Talk:Séralini affair

Monsanto influence on FCT

GM Watch is now reporting details (apparently sourced in part from newly available Monsanto documents like this one, for example) of Monsanto's lobbying campaign to get FCT to retract the Séralini article and a consulting contract between Monsanto and A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of FCT at the time of the retraction.

The GM Watch article, which among other things may call into question the impartiality of FCT (and Bruce Chassy, BTW, based on an independent investigation by WBEZ), is focused more on the Séralini affair than this New York Times article on a broader view of Monsanto, but GM Watch cites the WBEZ investigation and the NYT article as well.

Editors may want to review this Wiki article in light of the disclosures. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

— [A BIT LATER] Added the point about Chassy and the WBEZ study after re-reading the overall Talk and seeing reference to him as a "reputable academic". -- jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

GM Watch is probably not a WP:RS. Although the other sources discuss the relationship between the journal editor and Monsanto, they never mention Séralini, so it would be WP:SYNTH to cite them here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If GM Watch were saying these things on its own, it might not be a WP:RS. But it's citing Monsanto's own documents, from the law firm that obtained them. If Monsanto isn't a RS about its own actions, then who is? And doesn't the material put the reliability (LATER: and/or WP:NPOV) of some of what IS written here (e.g., Chassy as a "reputable academic") into question? — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

More details here (again, I ask that you consider the root materials). — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Do the root materials refer specifically to Monsanto influencing the editorial decisions about the publication and retraction of the Séralini paper, as opposed to influencing other aspects of the GMO/glyphosate debates? I'm not seeing it anywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything to that effect yet, but the reference to "root material" definitely brings WP:PRIMARY to mind. Plus, I agree GM Watch really doesn't have any merit here. I'd personally wait for secondary coverage from reliable secondary sources to see if there's anything worth mentioning. From what I've seen so far, it doesn't look like these claims are being taken seriously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Start by checking the first PDF linked in my initial post. Quoting from the middle of page 6: ″# Throughout the late 2012 Seralini rat cancer publication and media campaign, I leveraged my relationship the Editor if [sic] Chief of the publishing journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology and was the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal." And near the end of the New York Times article cited (is THAT a WP:RS?), there is this: ″The documents also show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of a journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. In 2013, while he was still editor, Mr. Hayes retracted a key study damaging to Monsanto that found that Roundup, and genetically modified corn, could cause cancer and early death in rats.″ — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Nation of Change Webpage has a link to this page describing and linking a number of the Monsanto documents. Look for yourselves. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That Nation of Change list is extremely lengthy, and per WP:BURDEN I doubt that anyone here is going to search through each of those links without knowing what we are really looking for – it's up to you to present actual sourcing for what you want to add to the page. The NY Times article (yes of course it's an RS) never says that the reason for retracting the paper was what Monsanto said to the editor. It never even says anything about communication between Monsanto and the editor, and it says that the decision to retract originated with letters to the editor that were published. It's WP:SYNTH to take that information, and what the article says about Monsanto being the maker of glyphosate, and conclude that the editor actually made the decision based on private communications with Monsanto. That's not how Wikipedia works.

So the only source that you really have here is the pdf: [1]. As Kingofaces said, WP:Primary applies to that source, and we may not "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize" from that source, and we must "be cautious about basing large passages on" it. And it's a document by a company employee telling his bosses why his work has been good, and the entirety of what you have is that quote about him describing himself as "the single point of contact between Monsanto and the Journal". It does not say that his "contact" was the reason for retraction. Really, I understand where you are coming from, but at Wikipedia we have to adhere to WP:SYNTH, and be aware of WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The "Nation of Change list" (actually at US Right to Know) clearly names particular documents relevant to Séralini and the journal. About ten in all, IIRC. (LATER — Here's a page from the law firm's own descriptions of the new documents; that should make reviewing the most relevant ones even easier . . . and you can look for more relevant material or not as you prefer.) If that's too much of a burden, then you could at least edit the article so that it acknowledges the release of the documents as a neutral, objective, and relevant fact -- and so it stops making flat-out POV statements such as that Chassy is a "reputable academic" when experts in his field have disputed (as reported in an independent NPR station investigation) that his actions in not disclosing his Monsanto connections were in fact reputable. If that's still too much of a burden -- well, in that case we're all going to have to accept my losing some of my faith in Wikipedia as a reliable source. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, focusing on the phrase "single point of contact" kind of glosses over the bit about "leveraging my relationship with the editor" - which was done "[t]hroughout the late 2012 Seralini rat cancer publication and media campaign". Even the source you're admitting to the discusion is being minimized. I hope that's not how Wikipedia works. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jalp? -Roxy the dog. bark 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

My initials, if you want to know; not intended as meaning anything else. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

About the legal analysis from the Baum Hedlund law firm, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY for what it says about using such sources for statements about other people. It's about reliable sourcing, not about your faith in Wikipedia. You do know, don't you, that there are other pages in Category:Monsanto and Category:Genetically modified organisms in agriculture that cover the release of the Monsanto memos? Please don't be sarcastic about my use of the word "burden" – I put a lot of time and effort into editing, and WP:BURDEN is the name of a section of a core policy at Wikipedia. If the article said anywhere that "Chassy is a reputable academic", that would indeed be POV, and I would definitely remove it. But I just examined the entire page, and it's nowhere in the article. I figure you are referring to something another editor said on the talk page. That is not part of the article, and if you dislike the personal opinion of another editor, take it up with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's see . . . first, my bad on not accurately keeping track of where the direct Chassy references before were -- the specific word "reputable" was not yours, though you did also say yourself in a tone of agreement that the book appeared to be a "reliable source overall". I hope you will consider the possibility that ″mainstream-ness″ may not always correlate perfectly with reliability — and that an author, a publisher, and the material they put out together may all have their own level of reliability (or un-) . . . and be willing to question material even if it comes from so mainstream a source as the New York Times (though, to be honest, I certainly don't always consider them reliable myself). As for the the Baum Hedlund site, I was referring you there as an easier way to find the relevant documents — not suggesting that you use their analysis of the documents. And I'm glad that other Monsanto-related articles mention the release of the documents — but I can't help thinking their existence and revelation are relevant to this article as well, and I hope you can agree with that too. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I really think that you need to make a specific proposal about a page edit, with sourcing, yourself. And please keep in mind the community consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What your suggesting is still an improper use of a WP:PRIMARY source involved in the subject in question. We need secondary coverage at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If a mere mention of the documents' revelation and existence in public are improper, then I give up. (For now, at least.) — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

