Talk:Séralini affair: Difference between revisions

Lfstevens's 07:49, 18 March 2015‎ Revision -- IMPROVEMENT but still lacks NPOV

Lfstevens: Thank you for the above revision. It is definitely an improvement to the article. However, it lacks NPOV, because it overemphasizes the criticism of the study by neglecting to mention that the Seralini study was specifically designed to be a long term version of the shorter 90-day study performed by Monsanto to justify the safety of the maize, and that the Monsanto study used the same number of rats and same kind of rats--clearly a double-standard. Both Seralini and the ENSSER make this very clear. This should both be in the lead and in the article body, rather than buried near the bottom of the article in a short phrase the ENSSER claimed double standards. David Tornheim (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please offer concrete changes with their sources so we can consider them per policy and guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

David, thanks for noticing. I'm just copyediting at the moment. Feel free to supply a reliable source with notable info. After I finish the ce, I'll look at it.

OK, done for now. Feedback encouraged. Comments:

• Lots of link work
• Removed lots of dup matl.
• I'd like to see more treatment of the specific criticisms of sample size and rat species. E.g., do other safety studies follow the 65-rat sample size rule and use other species?
• Entine refers to multi-generational studies. Discuss that in more detail here. The mentioned review is doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048
• Word count reduced from 3866 to 3381 (13%).

Lfstevens (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources are already found in the article:

1. Statement opposing Retraction (Currently Footnote 93)

• First long-term study
• Found negative effects
• Retraction a backroom deal with undisclosed people
• Retraction violates scientific Norms
• Inconclusive findings is an unacceptable reason to retract a paper
• Misrepresentations that the study said the GM products/herbicide caused CANCER.

...This is temp version. I will continuing adding shortly.David Tornheim (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Looked at the stmt and at the letter that I think it was referring to. It isn't presenting science that validates the study. It does reject the retraction and gives reasons. It would be appropriate to review it to possibly expand the r&r section. Are you saying that you want to expand the material directly above that ref? Lfstevens (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

After I prepare a more thorough list, let's see where we stand, okay?David Tornheim (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

we have had plenty of fans of seralini come by and want to add more content defending the paper - please see the archives. the consensus has been that this is WP:UNDUE - the paper was resoundingly rejected by authorities worldwide and we do not do "fair and balanced" here. The couple of lines there, with its five sources, has been judged to be plenty. consensus may change, of course, but that is what it has been, and why. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we wait for David's reply before jumping on him as a "fan"? This article is the drill down on the controversy. I see no problem in adding detail on supporters' claims. They can be addressed. The sources are already refed in the piece. By your standard, why even acknowledge that Seralini has support beyond his group? It's all the same degree of invalid. Lfstevens (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

^Thank you. David Tornheim (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not UNDUE to acknowledge the objections exist; it is UNDUE and violates WP:GEVAL to go into detail on them. This article is not a vehicle for defense of Seralini nor to attack him (which is how his supporters view it). We give the the most weight to the mainstream view, and we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to the FRINGE view that the conclusions were valid. Please do review the archives. We have had this conversation many, many times. People who believe Jeffery Smith also think that Seralini's paper was valid and seek to redeem the paper by including exactly this content; the two POVs go hand in hand. and they get all outraged and write in all caps that the article fails NPOV. The content they want and the behavior is not new. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Checked out geval. Given that this article is about the controversy, rather than NK603 per se, I don't see how including details is undue, especially given that I was planning to include FCT's counters. I am not a Smith or Seralini supporter (although I note that Smith is already cited as a ref in the article for some reason.) I'm not trying to resurrect the paper, merely to describe what happened in full. Lfstevens (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

although some people think otherwise, nothing in this article suppresses the anti-GMO voice. The Smith reference is there and is reliable only for what Smith said; not for a claim about reality. This article is about the scandal seralini caused with his paper, and especially the PR campaign when he released it (which in my view, should be much higher in the article - it is the heart of the affair). we provide the background to that event, and the reaction of the world to it. We give a couple of lines to the reaction to the reaction, but that is (in my view) all it the WEIGHT we should give it - he made the first move - a big bold one - and set up what followed. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The truth finally seems to have got its boots on...

