Talk:Séralini affair

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)

Which you yourself M4 have broken today !!! -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:24, 21 December 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To say the article 'was not peer-reviewed' when republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, is an absurdity, and shows the writer does not understand science.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.”IARC monograph on glyphosate, p. 35, right column 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)

@prokaryotes:Actually, why should I discuss with a person, who is not able to distinguish between an scientific organisation of the World Health Organization such as IARC, which classified glyphosate as probably carcinogen, and the company Monsanto, who opossed the IARC classification since spring 2015. Interestingly, IARC was able to classify glyphosate as possible carcinogen without the scientific rubbish of Seralini.--Shisha-Tom (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And the devil is, as always, in the detail. Extensive evaluation of people working with the product contradicts earlier findings suggesting a modest increase in risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but there is evidence from animal studies (other than those by Séralini) to suggest a plausible link. What that almost certainly means is that it is carcinogenic only at levels unlikely to be experienced by anybody. It also indicates that monitoring and further epidemiological studies are prudent. I will continue to use RoundUp in my garden, because it works, but I will be sure to follow the PPE and other safety instructions. Anybody who panics about RoundUp but still drinks alcohol or uses TCM products, is not behaving rationally. All agriculture uses herbicides and pesticides. All pesticides and I think most if not all herbicides are toxic at some level. Caffeine is a neurotoxin. It's a big, bad, scary world out there and we're evolved to survive it so for all the alarmism and the "Daily Mail oncological ontology project", the soundest advice is probably: don't be an idiot and you'll be fine :-) Guy (Help!) 20:17, 15 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)

No irony involved.

• Study by Séralni was cited directly to the study. That violates WP:PRIMARY. The article only exists because the original paper by Séralini is highly problematic, so it is very important to ensure that any other work by the same author is covered only with reference to reliable independent sources that establish its significance and validity. This is an absolutely standard application of policy and guidelines.
• I removed the redundant term "peer-reviewed" (any scientific paper that is not peer-reviewed is unlikely to make much impact), I also asked for clarification re the weasel words "some members of the scientific community and food safety authorities", which is hardly controversial.
• I changed "Reviewers instead checked that the content of the paper matched the previously peer-reviewed version" to "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" because the former plainly sought to imply that the original peer-review was valid despite subsequent retraction, which is a problematic claim with any scientific publication. As it turns out, the correct statement of affairs was different again, as I later clarified here, and that in turn was later edited by I am One of Many her, an edit I reverted as implying the opposite POV, i.e. that the second journal was guilty of some malfeasance (rather than, say, simple incompetence) in republishing.
• I removed the citation to the republished paper as a source for the statement "Reviewers checked only that the content of the paper matched the retracted original" - because it doesn't support that statement in any of its forms, yours, mine, my revised version, or IaOoM's version, because the paper does not address the question of the journal's review process at all, nor should it, so it can't possibly be a source for a statement about that process.

Feel free to ask for clarification of any other edits, I am always happy to explain any edit I make. 22:42, 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 (See DiF's in above section). Since the admin appears unwilling to discuss his edits (see above section), I ask for other opinions.

• 1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
• 2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
• 3. 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)

• Your third point needs to be taken up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not here. AIRcorn (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)oment

• Kommentar Most published studies should be peer reviewed so there is generally no need to say this if we say it is published in a scientific journal. The problem here seems to stem from the fact that a Seralini paper was later retracted by the journal and then re-published without any further peer review. Retraction itself is extremely rare as is publishing without further peer review. I am not we should use this rare occurrence to highlight the norm for a particular article. The second point seems to relate to the removal of a study published by Seralini supporting his other claims. Personally I think this can be included as long as responses to it are also included. Most published material gets responses and I am sure Seralini gets his fair share. I addressed the third point above and feel it should be removed as it will distract from the rfc. AIRcorn (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• None of the above, in response to the three questions you pose above. Exactly as Aircorn says above, I removed redundant use of the term "peer reviewed" because virtually all scientific research is published that way, and including it amounts to a fallacious appeal to authority unless it's specifically relevant due to issues with the peer review itself (as for example the extremely unusual review prior to the republication of the retracted 2012 paper). The quesitons you include above are a prime example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Especially since I actually also toned down what seemed to me to be a very problematic description of the process adopted by ESE, a characterisation of the process which I think went well beyond what Nature says in the cited source and looks to be trying to accuse ESE of deliberately publishing fraudulent research. Feel free to report my edits at the noticeboards if you think they fall short of NPOV, but demands for ArbCom sanctions against named editors against whom you have a grudge do have a habit of backfiring. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that the paper has been peer-reviewed before, and now you claim "extremely unusual review prior to the republication". Also read what Aircorn wrote again, its not exactly what you want, but you pretend it is. prokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Now you're starting to sound like Dana Ullman demanding that no interpretation of any study is valid other than his own. This is a retracted paper, republished without any modification from the original. That's pretty unusual. In fact I can't think of a single other example (though no doubt they exist). And the only previous example I that springs to mind where a paper has been launched by press release in advance of its formal publication is Fleischmann & Pons' cold fusion paper. The source draws attention to the fact that there was no further peer review, and all I am doing is following the source. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jzg's comment below mine seems to be aligned with how I see these questions. AIRcorn (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• None of the above And (3) looks like pure WP:BATTLE craft. Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you now Wikihounding me? Notice that Alexbrn is claiming i edit war here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayurveda#Recent_edits and immediately looks up my other edits, and posts not in support. prokaryotes (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What!? As you know I was on your Talk page, and so I noticed there mention of an RfC. Being an eager member of the community, when I see an RfC that I can participate in, I do it! (That's the whole point of RfC's ain't it?) Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You intimidate me, you threaten me, you follow my other edits, over basic article improvements - whats next? prokaryotes (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't think you're right. If you have problems with my behaviour take it to WP:AIN. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• None of the above in fact, this RfC demonstrates a certain lack of the HT in IDHT. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• None of the above. It goes to WP:RS, WP:DUE, and common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• tentative Include I've looked at the four diffs above and I think the removal of the fact that Seralini has published other papers which come to the same, albeit dubious, or similar conclusions that HAVE undergone peer review or at least are in peer reviewed journals is relevant to the article. However, I can't find sources which state this. If PK has such sources Id appreciate them being provided before this RFC closes. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

