Eisspeedway

Talk:Séralini affair

Wallace Hayes

In #Monsanto influence on FCT above, editors discussed how to present source material about Monsanto's possible role in the retraction of the paper. To my knowledge, the available sourcing has not changed significantly since then, although there are obviously POV issues over which editors may disagree.

I'm very concerned about recent edits that refer specifically to Wallace Hayes, the editor of the journal who made the decision to retract. The way that the page portrays him must of course comply with WP:BLP, which means that it is particularly important to not present accusations against him that he has disputed, without adequately presenting his perspective, and that we should not state insinuations about his integrity.

I feel that recent edits try too hard to make him sound like a bad person, and that these problems need to be fixed. I have tagged some of these passages, in the lead and in the Retraction section, for POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an IP did present that Le Monde article and you ignored them. Everything in the article is sourced to Le Monde, which is an RS. In fact the author won a European Press Prize for their work on Monsanto, as you know. I am glad that you have not reinstated your claim that anything "failed verification". Now if the Wikipediots (as we are known) want to hide the fact that the EiC was an industry insider, that's our right I guess, until anyonetm comes along and puts it back in. SashiRolls t · c 22:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bizarre summary of things. I cannot see a good reason to describe him as a former tobacco industry executive but not as a former professor of public health at Harvard, unless the goal is to POV-push that he was an evil agent of evil Monsanto. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to create drama to add Harvard to the entry. Just do it. Strictly speaking I already did add that info to the roll-over ref (quote field), but... as you wish. SashiRolls t · c 22:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an appropriate solution. In theory, we could put his entire CV on the page, but that would be awful writing style. Having tit-for-tat POV additions is a poor substitute for simply removing the original POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than us arguing, I'd really like to hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But we should at least provide passersby with a bit more reading from serious-looking sites on Mr. Hayes and Mr. Heck, don't you think? [1]

References

  1. ^ Daniel Stevens; Stanton Glantz. "Tobacco documents reveal questionable professional recertification by industry menthol expert". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
-- SashiRolls t · c 23:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And a critical reading of that really proves my point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Masem, the RS we are sourcing from has indeed reported on his tobacco industry history. It is in the Le Monde article, please look at the quote field for "Foucart": "A. Wallace Hayes [...] Bien connu dans le monde de la toxicologie, chercheur associé à l’université Harvard, il a mené l’essentiel de sa carrière dans l’industrie chimique ou auprès du cigarettier R. J. Reynolds dont il fut l’un des vice-présidents." @Masem:. SashiRolls t · c 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It mentions it, but it doesn't say why it is relevant here. What I can read and translate of the article, it is common to introduce the "authority" a person has related to their career to explain why they are in their position, and thats how I read the tobacco part and the Harvard part. But neither of those are made relavant to this situation or to his Monsanto connection. So calling out either of those is just coatracking here. --Masem (t) 23:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) with Kingo...
It's true I didn't add that bit in my initial edit [1] but only after Trypto insisted on rewriting the facts to paint Séralini as evil for having good lawyers who dug up the Monsanto connection. I suppose we should really have more industry insider bios that could document expert tobacco industry witnesses who testify that their fellow tobacco industry colleagues should have take-home exams for certification, but en.wp is chronically weak on such folk. SashiRolls t · c 00:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here from BLPN. The "former tobacco industry Vice President" clause is unnecessary. It's unclear how this is related to the subject of this article, and additionally it's just vague. What does "tobacco industry Vice President" specifically refer to? Did he work for a cigarette company? An industry group? A lobbying firm? But that's besides the point. The main issue is that it's unrelated to the subject and adds nothing to the article. Just because it's mentioned in an article about him doesn't mean it has any connection to the specific matter at hand. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Deletion of This Page

