Monsanto influence on FCT

edit

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)Reply

— [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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Jalp? -Roxy the dog. bark 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
″In August 2017, a law firm involved in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto posted on its Website documents from the discovery process.[1] Some of the documents mention the Séralini study and its publication in Food and Chemical Toxicology.[2]″ — jalp 2602:306:8B98:2270:A53B:5CAB:63C7:ED0A (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

Recent edits

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

RE: Raw data in republication

edit

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)Reply

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

Wallace Hayes

edit

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 [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)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

edit

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]

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
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

edit

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

edit

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[3] 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