All his studies have been published in peer reviewed journals, which is not explicit mentioned, but normally foudn on journal websites under about or similar links. The study from 2011 which i refer above has 91 cites which is also an indicator which merits mentioning, and since we have a section for previous papers, which are related to the 2012 publication. The study from the first DIF above was published in Environmental Sciences Europe, 2011. It also is noteworthy that the retracted paper from 2012 by Food and Chemical Toxicology was retracted because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors - they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. Later publications by S were again published in FCT. prokaryotes (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You do not appear to be making any observations here that are new, or worthy of inclusion in our article. So my response to you is "so what?" -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is not a magic talisman conferring immunity form criticism. There are many factors that are taken into account when assessing published work, which include things like journal impact factor, reputations of journals for uncritical publication of certain subjects (Chinese journals publishing studies on acupuncture, for example), responses within the literature and more widely, subsequent replication and so on. The Séralini affair specifically refers to a journal article that was retracted - that's a big black mark even if someone else subsequently republishes it. You appear to be trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" a real-world issue, which is that this study is currently considered to be worthless and its republication questionable. I understand that you wish it were not so, but that is what the sources say. It's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting PEer Review is a magic protective cloak, however I think it is important to distinguish quacks who publish dozens of papers in irrelevant journals with no peer review and scientists who publish within the bounds of the scientific method, even if those scientists come to unjustified conclusions. The fact that Seralini is a scientist and not a quack is relevant to that section of the article and should in some sense explicitly be in there, it could be resolved by simply atating where each fo the mentioned articles was published because at the moment you have to go to the references for that. If you believe his preious position within the scientific community isn't relevant then why have a section of previous papers at all? SPACKlick (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is reasonable and fundamentally I agree, but per WP:FRINGE there is a risk in including primary sources of this kind without any context establishing how those sources have been received (especially remembering the homeopathy-sponsored "all feed is evil" study, which is just shockingly poor). It is also more relevant to the article on Séralini himself than in an article on a controversy about a specific paper. Here, I think we very much want to look for WP:RS sources that establish the context and make the link to the original paper, as per your argument above. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Obviously i support the inclusion of mentioning that publications have been peer-reviewed, and related studies should stay in the article. prokaryotes (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment As the lede stands it seems reasonable to me, in that it mentions the refusal to withdraw, the retraction, and the review, all of which need mention. Concerning all that, I suggest no change. However, like Prokaryotes, I think that the hiring of reviewers deserves mention, and at least, does no harm if factual, but rather adds relevant perspective in context. I urge that it be mentioned. JonRichfield (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support both 1&2 It is rather unfortunate that reliable sources are constantly being suppressed when they go against the extremist skeptical POV. Of course these should be included, as long as they are well-attributed, no question. LesVegas (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hired referees

Hi Guy, I do think that the sourced fact that the three reviewers were hired is extraordinary in science. When I review proposals for NIH I get paid, but never for reviewing scientific articles nor do I know of anyone who has. I think because the hiring is sourced and unusual, it should be included. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Related source "ESEU conducted no scientific peer review, he adds, “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper, Hollert adds." http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463 Ofc, the fact that it had been conducted earlier is missing from this article, causing now confusion. prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Either it's perfectly normal (and thus not worth mentioning) or it's unusual, in which case we'd need some kind of context telling us how unusual. I have no opinion either way, other than that saying they were hired for the job gives the appearance, to me, of accusing the journal of something. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It is unusual to hire reviewers for a journal article, so I think it would be misleading to leave it out. On the other hand, it is not good to have implied wrong-doing by including it. Perhaps the best way to go is to simply quote in context. Such as:

According to Nature, the editor-in-chief of ESEU, Henner Hollert, stated that "The role of the three reviewers hired by ESEU was to check that there had been no change in the scientific content of the paper."

--I am One of Many (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with that. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

More background

This article From Watchdogs to Lapdogs: How Corporate Media Mislead Us on GMOs, highlights some of the issues discussed in the article. Maybe a good source to improve content. prokaryotes (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe a good source" ! Really? -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're joking. Please say this was not seriously being proposed as a source? Guy (Help!) 11:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this trolling ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like Truth Out take this recent article (Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Pro-GMO Propaganda Using Taxpayer Dollars) which links to other major media NYT Bloomberg etc., considered reliable - which you can lookup, though not mentioning Seralini Affair directly. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a specific edit based on specific reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Another Truth Out article ... Did you link the wrong thing or is it really true (!) you're proposing that Truth Out can be a reliable source for us? Alexbrn (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think [2] and [3] may be relevant, since the article is an uncritical report of USRTK's attempts to "do a climategate". USRTK is, of course, a spectacularly unreliable source with a vested interest in anti-GMO activism so any uncritical reporting of their position needs very careful handling. Oh, [4] is also interesting in context. On the other hand we have [5], which has truthiness - I would not trust Monsanto further than I could throw Séralini. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Also [6], [7] (not RS but interesting context), and Keith Kloor's commentary. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize that there was so much similarity between climate denial and extreme ant-GMO groups. These articles about academics bolstering propaganda favoring GMOs are extremely misleading.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the really weird things: the two groups are diametrically opposed, philosophically (gaia versus libertarian capitalism, basically) and yet they both use exactly the same tactics and recognise them for what they are when the other side uses them. It's fascinating. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's fascinating, yes. On both sides of the atlantic (bigecobusiness being backed by the European model) science plays only the role of a football. 13:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted

Admin JzG/Guy removed the reason for the retraction of the study which is the scope of this article. A rather on point info, but some think otherwise.

• Include the Reason for the withdraw (per Journal explanation https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology ), currently this info is entirely absent.