Blocked as sock by RoySmith. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Due to a change in circumstances surrounding the term 'Seralini Affair' from when this page was published I suggest full deletion of this page. The term 'Seralini Affair' was introduced by Monsanto as a term in an orchestrated attack on an independent scientist, to protect their products as per court documents released during recent court cases: http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/monsanto-documents-chart-101217.pdf (page 154 onwards). This deletion request is not related to previous deletion requests that came before the changed circumstances after a review of the Page history. The specific first ever mention of the term is here: [1] The vast majority of the criticism of the study mentioned on this page is referenced in the court documents as a centrally led orchestrated 'paid attack' by Monsanto on Seralini using third-party scientists paid for by Monsanto. This page has thus been reported to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation may run a full investigation into this page.BillyHatch2020 (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are edited in compliance with specific rules, such as WP:RS and WP:NOR. Court documents are classified as primary sources and can be used as a supplementary reference information in articles but editors should avoid drawing their own conclusions from the arguments presented in the source. The current state of Seralini lawsuits is reliably and objectively documented in the current version of the article using reliable sources, just as the criticism of his scientific articles. The fact that the criticism might have been allegedly "orchestrated" does not make it non-existent because it was widely published in press as well as scientific journals. Cloud200 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstracting from the Wikipedia article - I did review the document collection and I'm quite surprised that you are trying to present correspondence such as this letter https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY01065612.pdf (linked on page 155 of the collection) as "Discrediting Seralini". This email, apparently from a scientist in UK whose name you redacted, contains no single phrase that could be considered "discrediting". The author objectively and in neutral tone points out a number of methodological issues in the Seralini's article which is absolutely normal and desired practice in science, if we want good science. If you are - as I suppose - trying to present a valid criticism of poor science as "discrediting" of its author, then it's the worst thing for science imaginable. Cloud200 (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misread my comment. I am not suggesting that a specific email is discrediting Seralini but instead a group of e-mails. This specific e-mail from the head of corporate affairs at Monsanto is the first ever mention of the term 'Seralini Affair:.[2] You also picked one e-mail out of a group of many, which is strange - I did not redact anything in these e-mails - they were released by the court and published by the lawyers in a redacted form. However, the point of my discussion message is that 'Seralini Affair' is a defamatory term, now shown to have been orchestrated and used by Monsanto to protect corporate interests. Much of the content of the article is thus libelous, as shown by the court documents, and has been reported as such to the Wikimedia Foundation.BillyHatch2020 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think placing an email exhibit in a section titled "Discrediting" serves no other purpose than indicating that contents of that email are, well, discrediting. But maybe it's just me. Cloud200 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind all editors on this page that the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.BillyHatch2020 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @BillyHatch2020:, first, please read WP:FORUM. Second, if you think that article should be deleted, your next step is to go to WP:AFD. --McSly (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reliable sources that use the term 'Seralini Affair', and that alone will make it unlikely that this article is deleted at afd. There are many more sources that discuss Seralini's study and the responses from agribusinesses and other scientists without using the 'affair' wording. As an alternative to deletion, add to the article. If you have reliable sources that support the position that the term was created as a PR strategy, please add them to the article and discuss them here. If you can think of a more neutral name than 'affair' that covers this information, you could propose a name change / article move.Dialectric (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion is an April Fools joke. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am awaiting the full position statement as promised from the Wikimedia Foundation and then will take action as per their instructions or as per suggestions above. There are some editors who have a specific non-neutral position on this talk section and the history of this page. The 'reliable sources' are sadly based on information fed by a corporate PR campaign. As a government consultant on conflicts of interest I can confirm that Wikipedia guidelines on defamatory information based on corporate PR campaigns are very clear and 'reliable sources' are not a green light to publish such information. I am also aware that many of the editors on this page have done an excellent job sourcing what they believed to be neutral information, however sadly they have been hoodwinked in this case. Below are a number of source e-mails from a number of recent court cases that may help for understanding. Thank you McSly and Dialectric for your neutral and helpful comments. First ever mention of Seralini Affair as a term [3] Monsanto E-mail supportive of Seralini claims [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
  1. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY07018354-REVISED-REDACTIONS.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY07018354-REVISED-REDACTIONS.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY07018354-REVISED-REDACTIONS.pdf
  4. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY03185473.pdf
  5. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY02061077.pdf
  6. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY02061077.pdf
  7. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY03081997.pdf
  8. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY03081997.pdf
  9. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/Monsanto-Email-with-Consultant-Henry-Miller-Discussing-Forbes-Article-Edited-by-Eric-Sachs.pdf
  10. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/MONGLY02065511.pdf
  11. ^ http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/14-Monsanto-Emails-Confirming-Undisclosed-Involvement-in-Successful-Retraction-of-Serlani-Study.pdf
  12. ^ https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents-2/Internal-email-showing-Monsanto-employees-strategy-for-retraction-of%20Seralini-et-al.pdf

