know how to fix the issue but this organization seems to be chasing a superstitious fear of the un-know by inciting panic via bandwagon appeal. (leveraging the power of the marketplace) granted 'Kosher' foods are legal which has the Homonym whose synonym is 'Okay to eat' with 69 other homonyms no one really bothers to understand its roots. when wars have been fought over Homonyms It becomes A Necessity to Clarify and de-obfuscate the issue GMOs is far too Controversial There ought to be a rating system like 1951 Heirloom, 1970 heirloom, horticultural Heirloom, germline Heirloom(inevitably), 50year H,100y.H. Comercial H, Open pollinated Heirloom, and of course patented/patent pending, or perhaps for something to be considered heirloom its genome must be appended to a list of patented codes of Heirloom Zea, Z. Mays (just for example) If GMO's have to be patented then why not Heirlooms? they are after all claiming ownership of that tradition of passing down said seed code, root, clipping or otherwise they could then go around and attempt to collect royalties for patent infringement why should the rules only apply to some people/corporations/non-profit organizations and not others. [[User:LightForge|Lightforge]] ([[User talk:Lightforge|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.228.57.119|68.228.57.119]] ([[User talk:68.228.57.119|talk]]) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== 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]]) 23:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:32, 21 July 2015
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NPOV Dispute
This article is an obvious shameless plug for the Non-GMO Project. There is no section describing the methodology by which the NGMOP determines a product to be worthy of their seal (which is only a guarantee that the company has been evaluated by the Non-GMO Project and found to use a certain level of discrimination in sourcing ingredients, not a guarantee that the product itself is actually free of GMO ingredients), the language is very salesy ("created by leaders" with "leaders" hyperlinked to their board of directors), and finally its history surrounding Berkeley Natural Grocery Co and Big Carrot Natural Foods is hardly worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Husaaved (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can understand tagging with G11: the language and extensive repetition was indeed characteristic of a promotional article, and I think I identified the characteristic style of one of the paid Wikipedia editing firms-- I can recognize the style by now, but I can not assign firm names accurately, and it might, after all, simply be imitating the other articles found here. But given the NYT article, it's worth the rewriting. I rewrote what was there, but that NYT article, by far the most reliable source, gives some additional content that needs to be added. Oddly, this WP article omitted the best known firms involved with the project. We may not be able to eliminate paid COI editing, but I hope we can improve low quality work like this. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Mission
I'm concerned about this addition. It gives readers the impression that those are real problems with GMOs, which is the last thing we'd want to do when the article already sings the praises of an advocacy organisation. bobrayner (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to fix the issue but this organization seems to be chasing a superstitious fear of the un-know by inciting panic via bandwagon appeal. (leveraging the power of the marketplace) granted 'Kosher' foods are legal which has the Homonym whose synonym is 'Okay to eat' with 69 other homonyms no one really bothers to understand its roots. when wars have been fought over Homonyms It becomes A Necessity to Clarify and de-obfuscate the issue GMOs is far too Controversial There ought to be a rating system like 1951 Heirloom, 1970 heirloom, horticultural Heirloom, germline Heirloom(inevitably), 50year H,100y.H. Comercial H, Open pollinated Heirloom, and of course patented/patent pending, or perhaps for something to be considered heirloom its genome must be appended to a list of patented codes of Heirloom Zea, Z. Mays (just for example) If GMO's have to be patented then why not Heirlooms? they are after all claiming ownership of that tradition of passing down said seed code, root, clipping or otherwise they could then go around and attempt to collect royalties for patent infringement why should the rules only apply to some people/corporations/non-profit organizations and not others. Lightforge (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.57.119 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (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) 23:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)