• Suggested edit: "In November 2013, Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), retracted Séralini's paper after the authors refused to withdraw it, because of "inconclusiveness", not for any scientific errors they found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." prokaryotes (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

While the bit after the dash is correct, yes, the use of "not for any scientific errors" is completely unfounded. The choice of rats and small sampling size were what caused the journal to deem the results "inconclusive." They simply ruled out INTENTIONAL deception, not poor science. Parabolist (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed that part. prokaryotes (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And to be pedantic, they did not rule out, they just said they found no evidence of intentional dodginess. Alexbrn (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per journal explanation. prokaryotes (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously not Because we don't misrepresent sources for the purpose of advocating a POV. To repeat: retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose That information can be summed up later in the article, the fact that it was withdrawn is the key takeaway for the opening paragraphs. Parabolist (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So you do agree to include this key info? prokaryotes (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is on your (incidentally ungrammatical) wording, which is not a really neutral expansion of the reasons for withdrawal. We can include the "no fraud" stuff but need to accompany it with an accurate account of why the article has retraction imposed: the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• No change needed, as stated by Alexbrn above, so oppose this proposal. The reason for withdrawal was: "Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology." In other words, the conclusions were not supported by the data. I have no objection to including a qualifier along the lines of "while the editors found fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data", but the reason for withdrawal was that the data did not support the conclusions and we don't water that down. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The journal makes it very clear, quote: "A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached", and quote: "Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data." What you and Alexbrn are concluded does not match up. prokaryotes (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Retraction was imposed because the conclusions described in the article were unreliable. We are not going to say otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sources show there were scientific errors (i.e., inconclusive results and improper conclusions), so I would be inappropriate to remove the struck phrase. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is hugely critical to the article. It's well sourced. Just mentioning it was retracted without showing the circumstances and reasons why is grossly misleading to the reader. LesVegas (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The editors withdrew the paper on the grounds that the data it presented did not support the conclusions it drew. It is important to make this clear. Maproom (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The way it was worded. The fact the paper was retracted is a hugely notable and the reason (being inconclusive) need to be made clear and should not be in scare quotes. Also cherry picked statements chosen to lesson the impact of its withdrawal should not be attached straight after the main reason. It could be mentioned later, but in its current form it is written as if the paper only had minor faults (if so it would not have been retracted). AIRcorn (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Petition

I removed this text:

In January 2014, an online petition calling for the Séralini study be reinstated was posted by a group of Séralini's supporters from the Bioscience Resource Project.

References

I think the reasons for removal should be obvious: the existence of the petition is cited to the petition itself (which invites suspicion of solicitation, and is the reason why petition sites are blacklisted); the petition is on a website "set up by concerned citizens and scientists in response to the retraction from the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology of the study by Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues", with no other petitions at all. This is an abject failure of WP:RS. Obviously if anyone wants to restore mention of the petition by reference to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishing significance and context. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good removal. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes' request at AE

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Request concerning JzG, a request by Prokaryotes for sanctions against me based on the edits under discussion above. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation to republication in Lede

The reference <ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14|doi=10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5|year=2014|journal=Environmental Sciences Europe|title=Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize|authors=Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois}}</ref> has been reinserted as as a reference for the text "In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed."

It is my view that this paper does not support the statement. I have no issue with including a link to the paper within this article, since it's clearly relevant, but as I think I have made clear, that is not the place. To include it as a source for the fact of republication is technically WP:OR and in any case is unnecessary as the existing secondary source covers it. To include it where it is, as a source for the review process, is simply wrong, as the paper itself does not cover this.

The options appear to be:

1. Include the reference as a source for In June 2014 Séralini republished the article in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, which did not conduct any further peer review. Reviewers checked only that the scientific content of the paper had not changed.
2. Include the paper within the article, but not as a reference fir this para.
3. Include the paper within the para as a reference for the fact of republication only (i.e. after the journal name).

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

2 (first preference); if this is absolutely unacceptable then 3. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

2 or potentially 3. There are secondary sources describing the republication without peer-review, so the only thing this citation really should be used for if anything is to document the republication event. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

3 I see no problem including it to support the statement that it has been republished. It is a WP:Primary source, but this is allowed (don't quite follow the technical OR interpretation). I can't support 2 without more info. Do you mean as an external link or for an as yet unwritten statement? FWIW, if I was new to this article I would expect to see that source attached to the first mention of republication. I agree it can't be used to cover the whole statement. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the current layout, with the paper in External Links? I think that makes it a lot easier to find. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that after I read the below section. I am fine with it in the External Links. AIRcorn (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinion I got RFC'd yet again, though by now the situation is so confused that I can no longer be sure what I was to comment on. I think probably this section; if anyone disagrees, let me know and I'll try again where indicated. Meanwhile: this article is about the controversy and not primarily about the substance. Accordingly it is altogether proper (as long as all is in context and in good sense at least) to mention any publications, criticisms, retractions etc. Generally I agree with User:Aircorn in this section. As for OR, it gets trotted out whenever anyone disagrees with anything they cannot refute, such as a citation of material as evidence. In this connection any such objection would be ridiculous, though I accept that there is plenty of pious precedent for even more tenuous invocation of OR. But that is pretty ignominious as justification goes. I have no axe to grind in this matter, but as the article stands, I wouldn't bother to change it. But if there is a strong move to banish the link to External links, I am not much exercised. JonRichfield (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A tweak

The opening para, The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy about a particular experiment conducted by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. Séralini fed Monsanto's RoundUp-tolerant NK603 genetically modified maize (called corn in North America), as well as glyphosate, to rats and published results which claimed that the corn and the herbicide were toxic to the animals in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, was sourced to the original FCT article. I think that's incorrect as the article doesn't actually support the para, which frames the controversy. The original study was also used to support the subsequent statement of its abstract, so I have moved the citation details there and replaced it as a source for the first para with a 2014 Forbes article that includes a quote that explicitly describes this as the Séralini affair. I'm not religious about this source but I do think the original paper is not really a proper reference for the opening para as it is currently written. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As is stated in the opening sentence, this article is about Séralini's published paper. So, why then make an edit to make it more difficult for readers to find the paper? I thought the purpose of Wikipedia is to *inform* readers. The edit makes no sense at all. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought the natural place for his paper was as an EL at the end of the article? Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, I am afraid your comment makes non sense. Did you read my reason for not using the paper as a source for the specific text it was purportedly supporting? I don't have any problem with including the paper (though note that the average reader will be quite incapable of fully understanding it, and I am included in that category). Why is including it as a source for text it does not actually contain somehow more "informative"? Guy (Help!) 18:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I assume you are okay if I add a link to the paper itself in the first sentence so that readers can view it? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea about Guy, but I would be unhappy, per WP:ELCITE it should go into External Links. -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, to support what text? Remember the purpose of <ref> tags is to cite sources. I don't think it counts as a reliable independent secondary source for anything in the opening para, but I could easily be wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You all do not want it to be easy for readers to find the published paper in question? Consider how this article (Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) handled a controversial publication. The material of the controversy is easy to look at. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's on point, had to URL link the original 2012 study today. prokaryotes (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

David, you didn't answer the question. What text is is a reference source for? It's remarkably easy to find the study if we call it out at the foot of the article, the idea that it's only "easy" to find it if it's cited as a reference for some text within the first paragraph of the lede seems to me rather odd. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep asking that. I have made it quite clear in what I wrote above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's less clear than you think. The study is cite 6 as republished and cited elsewhere, and I am happy for it to be called out and highlighted at the foot or as a footnote per Roxy above. The issue is that the retracted study does not support the text for which it was presented as a reference. Is this a bizarre thing to be bothered by? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Consider also these articles:

1. Biscuit Fire publication controversy -- reference to article is easy to spot as footnote #2.
2. Sternberg peer review controversy -- article in question is footnote #2.