A series of commentaries on the Séralini affair [1]. Seems the study is every bit as shoddy as it always appeared. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Jon Entine and his Genetic Literacy Project is WP:RS and WP:NPOV with regard to GMO issues? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a different study. The conflict of interest allegation is notable, but this is at the least a different chapter in the drama. Also, Entine is not a scientist. He can report on science, like any journalist, but that's different. Lfstevens (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Objection -- article lacks NPOV

I object to this revert. I was attempting to include the recently published review journal article, organize the article to make sense and to have the content of the body reflected in the lede. The lede focuses almost entirely on discrediting the author despite the support for the author found in the article and in the recent review study. Please work towards consensus rather than simply reverting my efforts to improve and balance the article to make in WP:NPOV. David Tornheim (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to adjust for WP:WEIGHT; we have high quality sources such as EFSA which says the study is not adequate or good. One review, published in the same low quality, low impact, non-MEDLINE indexed journal that republished the original study does not significantly shift the overall weight of the high quality sources' conclusions. Review WP:GEVAL. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim I agree with you that this Wikipedia article has developed with an odd focus that makes it difficult to understand the basics of the "affair". If you propose changes in smaller steps then I would comment on them. It is more difficult to judge sets of changes than individual ones. Some of the changes you might like to make might not be questioned at all, then others might give pause. Thanks for giving attention to this. I would like to see the article improved.

Yobol I agree with what you are saying but in the changes that David presented, the source cited seems to be covering the issue from a social perspective and not a scientific one, so high quality scientific sources are less relevant for what is being proposed. I am ready to discuss more if this user wants to propose something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree regarding the specific source in question, though the other changes including addition to the lead are not improvements in my opinion. I have reintroduced that material with specific in text attribution (rather than "scientists") and hopefully better summary. Yobol (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobol is apparently edit warring over his POV. I warned the user on his talk page. The user removed long standing content from the page. prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• You do not understand WP:NPOV. We do not do "fair and balanced" here - "fair and balanced" violates WP:NPOV. See WP:GEVAL. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog this is not your article, you keep behaving like WP:OWN, and WP:HOUND, also strangely you begin deleting content which has been part of the article for month, and the addition discussed here.prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Neutral view points The Steps Centre has a good article, which highlights some of the issues regarding this article - FOR OR AGAINST GM CROPS? OTHER POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE prokaryotes (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutrality is obtained by review all high quality sources and appropriately WP:WEIGHTing them according to prominence and quality of the sources, not by declaring a source neutral ahead of time and insisting that everyone agree to that source's conclusion. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ENSSER study and Seralini support

Besides removal of recent edits by me and David Tornheim Jytdog also removed the following:

• In this edit editor Jytdog removes a study which has been part of the article for a long time.
• In this edit he removes recent editor edits, and an article by testbiotech, which has been part of the article for a long time. It appears that Jytdog removes anything which doesn't comes from corporate related sources, and all mentions of science in those regards. Hence, why his edits likely show none neutral editing. prokaryotes (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes I am having trouble following. For your first point, it seems like the user removed information about some study unrelated to the Seralini affair. What objection do you have to that? Are you able to explain the connection between that study and the subject of this article?

For the second point the phrase "The paper also received support from the scientific community." was removed, but that statement did not have a citation. Do you object to that removal? Do you have a citation for the statement?

Say something more about what you want to see. Jytdog - could I ask you to make fewer changes per edit (if you edit more, while this is discussed) because if someone questions your actions then I would like to make it easy for them to point out what the problem is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, point 1 is a direct response to Séralini's feeding study - by scientists from the scientific community. The second point in the header area is to summarize the content. There have been various responses from the scientific community in support of Séralini (See for instance Point 1). What Jytdog is doing here is censoring information, when he removes withotu mention, without discussion content. Ironically above section tries to bring NPOV to the attention of editors, entirely ignored by Jytdog. prokaryotes (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I see. Jytdog, how do you feel about that source being used to back the statement "A study funded by and conducted in consultation with ENSSER also concluded that EFSA applied double standards." Does the paper say that? Is it a reliable source for saying this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record Bluerasberry (talk · contribs), Jytdog's single edit was a return to the article as it was before Prryokate edited. Phyr took 4 edits, Jytdog one. Same thing, so no need for Jytdog to worry about his editing in this case, a simple glance at the edit history would have told you this. Phyr now holds the WP:BURDEN for that content I believe? I see Phyrokates appears to be following and hounding Jytdog nowadays. Is this just more DramaH -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I was confused because Jytdog's edit did not say "undone". Thanks.