As a two-minute drill first rough draft, I would offer this as a starting point: ″In August 2017, a law firm involved in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto posted on its Website documents from the discovery process. Some of these documents mention actions taken with respect to the Séralini study and article by persons connected with Monsanto.″ I would cite to the front page of the law firm's list of documents (or page two, which probably has most of the most relevant documents) without further description in the article. And I would leave it to more experienced editors to judge whether the quote "the late 2012 Seralini rat cancer publication and media campaign" - however accurate a quote from a Monsanto employee - would be suitable description fodder in place of the perhaps overly bland passive phrasing above. Further deponent sayeth not (because he hasn't got the time). — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I bet you can guess how I'm going to react to it. The biggest problem is that anything at all like "mention actions taken with respect to" is so vague that it falls into WP:WEASEL territory, and I just do not see a way to be more specific with the sourcing that exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

″In August 2017, a law firm involved in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto posted on its Website documents from the discovery process. Some of the documents mention the Séralini study and its publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology.″ — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Saying that "the documents mention" it is either meaningless or innuendo without saying what the mentions actually were, with reliable sourcing that what was said is actually what happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Catch-22, strike three . . . I'm out. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:5CE4:98BA:65BD:9BC5 (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's try once again, with a new candidate for a source -- Le Monde. I don't expect GMWatch's translation would be accepted by itself, but one can check at least the beginning of it against Google Translate as far as it goes before Le Monde wants a subscription. — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:284E:2A67:20E4:5AA7 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

HORLA83 made some recent edits that I want to make some comments about. First, the editor misused the WP:PROD process, because it can only be applied once to a page, and once any editor contests it, under no circumstance can it be added back. Second, two paragraphs were added to the lead section, that clearly go against the discussion in this talk section. Normally, I would have reverted that, but I had also contested the PROD, and I do not want to risk violating WP:1RR that has been applied to this page by the Arbitration Committee (see the edit notice that appears when one edits this page or talk page). I have templated the additions for unreliable sourcing and POV violations instead, and I would urge other editors to remove the material entirely, until such time as talk page consensus approves its addition. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I see now that while I was posting this, Kingofaces did in fact remove the material. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: Raw data in republication

In this Wikipedia article (Seralini Affair), it says: "In June 2014 an amended version of the article was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe, and the raw data were made public." This appears to be not quite so: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/07/seralini-rat-study-revisited/ https://grist.org/food/retracted-roundup-fed-rat-research-republished/ --Ronja R (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I see that those sources are commentaries from four years ago. I think we need to consider WP:RS here. I'd be receptive to adding this if it could be sourced to an actual scientific source, as opposed to online opinion pieces. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the website of multiple university extension professors, so it at least falls under expert commentary in terms of WP:PARITY for the lack of raw data comment (the R analysis they did would definitely need another source though). The combination of weedcontrolfreaks and the grist source seems to be enough to add a statement saying something to the effect that scientists have said the raw data hasn't been released in its entirety. I wouldn't really go beyond that though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be OK with a brief statement about that, attributed in the form of "According to [name],..." rather than in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but we basically have Kniss talking about Johnson's Grist piece that might complicate attribution a bit depending on how it's talked about. How about something like Nathan Johnson writing for Grist noted that Seralini's group only released blood sample data at 15 months after exposure, and not nine other sets of blood samples between 1 – 24 months. Tumor and mortality data also released at the group-level, but data for individual rats was not released. while having that sourced to Grist first and Kniss as a secondary source? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's way too much. I would go with According to writer Nathanael Johnson, not all of the raw data was, in fact, released. I'd cite it to the Grist (magazine) piece, and leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was trying to avoid potential vagueness, but it's also right there in the source, so not that big of a deal either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 anyone^tm comes along and puts it back in. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Rather than us arguing, I'd really like to hear what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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?

References

-- SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

And a critical reading of that really proves my point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have started WP:BLPN#A. Wallace Hayes in order to get more input. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • From BLPN - unless RSes have connected Hayes' past career to this situation, it is original research and coatracking to make the connection. Hayes' connection to Monsanto and how that might have influenced him is in RSes, so that's fine, but there's nothing about how the tobacco part connects up, so that should not be called out. --Masem (t) 23:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

(edit conflict) with Kingo...

It's true I didn't add that bit in my initial edit [2] 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)

• (edit conflict) This pretty much sums up my views too. No one should have reasonably thought to add in the tobacco bit based on the sources and it pushes in coatracking/POV issues as already described. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Suggested Deletion of This Page

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: 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)

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)

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)

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:. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This suggestion is an April Fools joke. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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 Monsanto E-mail supportive of Seralini claims

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)

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)

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)

Thank you for the note. Cloud200 your comments have not been useful for a new user and are simply inaccurate and biting. 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)

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)

• Note: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dusha100 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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)