Is there a problem with all these articles for making it TOO EASY for readers to look at the controversial material that was published? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't comment for JzG but I'd say it's too hard in those artcles and the relevant papers should be in external links. What you seem to be missing here is that however we link the article and wherever it goes, it shouldn't be used as a reference for things for which it's not an adequate source. SPACKlick (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly a problem with "The paper had been published in the online edition of Science before the letter was written.<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5759/352 D.C. Donato ''et al.'', "Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk," ''Science'', January 20, 2006 (subscription required)]</ref>" - the source does not support the text. It might be that you can check the date and check the date of the letter and work it out, but that's not the same as the source actually supporting the statement. And then we have "Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design.<ref name="disco paper date">[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 Intelligent design: The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories]; [[Center for Science and Culture]]</ref>". So yes, I do have a problem with it. Actually I don't think this is "easy" for people to find because it is represented as a source about something else entirely. Much better to have in the references section a specific link to the originals, above the rest of the references, or include it in external links or further reading. Then it's easy to find, rather than linked in a place where the text indicates you'd expect to find something else entirely.

I doubt this is deliberate, by the way - articles tend to be edited back and forth, especially contentious ones like this, and references can easily be separated from the text they are supposed to support. That's why i think it's best to fix such weirdness when you find it. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you suddenly add the paper to EL, but i approve of it, it is actually even better than what i attempted earlier. prokaryotes (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick gets the credit for spotting that's where it should be. I just made the edit. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Previous Séralini papers

I dont think that section fits in the affair - it is better to be moved to the article about the person. Polentarion Talk 23:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent. This should focus mainly on the 2012 paper and the aftermath. However, some background is necessary and that will include summarising his previous work. We don't need a blow-by-blow account of his previous papers under its own heading though and I would support pruning and melding this section into the background. The rest may fir in his own article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a brief section describing previous papers by reference to independent coverage of them would make sense as context, but listing them or citing them all seems like resume padding and I agree any more comprehensaive list belongs at the article on Séralini himself, not here. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already moved the content to the Seralini article, the reduction of the section here has been deemed too bold and was reverted. But I asssume we dont loose the content, we increase readability if we boil it down to the essentials here. Polentarion Talk 13:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD seems to have been fulfilled. People would like a summary para, for context, I'm sure we can rely on you and Prokaryotes to propose something but for now the removal of the resume seems to me to be adequately explained and I have no problem with it. I can't speak for anyone else of course. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was being deemed an industry shill and serial vandal recently, see Peak Oil, so I am more cautious about bold edits now. But it seems that different industries want to have their say. Why not ask @Prokaryotes: to provide it? Polentarion Talk 14:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved a part to the lawsuits section, maybe the section can be trimmed but basically it all seems to be related. prokaryotes (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And added a section [8]. Which is OK, but it might have been better to discuss it first given the history. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Still need to reduce content. Polentarion Talk 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow up studies

Prokaryotes added the following section:

In 2014 institutions from Russia, the United States and Europe announced a two to three years study with a budget of $25 million, with the aim to settle the debate surrounding GM Corn and applied herbicides. The study will include 6,000 rats and a GMO corn diet, to evaluate independently possible health impacts.

References

So I checked the source. There are a couple of issues.

1. The source appears to be primarily based on a material from a press release, so not independent.
2. The author, Carey Gillam, has a long-standing anti-GMO agenda ([9])
3. The "institutions" conducting the studies are portrayed as an international science organisations, but actually the only body identified on the website is the so-called "National Association for Genetic Safety", an anti-GMO organisation in Russia.
4. The anti-GMO provenance is not mentioned in the Reuters piece, which is uses various common rhetorical devices straight out of the tobacco industry playbook to exaggerate doubt and cast aspersions on the mainstream findings, or in the edit.
5. This page makes it pretty clear that the study is predicated on the idea that GMOs are toxic.

I do not think this is an honest piece of independent scientific inquiry, and portraying it as such is dangerous and wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if this study was a done through a truely independent organisation (extremely unlikely given the initiator particularly where it says "NAGS supports the idea of the priority development of organic agriculture in Russia") it is still in the early stages of development. They are still asking for public funding on their home page and there is no mention of protocols or much of anything of substance except that they want to do the study. We should wait until there is something more solid before announcing future studies. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Narrative flow, the timeline

with this edit the description of the timline of the affair was disrupted, and is now incomplete, with the para moved out of the mainsection. I believe it should have been discussed first. As that series of edits broke ArbCom restrictions in the same way that Guy broke them yesterday, perhaps we could work it out here, rather than there! -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A study to settle the debate. With love from Russia and a pseudoacademy. Its a nice example of Scientism, but not any value added. I ask to revert the edit and destill the current text to a chronological list or even shorter. Polentarion Talk 19:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and the sections on PLOS One study and lawsuits should probably both be folded into the main timeline of events, since both are very short and amount to little more than resting places for factoids. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference for title