I can include many other references of e-mails showing conflicts of interest and a corporate PR campaign leading to the vast majority of the information mentioned on this page. I am in no way in this to protect Seralini, what I am in this conversation for is as part of my work to identify specific pages, which have deep conflicts of interest as the base for the information, to help the Wikimedia Foundation. Supporting science is very important and supporting science that does not include conflicts of interest is even more important for all those scientists who work hard every day to make this world a better place.BillyHatch2020 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your claim of being "in no way in this to protect Seralini" my impression is that the more you write, the more you sound just like his legal representative or corporate PR consultant hired by that Baumhund law firm (language used indicates the former though). I think everyone here gave you enough directions as to how to add or change content on Wikipedia. You are free to go and add sourced text to the article on your own, and nobody here is obliged to do it for you. Posting legal tirades with vague allusions to unspecified "promises from the Wikimedia Foundation" and other masked threats is not really going to impress anyone here, so if this is how you are going to proceed, then well, we can just continue to "await" together... Cloud200 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to piggyback, WMF has no say in content here. No one with a background in COI should have been reaching for a USTRK link or Baumhedlund law either. Cloud does have a point about the legalese appeals. That is borderline WP:NLT which is a Wikipedia policy new editors can run afoul of. I really suggest slowing down here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note. Cloud200 your comments have not been useful for a new user and are simply inaccurate and biting.[1] Kingofaces43 I have not suggested that WMF has any direct control over content here. The use of the links from USTRK and Baumhedland Law is because they are the only ones I have found that have published the original court documents in question. They are not the source of the information - the Courts involved are as is clear. As stated I will follow the guidelines for discussion and deletion of this page after receiving any appropriate feedback from WMF.BillyHatch2020 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what your posts have been implying in tone. As for the rest, that is WP:OR. We don't go using primary documents to conduct our own research or engage in advocacy like that. We need secondary reliable sources, and that standard is even stricter in this article because of the fringe topics Seralini has been involved in. If you have specific content, then propose that. Otherwise, this talk page is not a forum for what you have been posting so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
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.

Another lawsuit

There is another lawsuit, but fortunately, Seralini lost. Yes, his work was "fraudulent" and misleading. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reception, Monsanto involvement, NPOV

I've made changes that partly relate to things previously discussed and I would like to give a rationale here.

I've added some recent reception in the scientific community, i.e., scientific papers that refer to the Séralini affair as an example of the (harmful) influence of industry on science rather than scientific misconduct. This includes a recent Lancet article (2023, 344 citations) and other highly cited articles (94 and 85 citations), published in reliable journals (SAGE and US NIEHS agency). WP:NPOV

"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."

As pointed out in talk earlier, this topic needs reliable secondary sources. I've extended the part about Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction process and the editor's COI, using two reliable and independent WP:Secondary (Retraction Watch and a peer-reviewed journal article), with reference to a primary source.

I've added three papers about current evidence on the RoundUp-tumor relationship, including the most recent Chemosphere article (2023-10, 15 citations, IF=8.1). There seems to be a consensus on this topic; however, earlier reviews were sometimes "inconclusive" due to smaller samples of early studies, which is natural as evidence grows.

I've changed the language in ~3 or 4 sentences to ensure WP:NPOV, such as changing "Séralini and allies" to "Séralini and some commentators" when it referred to independent scientists and journalists not involved in the GMO debate.

I've also added archives to dead links, including the crucial Elsevier statement on the retraction, as well as some indirect in-text citations and expanded citations in the references.