I think it is best to keep tension low without calling anything drama. Everyone can give comment. Prokaryotes - any response? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor removed long standing content from the page, ignoring above discussion about NPOV as well. Roxy the dog's comment is wrong. Jytdog's edits removed content from the page, without notice in the edit summary, without any discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes I am confused. Here is the before and after, with your edits inbetween. It looks like Jytdog only reverted what you did. Am I looking in the wrong place? Can you show more specifically what is removed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

As i linked above, Jytdog removes the study from enveurope.com, which has been added 30 January 2014.prokaryotes (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

... The enveurope citation was removed, quite rightly, by Jytdog with the edit summary "remove another popup claire robinson website as source - not reliable" - at 11:32 on the 30th Jan 2014, eight minutes later. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No it was not removed 11:32 30th Jan 2014 ... Roxy dog, i am not sure what your want but if you comment you should take care that the information is accurate, especially when you comment during an edit dispute. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, the link you linked to shows that it was removed on 30 January 2014 at 6:32. Other than the time (which may vary depending on time zone), Roxy's comment above appears to be correct. Everymorning (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is true that it was removed in a different edit then given above by Roxy, however a few edits later it was readd by Jytdog (Summary: added content as per Talk) - The point is this study was part of the article from Jan 2014 until 2 days ago.prokaryotes (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C3%A9ralini_affair/Archive_2#New_content_objecting_to_retraction prokaryotes (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• about this dif; What we are not doing in this article, is re-litigating the Seralini affair. Whatever ENSSER publishes later, changes nothing about the quality of Seralini's 2012 paper or its conclusions. Adding a much later publication by someone else, about something else, is not relevant to the Seralini affair. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1) Jytdog added the study himself (dif), per talk page 2) Yes the study is about the Seralini paper. prokaryotes (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ping Vindheim prokaryotes (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

offtopic Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You just broke 4RR Prokaryotes. I will give you a chance to selfrevert. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC) I think you are very disruptive and aggressive. Why do you ignore your obvious error that the study is on topic, you yourself added it. And no explanation whatsoever why you removed it without discussion.prokaryotes (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC) As you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

why are you pinging this "Vindheim", P? Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

He will possibly not respond, after interacting with you he stopped using Wikipedia and left.prokaryotes (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody talking here understands the issue you are raising, Prokaryotes. Not me, not Bluerasperry, not Roxy. I suggest you respond to Blueraspberry's question above, and we can take it from there. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What part did you not understand? I suggest you stay away from playing dumb. prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I can't follow what you are writing above. Yes other people have to tried to add that source. It is the same journal that republished Seralini's study and the authors are from an advocacy group that supported Seralini from day 1; this is not independent of the controversy. We reach for independent sources as much as we can. Also the content you added calls this a study, and it is not a study as they did not do any actual experiments. All this source does is try to amplify the argument that Seralini has been making all along that the studies required by regulators are not long enough. It is also FRINGE in comparing the experiments that Seralini did to the studies that Monsanto did. The experimental design is completely different. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that Prokaryotes wants to add a poor source, although the reason appears to have nothing to do with the Seralini affair. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy are you sure that the ENSSER rat feeding study has nothing to do with the Seralini affair? Because the ENSSER study mentions the Seralini study 53 times. Jytdog added the study himself in 2014, until he suddenly removed the study 3 days ago. prokaryotes (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, what do you mean with a poor source? This is a peer reviewed journal and the study is in support of the Seralini study, hence why it belongs in the support section. prokaryotes (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you carry the WP:BURDEN for this poor source, could you explain why you feel that analysis of the Seralini data by advocates for Seralini, as has been explained multiple times here, and directly to you in this section, is reliable? thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Could we start over with a rewording? The text in dispute is needlessly accusative and ambiguous anyway. We have some organization, ENSSER, saying something about the Seralini study. The proposed text says "the study found double standards", but does not clarify what that means. Can someone who wants the text say something like "ENSSER did a study to examine the Seralini study, and found that..." Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that editors who support the inclusion of this study are pretty busy on other things right now. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Recent edits seem to me to involve a fair bit of polemic. For example, the commentary of the Science Media Centre is qualified by an accusation of "substantial funding" by the biotech industry and is not sourced to SMC's statement but to an article in, unless I am misreading things, the same journal that republished Séralini, which makes the claim of substantial finding and cites a source (Nature) which is (a) an opinion piece and (b) does not actually say that SMC receives substantial funding from the industry (it lists a number of sponsors, some of whom are biotech companies). So a source with a dog in the fight is quoted despite its claims not matching its own primary source, and this is done in order to poison the well in respect of SMC. There are plenty of valid criticisms of SMC - it is a science apologist organisation more than a neutral science communications source - but the funding issue is one thing on which they are actually pretty clean, they have a lot of sources of income, no sponsor is allowed to contribute more than 5% of the budget, and the separation between income and activities is pretty sound. It is reminiscent of the homeopaths trying to discount Sense About Science because of nebulous claims of "pharma funding" which actually track back to a couple of small donations which are insignificant overall. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases

A request for an Arbcom [2] case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions [3] have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reminder - DS and 1RR

Reminder to those who are engaging in a revert tug-of-war the last day or so -- this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and has a strict 1RR per editor per page per 24 hour period, pursuant to the temporary injunction at the Arb case. Please keep in mind the spirit as well as the letter of the injunction. Minor4th 15:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Award

This addition mentioned an award from a German group that I removed due to weight concerns largely because we don't include awards glorifying a fringe subject and also because the underlying source paints a substantially different picture than the current mainstream description of the controversy. We already have quite a few notes under the support section with WP:FRINGE and WP:BALANCE in mind. That would have been the time to come to this page if anyone felt strongly about including it as there wasn't consensus for it, but it looks like Minor4th has readded the content. [4][5] We do need to be wary about including more information like this with weight in mind. Is there any reasoning for including this piece of content and the source? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The award appears to be given by a small German pressure group of anti newklear scientists (less than 400 members) and anti newkular lawyers who I've never heard of. I think this is way WP:UNDUE and intend to revert. Neither organisation are prominent enough. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Minor4th 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, republished under peer-review

To say the article 'was not peer-reviewed' when republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, is an absurdity, and shows the writer does not understand science. Those scientists at the Environmental Sciences Europe, are independent peer-reviewers of the peer-reviewed research. They checked it, it was properly conducted. That's peer-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated the Séralini paper as republished in June 2014 and concluded, that the study “was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.” The study is only suitable to present an example of "junk science".--Shisha-Tom (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is Shisha Tom not pointing out who sponsored the study? Also notice that his link does not work. Re Monsanto sponsoring fantasy http://www.techtimes.com/articles/114226/20151208/scientists-hired-by-monsanto-say-weed-killer-glyphosate-does-not-cause-cancer.htm and here http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-monsanto-glyphosate-idUSKCN0T61QL20151117 prokaryotes (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The headline from Reuters says more about this than all the bluster in the entire history of this talk page: "Mixed message on weed-killer reflects reality of scientific uncertainty". Science can't prove a negative. The evidence is not definitive either way, and it is unlikely it will be in the near term. The only thing we do know with absolute certainty is that the Séralini paper is worthless. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Next time before you make bold statements about the scientific process i suggest you google for "science absolute certainty" and such. GL. prokaryotes (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto did not sponsor the IARC monograph; see pg 35. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Did this paper, the republished one, magically get peer reviewed since publication, somehow. That would be clever. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Science cannot prove a negative, in cases like this. It can prove beyond any rational doubt that there is no credible evidence of something, but as the cranks are forever reminding us, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regardless, the Séralini study is worthless, and that is the only relevance here. Even if a link is one day proved between glyphosate and cancer in humans, which it absolutely has not been at this stage, it would not validate Séralini, because his work is, as we describe in the article, well below acceptable scientific standards. If you want to argue the toss about the evils of glyphosate (what am I saying? if? of course you do!) then this is not the correct venue. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We go by the reliable sources, here as linked above. Hence your comment resemble poor opinion, because it is in stark contrast to what the science actually states. If you want to preach that the study of S is worthless you should find a forum for that. prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG (also known as Guy) removes study links from Seralini

• Ironically admin JzG (Guy) removes peer reviewed study papers from Seralini, on the article about Seralini. DIF
• Additional he removes the mention that Seralini's paper are peer reviewed. DIF
• Removes key information, long part of the article that the study has been peer-reviewed. DIF
• JzG removes the republication as well. DIF prokaryotes (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality

Recently admin JzG (also known under the name Guy) removed systematical all the mentions that Seralini's studies have been published in peer reviewed literature, and removed at least 2 related study papers. Since the admin appears unwilling to discuss his edits (see above section), I ask for other opinions.

• Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
• Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
• Should Arbcom enforce discretionary sanctions for admin JzG (See recent decision in regards to GMO's), since it seems to me that his edits are disruptive, and he shows no signs of willingness to work in a community environment, and to support neutral articles. prokaryotes (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)