David Tornheim removed a reference to Forbes supporting the name "Séralini affair" [10]. I think that reference should go back in. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The removing edit had an edit summary that referred to possible POV in the source. I looked at the source, and I'm not seeing such a problem, which might suggest that the source should be restored. I'd like to hear what the objections to the source are. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed the reference in the lede to Jon Entine's article here, which was recently added here without first obtaining consensus for the change. This was a significant change to material that had been stable for months if not longer. Entine is a Pro-GMO advocate. Even Jytdog acknowledged this here, saying, "nor would I cite other sources by advocates with clear financial ties like Jon Entine". A more WP:NPOV article such as this one in Nature might be more appropriate. Additionally, the lede does not reflect what is in the article. In fact, the first sentence has errors, which I have previously identified and will identify again. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you consider replacing the source with one you prefer? I'm fine with that, but the source you propose does not include the term Séralini affair, which was what this source supported. WP:BRD applies: it's not necessary to discuss every nuance of every edit in advance, but note that I already raised the substitution of the reference above and you'rte the first to object. Guy (Help!) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ledes don't need sources, but I'm not seeing anything wrong with the source either. It seems fine under NPOV in the context of dealing with a WP:FRINGE subject. WP:PARITY especially applies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the fringe subject here? And Entine is a pro industry advocate and should not be the source of negative BLP info. Minor4th 02:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice that there are similar issues now at Gilles-Éric Séralini, lots of content changes in last 48 hrs. References to blogs, opinion pieces, references not working at all, claims like he is an activist, or his lab is a think tank, but the regulars seem to be just fine with that. prokaryotes (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th Seriously? Séralini's anti-GMO views are fringe. They have only a tiny minority of support among the relevant professional community, and are themselves supported primarily by non-specialists with an ideological bias against biotechnology. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

JzG, if you have reliable source in regards to what you write above then this should go into the article, the problem is that currently references which make these claims come from non experts, or from individuals hired by Monsanto. For instance ref 3 from the lede at Gilles-Éric Séralini is based on a German interview, which starts with explaining that the person interviewed is not an expert, but he done some statistical stuff. That GMOs are controversial is echoed in the mainstream media and many authorities indirectly support Seralini when they start labeling Glyphosate as a carcinogenic. Hence, his views are not that fringe as you try to make it sound like.prokaryotes (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO there's no need to add further sources to strengthen our presentation of these facts, but I appreciate your invitation to do so. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, could you actually articulate which of Seralini's views are fringe? Be specific if you can. Minor4th 13:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientifically, anti-GMO is fringe. Séralini is anti-GMO. End of. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, "anti-GMO" is not a scientific description and it tells me nothing about which of his specific views are fringe. I don't think he can be called "fringe", especially not in a blanket statement used like that. Decide which of his views you take issue with - or maybe KOA could since he's trying to base editorial decisions on FRINGE and PARITY. Once again, Entine is not a reliable source for negative BLP info in this article. Minor4th 15:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, Séralini's committed support for the reliability of his own research conclusions here is very seriously at odds with mainstream science, and so is covered by WP:PSCI (and so WP:FRINGE). Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That may have been true a year ago, but it's no longer true. There is plenty of recent research that is in line with Seralini's studies. Have you looked outside the US lately? IARC and ESNA both found that glyphosate is not safe and at a minimum needs to be regulated to a maximum exposure dose. That's fairly mainstream these days. Minor4th 16:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a different matter. No respectable source thinks Séralini's conclusions (his ones drawn from his data) are reliable. His maintenance to the contrary is, in WP terms, fringe. (And BTW, I spend my life looking outside the US because I don't live there). Alexbrn (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, exactly which conclusions are you talking about? That glyphosate formulations have long term toxicity and should be regulated? Or what? Minor4th 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The conclusions of the journal article which is (meant to be) the principal subject of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate stays to be the most used herbicde world wide, in the range of a 800.000 tons annually. Its not without dangers, but sorry, thats the case as well for benzene and water. Mainstream? Polentarion Talk 16:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Seralini is an important political and media figure, his views are far from being fringe, they are backing the European leadership political mainstream. Science is - as Brian Wynne and others have stated - completely unimportant and has just the role of a football. Does anybody care about his actutal results? Raising doubt is much more important. Polentarion Talk 15:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Important? Only in as much as the amount of heat he has managed to generate for a remarkably small and tightly focused scientific output - a large proportion of the not-so-many hits on PubMed are letters by him defending the retracted paper and most of the rest, at least in recent years, seem to be attempts to argue exactly the same case. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing - involving billions of Euros - is his contribution to the factual ban of GMO imports to the EU. As said, "science" is completely irrelevant. This is about real business. Polentarion Talk 16:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here's an alternate reference for the title Smelling a rat published in the Economist. This is better than the source that was removed. Sorry I got off topic in this thread. Minor4th 01:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the author of the Economist article may not have the same reputation as Jon Entine. However, the Nature article I proposed is better in that it more correctly reports Seralini's study's findings. Neither the Forbes nor Economist articles report the findings correctly, probably because they are mainstream magazines and do not specialize in scientific matters like Nature does. (See: Talk:Séralini_affair#Article_incorrectly_states_conclusions_of_the_Study._Correction_is_needed.) --02:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of Blog as RS

I reverted this edit. A science blog is being used for WP:RS. I do not believe it is WP:RS.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As with all things related to sourcing here, it depends on how the source is used. ScienceBlogs is generally considered a RS here because they are a chosen group of subject experts, and such experts don't normally need editorial oversight or control because they speak from their own authority. Granted it wasn't being used for a science matter (Myers is a biology expert), but its use as a source for the term "science by press conference" (Seralini is used as an example in that article) seems innocent enough, and that is exactly what Seralini did, but in a much more elaborate and calculated way than did Andrew Wakefield. Now if we can find a better source, I would have no problem with substituting it, but I don't think there is any question that the term is apt here, and I think the source is good enough for that use. Therefore I suggest restoring it, and we could even attribute it as the opinion of PZ Myers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of blogs, our suspicion of blogs originated in a time when blogs were nothing but everymans (and womans) public personal diary, which would obviously not be a RS. Then the blog format and platform became more popular and we saw businesses and politicians use it for their official websites. We also saw journalists and subject experts use it for their websites.

Therefore our attitude towards use of blogs has become more nuanced, although a certain unjustified reticence still lingers as a form of "allergic reaction" towards the word. So, just because the word "blog" is used, don't reject it on that basis alone. Examine how it's used. It just might happen to be an excellent source that is fully as reliable as The New York Times (which isn't hard to beat sometimes). -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That blog and the content are not reliable sources for any content of substance and shouldn't be used to source negative BLP info or science related content. Minor4th 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The problem with self-published blogs compared to even articles published in the mainstream media is the lack of fact checking, the lack of any need for balance and, of course, with regard to science, the lack of peer review found in scientific journals--even if the self-published work is from an "expert". Wikipedia frowns heavily on self-published sources for WP:RS for good reason (See: WP:USERGENERATED). I am not sure why you feel you need a source for the use of the term "science press conference". I do not think anyone would challenge that description: It almost seems like a common sense interpretation of what I have seen described in the other articles, so I see no need for a source. Why do you feel it needs a reference? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blogs are a reliable source for the opinion of the person who writes the blog. They can be used in articles if attributed to that person. The question is rather should we include that persons opinion in the article. PZ Myers is a well known biological scientist so seems qualified enough. He is following the mainstream view so I don't see any WP:Undue issues. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Article incorrectly states conclusions of the Study. Correction is needed.