Freestyler Scientist (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded what look like emails from a random server to Wikipedia. These are not "reliable secondary sources" and fall afoul of WP:BLP. In general making huge diverse changes to controversial articles is a bad idea, especially when this sort of stuff is mixed in, alongside deletions of significant material. Bon courage (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand this comment. Could you explain which secondary source were not "reliable secondary sources"?
List of sources I've used:
Gilmore, Anna B.; Fabbri, Alice; Baum, Fran; Bertscher, Adam; Bondy, Krista; Chang, Ha-Joon; Demaio, Sandro; Erzse, Agnes; Freudenberg, Nicholas; Friel, Sharon; Hofman, Karen J.; Johns, Paula; Karim, Safura Abdool; Lacy-Nichols, Jennifer; Carvalho, Camila Maranha Paes de (8 April 2023). "Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health". The Lancet
Portier, Christopher J. (12 February 2020). "A comprehensive analysis of the animal carcinogenicity data for glyphosate from chronic exposure rodent carcinogenicity studies". Environmental Health
Zhang, Luoping; Rana, Iemaan; Shaffer, Rachel M.; Taioli, Emanuela; Sheppard, Lianne (12 February 2012). "Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A meta-analysis and supporting evidence". Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research
Rana, Iemaan; Nguyen, Patton K.; Rigutto, Gabrielle; Louie, Allen; Lee, Jane; Smith, Martyn T.; Zhang, Luoping (1 October 2023). "Mapping the key characteristics of carcinogens for glyphosate and its formulations: A systematic review". Chemosphere.
Oransky, Ivan (16 January 2014). "Journal editor defends retraction of GMO-rats study while authors reveal some of paper's history". Retraction Watch
Han, Andrew P. (10 August 2017). "Unearthed emails: Monsanto connected to campaign to retract GMO paper". Retraction Watch.
McHenry, Leemon B. (4 June 2018). "The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well". International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine
Elliott, Kevin C.; Resnik, David B. (29 July 2019). "Making Open Science Work for Science and Society". Environmental Health Perspectives
Except for RetractionWatch, that I personally think is very reliable, even Wikipedia have bot that automatically mark retracted articles with link to RetractionWatch, are peer-reviewed journals, mostly Q1 in field, and the articles are well cited.
The only primary source I've put as reference were Wisnerbaum.com released documents from Monsanto case, which was commented by 2 secondary sources. Exactly those links were cited in secondary sources.
"Authorization Letter to Consulting Agreement dated August 21, 2012, between Prof. A. Wallace Hayes and Monsanto Company"
"Monsanto personnel discusses plan seeking retraction of Seralani glyphosate study"
Also, changes were "huge", but not diverse, they developed one topic. The vast majority of the change was the addition of sources, with broad quotations from the texts. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on Wisnerbaum.com was inappropriate, as I said. You also removed content without any explanation. You have been alerted that this is a WP:CTOP. Please make any proposed change carefully. Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove any significant material without explanation, and I didn't remove any information, link or source at all.
Why stuff Wisnerbaum.com was inappropriate? It is a primary source, that was used exactly in line with Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources:
  1. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.
They were cited, as secondary source cite them, interpretation were derived exactly from secondary source.
Why "papers such as doi:10.1186/s12940-020-00574-1 are primary sources". They are par excellence secondary source mentioned in WP:Secondary:
"For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research."
The article you pointed is technically a review published in a prestigious Q1 journal that analyzes research papers in a field. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the material starting "Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013 .." without explanation. You changes also bombed the lead with text which fails WP:V such as "Subsequent reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed Séralini’s finding". Bon courage (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, and no:
Material starting "Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013 .." was moved up a paragraph.
"which fails WP:V such as "Subsequent reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed Séralini’s finding""
as I understand"
"verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source"
This single sentenced were supported by 3 peer reviewed articles, each of them were published in Q1 journal, they were cited 375, 78 and 15 (most recent) times. To each of those references, there was also added quote from the conclusion or abstract:
"The analyses conducted for this review clearly support the IARC's conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to say that glyphosate causes cancer in experimental animals."
The analyses identify 37 significant tumor findings in these studies and demonstrate consistency across studies in the same sex/species/strain for many of these tumors. Considering analyses of the individual studies, the consistency of the data across studies, the pooled analyses, the historical control data, non-neoplastic lesions, mechanistic evidence and the associated scientific literature, the tumor increases seen in this review are categorized as to the strength of the evidence that glyphosate causes these cancers.
"The totality of evidence from mechanistic studies in human and animal systems suggests that glyphosate and its formulations possess several of the ten key characteristics of carcinogens" Freestyler Scientist (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your version[2] of the article removed the "Following widespread criticism by scientists" material. The sources you added mention nothing about how they "confirmed Séralini’s finding" so this text fails WP:V and is pure WP:SYNTH as well as a WP:LEADBOMB. Overall, this all looks like disruptive a WP:PROFRINGE push. Bon courage (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously you wrote "You removed the material starting "Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013 .""
"Following widespread criticism by scientists..." is not a significant part, and it provides no added information. It was removed from purely linguistic reasons, because after the rest ("Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013...") was moved, there is already a statement about criticism in the previous paragraph. Also, no information was ever deleted. Article have still some broad statement:
The study was criticized by various regulatory authorities and scientists. With few exceptions, the scientific community dismissed the study and called for a more rigorous peer-review system in scientific journals.
And all the other criticisms of Serallini paper are still in the article. I do not insist that this change is necessary, it was not purely aesthetic, because this single statement itself is "stating opinions as facts" WP:NPOV. I mentioned that as a minor change. Once again, all sources and part of the article that describe criticism are still in text.
"The sources you added mention nothing about how they "confirmed Séralini’s finding" so this text fails WP:V and is pure WP:SYNTH"
I do not understand that. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
Statement "RoundUp is associated with an increased risk of several tumors in rodents" is stated in all sources. There is no synthesis, conclusion or abstracts from articles are explicitly cited in references. It is WP:THREE, not synthesis, you could remove any part of them or leave one with exactly same result. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your words "RoundUp is associated with an increased risk of several tumors in rodents" make no mention of Séralini. As a reminder, WP:V states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". Note "directly supports"; This is an article about the Séralini affair, not about glyphosate in general. Bon courage (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first words in Séralini affair article:
"The Séralini affair was the controversy surrounding the publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. First published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, the article presented a two-year feeding study in rats, and reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp." Freestyler Scientist (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like good content, in contrast to yours. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I try to keep discussions focused, please, stick to WP:AVOIDYOU.
You've made multiple claims, from the beginning:
You've uploaded what look like emails from a random server to Wikipedia:
They were primary sources published by Wisnerbaum, described according to Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. I've asked two times what is wrong with theme, you did not answer. Could I assume that you have withdrawn?
Papers such as doi:10.1186/s12940-020-00574-1 are primary sources:
I've responded to you that it is par excellence secondary source, you've deleted this comment. Could I assume that you have withdrawn?
You also removed content without any explanation:
I stated that I didn't remove any significant content, after my comment you find:
You removed the material starting "Following widespread criticism by scientists, Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper in November 2013..." without explanation.
But you were clearly wrong here, because this material paragraph up were moved, not removed. Only removed was "Following widespread criticism by scientists" that violating of WP:NPOV: "stating opinions as facts", also because there are serious (published in reliable, peer reviewed journals) claims that editor acted under the influence of COI, and his action, and his action preceded the criticism of the article. Could I assume that you have withdrawn, or you insist that "Following widespread criticism by scientists" is an untouchable part?
You claimed that: Your words "RoundUp is associated with an increased risk of several tumors in rodents" make no mention of Séralini [...] Note "directly supports"; this is an article about the Séralini affair, not about glyphosate in general
I really do not understand what you try to say.This is obvious statement from Séralini affair:
"the article presented [...] and reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and the herbicide RoundUp."
This is added sentence:
"Subsequent reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed Séralini’s finding that RoundUp is associated with an increased risk of several tumors in rodents"
It obviously does mention Séralini. And this is one of quoted source:
"The analyses identify 37 significant tumor findings in these studies and demonstrate consistency across studies in the same sex/species/strain for many of these tumors. [...] the tumor increases seen in this review are categorized as to the strength of the evidence that glyphosate causes these cancers"
It is as direct support of RoundUp is associated with an increased risk of several tumors in rodents, as it could be.
Please, tell me if I miss something. Maybe relation, NHL-tumor is unclear? Non-Hodkin Lymphoma is a tumor, should add it as a reference?
You mentioned WP:LEADBOMB relative to information on RoundUp-tumor. But it is yours essay, not official policy.
However, I agree that covered in the remainder of the article will be beneficial to this information. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think raising comments I deleted as an error, is not an honest discussion tactic. As for your "obvious" reading, they are not obvious and are in fact WP:SYNTH. Also, invoking WP:AVOIDYOU while writing a comment full of "yous" looks like trolling. We're done here. Bon courage (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what you mentioned Bon Courage, I'm seeing a lot of these authors being mentioned (especially Portier) that have financial ties to the lawyers pushing the idea that glyphosate is a major carcinogen. KoA (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth mentioning, but let be clear:
1) This article already hugely rely on sources with COI's, citing "as experts" people who work in bio-techinsdustry or as Maurice Moloney who is owner of company that produce RoundUp Ready crops (according to Maurice Moloney),
2) Also, Wikipedia Policy is very clear: WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. Those are reliable sources, peer reviewed publications, reviews published in important journals, with many citationWP:SCHOLARSHIP. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've republished the edition, without all the parts that were contested.
Thank you @Bon courage @KoA for comments. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the same issues. Reverted. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every point you contested, even I disagreed, had been removed from the edition. I don't see reason everywhere explained. Wikipedia:Obversion, I believe that we could find consensus there, please, honor discussion, do not avoid my questions.
Could you exactly explain what is the reason for revert? WP:SQSAVOID Freestyler Scientist (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead-bombing, introduction of weasel wording, and undue use of fringe sources (notably Seralini himself), among other things. You have decided to edit-war rather than follow WP:BRD. Bon courage (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain exactly which sources I've used are "fringe sources"? Every source I've used were highly cited peer reviewed, published by reliable publisher article, or RetractionWatch. I do not add any "Seralini sources". Is it a mistake? Which words are "weasel wording"? "Lead Bombing" was attributed to part that was removed from the edition. What are "other things"?
It is not "discussion", when you made several obviously false claims:
- about including sources that weren't included
- that some sources are not reliable and fringe, without even pointing which ones,
- about deletions of significant material Freestyler Scientist (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage had been succinctly addressing the issues in the edits. You're asking editors to tackle a lot at once on this talk page. Instead, remember the WP:ONUS is on you and you need to get consensus before restoring content like I mentioned on my talk page. If there are specific edits to propose, then make them on this talk page so they can be specifically discussed and easily referenced. For the sake of those following along, besides the 1RR issue in the recent edits, sourcing issues have been brought up as well as how you are changing text to significantly affect tone, especially WP:SOME of the editorializing going on. Even without the source questions, the edits weren't an improvement. KoA (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask to specify "which sources" are "fringe", or "which significant part" are removed is not asking to tackle "too much". While I could agree that some part of the edit could be controversial, and should be discussed, the second edition was reverted based on an entirely false claim. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned proposed specific edits here because you've been making sweeping changes to content that are too much for editors to tackle at once, especially when you are asking for multiple specifics about your multiple changes. You're currently working with two experienced editors in this subject, and there are multiple ways to run into significant issues with addressing content in this area including what's addressed above. That's why I'm asking you to slow down and focus on specific proposed pieces of content to anchor discussion. KoA (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will propose specific edits here, maybe I would start with something that I wanted to propose as second edit, I really do not want to wage wars.
However, I should say, that reverting well sourced changes because they are "sweeping changes", are not behavior that I would expect from dedicated editors, also making several false claim. My view of your actions is that you are a bit too quick to recognize that you are up against some sort of "fringe player", and act accordingly. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing of some changes