I am reasserting what I wrote here, that the paper does not say that the RoundUp Ready corn and/or the Round-Up are "toxic" which is stated in sentence #2. (It is often asserted here on Wiki that nearly all substances natural or man-made are "toxic"--if you take enough, including water.) Seralini's study instead emphasized the need for longer studies. The conclusion stated in the Abstract is:

Our findings imply that long-term (2 year) feeding trials need to be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of GM foods and pesticides in their full commercial formulations.

Does the fact that the mainstream media (and possibly other sources) have misrepresented the paper's conclusions justify doing the same here? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your point is valid. We need a source, so I have tagged the use of the word "toxic" in the lead. Let's see if someone can provide it soon. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To use the editor-in-chief's words, the paper made "the claim that there is a definitive link between GMO and cancer". We should be aligned with that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The paper did not make such a claim or conclusion, irrespective of what the former editor-in-chief said. Sources are easy to findMinor4th 13:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the recent changes made by Alexbrn because they were factually inaccurate and not supported b the sources. Seralini's study was a toxicology study, not a cancer study. He made no conclusions about "cancer." Please do not re-add that content without extensive discussion and consensus. Just because sources misrepresent the study does not mean we should do so in Wikipedia's voice. If we're going to mention a cancer link to Seralini, then we need to expand upon Seralini's response and the whole body of literature that explains that it was not a cancer study and it wasn't appropriate to use cancer protocols and data designs. Minor4th 13:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done to revert the whole thing, including grammar fixes etc. even if you disagree with one aspect. That doesn't really help the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

(Add) in any case I think we can rely on the Editor-in-chief of the journal to understand what he published rather than rely on the OR of a random amateur Wikipedia editor. And indeed on consulting the Séralini paper one finds the paper refers to itself as "... a chronic toxicity study in which there is a serious suspicion of carcinogenicity. Such indications had not been previously reported for GM foods. ... Surprisingly, there was also a clear trend in increased tumor incidence, especially mammary tumors in female animals, in a number of the treatment groups. " [my bold]. In view of this I find the reversion rather extraordinary, and suggest we go back to WP:Verifiable text which fixes the problem identified in this section. Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this be handled by quoting from the original. Lfstevens (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Apart from the fact it is technical language unsuitable for lay readers, it is also wrong & WP:FRINGE. We should be using expert WP:SECONDARY sources, not picking stuff out of the primary and turning Wikipedia into an inexpert secondary itself. Alexbrn (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we use the more narrow language to describe what the paper itself said (in other words, not attribute "toxicity" to it), but then add something along the lines of "in a way that implied a likelihood of carcinogenicity", or words somewhat like that, attributing the latter to the Editor-in-chief. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. From pieces like this it seems it was the "increased tumours" claim which caused the fireworks in the scientific community. This nature.com source source is good; to quote it: "Séralini's team had found that rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto developed many more tumours and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water." Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement about the "full commercial formulation" would make any commercial use impossible and is not the goal of any serious toxicology or pharmaceutical study. Evidence based is about the agent, not about the formulation. I doubt the useability of the various lengthy verbal quotes suggested here. What we need is a description of the study and its purported results based on secondary sources - he used a way too low number of rats which live not much longer than two years and are prone to cancer anyway, and he left out the basic variables (feed rates, consumption, wheight gain) and he published useless findings in coincidence to documentary books and films to bring a message accross.Polentarion Talk 19:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please consider slowing down and taking time to understand the context around the study and the controversy. This was not a cancer study; cancer is not mentioned in the study at all. It was a long term tox study that concluded that exposure to glyphosate formulations led to kidney and liver problems and incidentally the rats developed more tumors than the controls and Seralini suggests this as an area for further study without drawing any conclusions about cancer or carcenogenicity. Yes, the former editor in chief made a comment about the study linking glyphosate to cancer - but that statement is WRONG. We should not keep repeating that wrong statement. There was no "implied likelihood of carcinogenicity" - there was an observation about tumors developing and a call for proper research. Minor4th 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Our job is not to attempt to "understand" the study, it is to relay what is reported in reliable independent secondary expert sources: that is the essence of NPOV. You are arguing for your own interpretation of what the paper said, which is the essence of original research (and from the article text, and from how the paper is reported elsewhere, e.g. in nature.com news above, it's obvious that your interpretation is adrift of the experts). Let's use expert published commentary and edit according to the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with your response to original research being a problem here (honestly a huge suggestion for Minor4th to take their own advice and slow down, especially with the "WRONG" comment). The study tried to make carcinogenicity claims within a tox study, which was the main controversial aspect that led to the "affair". There isn't anything that stands out as factually incorrect in the article relating to the core of the controversy. I haven't seen a legitimate reason articulated in this vast discussion yet that the events are somehow being misrepresenting according to sources or by policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources and discussion re: study

• Here is a 2015 review article on the current knowledge of Roundup/GMO corn health and safety: [http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/800/art%253A10.1186%252Fs12302-015-0049-2.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2Fs12302-015-0049-2&token2=exp=1450644431~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F800%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252Fs12302-015-0049-

2.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1186%252Fs12302-015-0049-2*~hmac=4b94785474029c1d796640997893e11feb861af48cee487aa76c0ae3273c59b7]] It references the 2012 Seralini study this way: Séralini et al. [2, 3] presented evi- dence from longer term toxicity studies that confirmed earlier findings. This work also reported that Roundup herbicide formulation (tested in three different doses) causes liver and kidney toxicity at levels well below the regulatory threshold set for glyphosate, alone. This was the first study to investigate effects of a Roundup for- mulation. All earlier studies investigated glyphosate, the herbicidal ingredient of Roundup, in isolation. The genetically modified maize NK603, Roundup and the two in combination were also reported to increase mortality and tumor incidence. The study was designed as a toxi- cological study, not as a carcinogenesis study. Therefore, the tumor incidence and mortality results were reported, according to OECD guidelines for chronic toxicity studies [6], as secondary observations requiring follow- up using a study design intended to systematically assess carcinogenesis.

• The actual Seralini study concludes [11]In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate con- sumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures (EPA). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural gly- phosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below offi- cially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to com- parable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acids metabolites, or related compounds. Other muta- genic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenera- tional studies will also provide novel insights into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long- term deleterious effects arising from the consumption of a GM R- tolerant maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide.Minor4th 20:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And what has this to do with the Séralini affair? This is an article about the publication and retraction of a journal article that was found, in itself, to make unreliable claims about GMO and cancer. Material on "the current knowledge" of the field is not relevant to what happened back then. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

ec.. Is there a point being made here? It isn't clear. Roxy the dog™ woof 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought it would be obvious without me having to explain. Above you have 2015 peer-reviewed secondary source/review article that tells us exactly what the conclusions of the 2012 Seralini study were. That's what Alexbrn was asking for in the section above. The second cite is the conclusion from the study itself. These are better sources for what the Seralini study was and wasn't, compared to an erroneous statement from the former editor of FCT that the Seralini study found a "definitive link between glyphosate and cancer." Do you guys really know what this study and all the controversy is about? Minor4th 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't use fringe/junk journals for extraordinary claims, though even this says "tumor incidence and mortality results were reported". EUSU is a no-impact-factor journal. Nature.com and FCT are at the other end of the quality scale. Alexbrn (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, tumor incidence and mortality were reported, but only as a collateral observation and without drawing any conclusions about it other than to suggest further research designed specifically for carcinogen studies. Alex, I'm just trying to look for sources that actually describe the study and its findings accurately. I do not see the Farber article as either pro or anti GMO or pro or anti Seralini - it was just the only review article I could find that actually described the Seralini study and conclusions. Is there any reason to disagree with that article when you compare it to the actually conclusion in the article? I certainly don't mind if you can find a better source, but that is what we have for right now. Minor4th 22:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: - I also have no problem using the Nature article you cited above that says: Séralini's team had found teshat rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto developed many more tumours and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water. if you prefer that. I think that also accurately describes the study. Minor4th 23:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I boldly edited the lede according to this discussion, and added Alexbrn's Nature cite and the 2015 Farber cite in the first paragraph. It now reads:

The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy about the publication of a particular feeding study conducted by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini and others. Séralini's team conducted a 2-year toxicity study in which rats were fed Monsanto's RoundUp (Monsanto's commercially-formulated glyphosate) and RoundUp-tolerant NK603 genetically modified corn. The study, published in 2012 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, observed that the rats fed RoundUp and NK603 corn developed many more tumours and other severe diseases and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water. The study concluded that long-term feeding trials should be conducted to thoroughly evaluate the safety of genetically modified foods and commercially formulated pesticides. [1][2]

I am open to further discussion or reversion if anyone takes issue with this edit. Minor4th 23:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but we have no base for that assumption - the study has been deemed a non-event in science. Polentarion Talk 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Nature news piece is good, but it is subtitled "food-safety bodies slam feeding study that claims increased cancer incidence in rats" and does tell us "he was not expecting to find any--no previous tests on GM foods had suggested a cancer risk. Yet Seralini has promoted the cancer results as the study's major finding". The point is that what appears incidental from a plain reading of the text, was promoted as the key claim because of the way the paper was launched. Hence the sensitivity to the claim from the editor and in the general reception of the text which sees "cancer incidence" as the key point at issue. We need to make that plain too. Basically, the word "cancer" needs to be in the opening para for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's almost as if the journalists were spoon-fed the conclusions via a massive press launch or something. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. And in the world out there the push back from the activists now seems to be to say that "Seralini never said cancer, it's all a *smear* I tell yah". We must be careful not to have Wikipedia buy into that nonsense. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think those aspects of the controversy are covered in the following paragraph of the lede - the big press release and non-disclosure, etc. I only worked with the first paragraph. My concern was about Wikipedia's voice misstating the study's conclusions. Minor4th 13:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in what are technically the study's "conclusions". All of RS (and Séralini himself) focused on the claim made in the paper linking GMO with cancer. That is the essence of the "affair". We need to be aligned with RS. At the moment we're aligned with Minor4th's OR. Alexbrn (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As a start, I have changed "observed" to "claimed", since the one thing that is unambiguously demonstrated is that the power of the study was insufficient to observe these things, and the claims were found to be unsupportable. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We should go much further. The first paragraph of the lead is cirrently reporting the "conclusions" of a withdrawn retracted study. Quite unbelievable. It goes against everything that Wikipedia stands for, (and WP:UNDUE) to report these non-conclusions in the lead as if they had any weight at all. I am about to revert to the version before Minor 4th's recent pov edit. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I am comfortable with that, obviously. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after careful consideration I think my text was alright. Alexbrn (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I was actually thinking this version was the one, though I'd change "its conclusions were" to "this claim was" (in para 1) to satisfy the valid element of M4's complaint. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, Done, but give me a few moments to make sure that you are correct;) -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to focus the article on the criticisms and the controversy the study drew, but that doesn't mean that we publish erroneous information about a study. If you want to give more focus to the initial reaction from industry and the science community, then make that the first paragraph - but don't include wrong information just because "no one cares about the actual conclusions." That's actually another facet of this "affair" that needs to be expended, however - the question of industry influence over the peer review process etc. I'm motivated to continue collaboration on this article. And let's try to keep the insults and personalization out of it please. Minor4th 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What is "erroneous"? We're getting a build-up of opinion and assertion on this Talk page not backed by sources (or even mention of sources). To be constructive it would be helpful if the conversation was grounded in RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What "wrong information"? -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

what's "wrong" and "erroneous" is that the study claimed a link between GMO and cancer - errors that you just reverted back in the article. Due to those errors, I had requested that discussion and consensus be formed before restoring Alex' version. Alex, I'm requesting that you self revert your last edit, based on the DS and 1RR restrictions on this article. And let's continue the discussion since we apparently haven't reached consensus yet. Minor4th 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If you review the discussion above you'll see we have multiple strong RS telling us the study claimed a strong link between GMOs and cancer. We follow that strong RS. I am open to continued discussion of course - but it must be based on RS, not personal opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(Add) Talking of 1RR, you've just reverted again (and cried BLP). I have filed a report at AE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC); amended 17:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, please read this section above and you will find the reliable sources that explain the conclusions of Seralini's study. Please do not continue reverting back in false conclusions of the study and attributing them to the study itself. That is big time BLP violation, making a claim in WP voice that a scientist concluded "a strong link to cancer" when no such conclusion was made. youve got multiple editors trying to explain this to you (me, Tryptofish, Trondheim and polentate.). This is not about POV - It's about not misrepresenting scientific studies. Minor4th 16:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I see only one editor disagreeing and reverting, and that is you. Alexbrn (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