First change: There is an important problem with the citation:

The study was also criticized by the European Society of Toxicologic Pathology, which expressed shock at the way the rats in the study were treated and questioned whether the study was legal to perform under European law.

The cited source is not European Society of Toxicologic Pathology, also authors are a "task force" created by involved parties, including Monsanto.

Instead of removing it, I would propose to simply replace references with: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512007880?via%3Dihub

Second change: there is a major problem with this:

University of Calgary Professor Maurice Moloney publicly wondered why the paper contained so many pictures of treated rats with horrific tumors, but no pictures of control group rats.

Since, according to his wiki, Maurice Moloney is an owner of the company that produces RoundUpReady seeds, he is not a reliable source on the Seralini affair. As this accusation is probably true, I think there should be a better source, as it is not a peer-reviewed article.

Third change, I'm wondering about Science Media Center as a reliable source because of COI (SMC is funded in large part by industry, including producers of RoundupReady crops). There are two quotes based on SMC:

This has been strongly criticised by numerous experts,

The republication renewed the controversy, but now with additional controversy over the behavior of the editors of both journals

I do not have a strong opinion on this, but these are clearly "stated facts" about experts, as well as those that are probably true, so probably better source is needed.

Fourth change

A 2017 study found that since it was retracted, Seralini et al. (2012) had been cited 60 times after it was retracted, and that more of these citations were negative (39%) than were positive (26%).

The article also provides analysis for republished paper, I think that this short part could be expanded.

Freestyler Scientist (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two actual proposed changes here, the first and fourth. For the first I have no objection to the new source alongside the existing one. For the fourth PMID:29056790 is reliable for the statement made, but not for WP:BMI, so is not suitable for the proposed use. Bon courage (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the first, 'existing' source is non-independent, and IMO, it will be better to replace it, not leave, but I do not insist.
In the fourth one, there is probably misunderstanding, the PMID:29056790 will be used as source for citation analysis, not anything different.
For the second, and third:
my proposition is to either replace reference, change or remove because of WP:NIS states that:
Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. [...] Non-independent sources should never be used to support claims of notability, but can with caution be used to fill in noncontroversial details.
I have no idea how to replace ref or modify text, so I am considering adding a third party inline template. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recognize these 'non-independent' claims. Unless there is good documentary evidence why a source lacks independence Wikipedia, in general, respects the probity of the publishing process for otherwise reputably-published material, not the random accusations of Wikipedia editors, particularly where the authors' work is consonant with the accepted science. Bon courage (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moloney is related to RoundUp Ready Canola according to press releases, for example ABC Radio National, Intergovernmental organizations, his company or even his LinkedIn.
Science Media Center funders are available here.
So those are evident. Also, WP:COISOURCE states:
In sectors where conflicts of interests are rampant, it may be preferable to assume that a publication is affected by a conflict of interest unless proven otherwise
In this sector, COI is rampant. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COISOURCE is just a redirect to an essay and not part of the WP:PAGs, but even so it says "if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance". It's not up to editors to decide to dodge WP:V. As this article points out, there is also a lot of conspiracy theorising about this topic. Bon courage (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to that If there are doubts (emphasis mine):
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. WP:NOTRELIABLE
Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited WP:QUESTIONABLE
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [...]. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.WP:SOURCE
Of course, there is also a lot of conspiracy theorising about that, but there are also a lot of financial interests. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, so when questionable sources (according to published external assessment and not just the suspicions of a random Wikipedia editor) come up, we should be wary. Bon courage (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be fine with something adding something like "according to Science Media Center..."? Freestyler Scientist (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem like a WP:YESPOV problem choosing wording to throw shade on a source. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is clear: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your source for this being "biased" is? Bon courage (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reliable media reports, about advocacy/bias especially of Science Media Centre UK
https://www.scidev.net/global/features/uk-s-science-media-centre-lambasted-for-pushing-corporate-science/
https://www.nature.com/articles/499142a
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2002/jun/02/gm.observersciencepages Freestyler Scientist (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, trying to use a 22 year old Guardian article wouldn't be appropriate here because they're complaining about a documentary their editor produced being criticized by SMC. That falls into old anti-GMO WP:FRINGE stuff in addition to being too close to the subject.
I'm seeing that recurring theme in the 10 year old Scidev article too related to GMOs, especially with “Why don’t you have lobbyists who oppose genetic testing or members of Greenpeace expressing their view rather than bioindustry’s position?. Especially in terms of WP:GEVAL this article doesn't look very WP:DUE, especially since the article even says there was no evidence of favoring particular funders, but people were chosen to interview that broadly hand-waved about favoring "corporate science". There's not really much substance in that article, and in the anti-GMO world, "corporate science" is a dog whistle term tied to scientific denialism in this subject.
I took a look at the Nature article too, and it doesn't suggest anything for unreliability. If anything, it reiterates what I mentioned with the Guardian source that critics have mostly complained about SCM being on the right side of science and critics complaining, in part because the SMC gives voice to scientists who favour GM and other commercial applications of research. That's like complaining renewable energy industries do better because we have a scientific consensus on the causes of climate change.
At this point, we're getting pretty far into the weeds on old anti-GMO stuff with what you're suggesting. KoA (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that list of funders it's pretty hard to claim bias based on the diverse list of funders I'm seeing there, including universities. Especially given how news agencies like NPR report positively and negatively on their diverse sponsors all the time, that's really a reach to call it biased. That also includes the BBC you included as biased earlier. KoA (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my last comment, I put sources that are much clearer accusation of bias in UK SMC, in context of Serallini Affair. As it could be seen as a generally reliable source, context matter.
Also, the claim This has been strongly criticised by numerous experts in the article is misleading, because those were selected by SMC experts.
In contrary, it should be noted, there is some important statement about SMC itself: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/following-the-money-misses-the-point/ Freestyler Scientist (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, that very same study that you indicate is misleading to say it was heavily criticized (personal opinion that conflicts with sources) had to have a correction issued because Seralini didn't include in the conflict of interest section he was taking funding from a homeopathic pharmaceutical company that markets "detoxes" for glyphosate and other pesticides. KoA (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this Serralini study got corrected due to undisclosed conflict of interest, it would be probably important information to include in the article, but, as correction states, it was editorial error to not include COI statement properly (in first version it was labelled as "funding" not as "COI").doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135542.s001 Freestyler Scientist (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C3%A9ralini_affair