^I disagree with the claim of "a strong link to cancer". The quote from the study you provided above said "a strong suspicion of cancer" that required further study. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying to examine the language of the sources being discussed here, and I do think that they point towards treating cancer as being of lead-worthy importance. Here are some details that I see. There is a quote from Seralini's own study, that says: "This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues." We should not misunderstand that as meaning that Seralini was saying that, in his opinion at the time, conclusions about carcinogenicity could not be made from the present study. Rather, he is just saying (in fairly typical scientific journal-speak) that he is planning to do more studies (kind of a signal to other investigators that they won't be able to "scoop" him). When he talks about "overexpression of the EPSPS transgene" and "other mutagenic... effects", he is talking about changes in genetic material, that are widely understood by biochemical scientists as being tantamount to carcinogenicity. So the reporting of tumors and resulting mortality is very much a report, in scientific journal terms, of probable carcinogenicity. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You will need some RS to back up all these claims. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not the case, although it's an understandable source of confusion. What you are concerned about comes down to whether what I said was WP:OR. If editors were discussing, on an article talk page, a source written in a language other than English, and an editor who reads that language fluently were to explain what the source says, that would not be original research. It would just be help in properly understanding the source. What I am doing here is analogous to that. I'm explaining what the source says. That's part of what editors do. There is nothing controversial about noting that "mutagenic effects" are equivalent to carcinogenesis. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is no reason to use anything other than plain English here, especially since many of the sources specifically use the word cancer. I can't imagine why one would prefer medical jargon to everyday language here. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:: Above you said, '"mutagenic effects" are equivalent to carcinogenesis'. That is incorrect. Mutagenic effects can occur without cancer (Carcinogenesis). One only needs to look in the Wikipedia article Mutagenesis to see your claim is mistaken, unless you think that article is wrong too. Regarding your statement:

When he talks about "overexpression of the EPSPS transgene" and "other mutagenic... effects", he is talking about changes in genetic material

that is fine, but your continuation,

...that are widely understood by biochemical scientists as being tantamount to carcinogenicity. So the reporting of tumors and resulting mortality is very much a report, in scientific journal terms, of probable carcinogenicity.

is simply not true. "probable" is far too strong. "possible" is acceptable. Again, if you are claiming some expertise in reading a toxicology study that the average reader lacks, you should easily be able to prove the claims you are making about the language using RS, and I would hope you would refrain from making making misleading statements like the pieces I just quoted. That said, we might be able to wrap this up given that your proposed language for revising the lede is okay with me, and is getting additional support. Thank you for that proposal. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I really do not need you to be lecturing me about "refrain from making misleading statements". That is a very unhelpful comment on your part.

Of course, I understand perfectly well that there can sometimes be carcinogenesis without mutagenesis, as well as mutagenesis without carcinogenesis. That's not the point. What is the point is what Seralini says in the source. And he is talking about potential carcinogenesis. He is not talking about non-carcinogenic mutations, when he is also presenting evidence of dramatic tumors. We can dance around whether Seralini meant that carcinogenesis was "possible" or "probable", but he is clearly talking about it being, at the very least, "possible", as opposed to not mentioning it at all. Thus, there is no valid reason to take the source as indicating that any mention of "cancer" should be removed from the lead. The lead should clearly report that. It's a big part of what the "affair" was about. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

We're now getting a repetition of the revert to remove "cancer" from the opening and re-refocus on Séralini's (technical) conclusion, rather than his grand claim. This is like a cameraman focusing on the goalposts at one end of the pitch while a goal is being scored on the other side, quite out-of-step with RS and so not neutral. I think the consensus is reasonably plain. Furthermore we should not attribute the finding of scientific flaws in the study to just one guy, as this incorrectly implies it is a mere opinion, rather than the settled fact it is - see WP:ASSERT ... this is also at variance with our requirement for NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the word cancer to the lede. I object as well. Please stop trying to edit war in the word cancer and work to find consensus. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Objections count for nothing if they are not rooted in the WP:PAGs. We have multiple strong RS's telling us that the paper claimed a strong link between GMOs/Roundup and cancer (yes, that specific word). We need to follow such WP:RS to be neutral. At least 3 editors today have expressed a preference for including mention of cancer (and two, I being one of them, have made an edit to do so). On the other hand I'm hearing a couple of objections but seeing no good sources to support those objections. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It must be me who Alex refers to as having "made an edit to do so", for the record, so yes, I did. Lets all raise an xmas toast to neutrality. -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC).

It is bizarre to state that we cannot include the single most widely reported facet of this study because a small number of stonewalling editors claim there is no consensus for it. The PR photos have Séralini holding up a rat with cancer, it's not us who's making the link. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we perhaps solve this dispute by changing the second sentence of the lead:

"The article, which appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp."

to:

"The article, which appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported toxic effects in rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp, and led to widespread media reports of possible carcinogenic effects."

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe include both? The main encyclopedic relevance is that they tried to incorrectly claim an increase in tumor incidence, but some of the other toxicological claims had experimental design issues to make those findings inconclusive as well (all part of the retraction). The increase in tumors shouldn't be removed, but mentioning the other toxicological aspects would be relevant too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

^I agree on including both using this language:

"The article, which appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported toxic effects (including increases in tumors) in rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp, which led to widespread media reports of possible carcinogenic effects."

Thank you both for working toward consensus language.

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That language would be downplaying the carcinogenicity and be undue weight for the other toxicology aspects that were relatively minor in the controversy. The main aspect of this controversy was the tumors and cancer claims, so that would need to be mentioned first rather than subsetted. Instead of burying the tumor language, it's best just to combine Tryptofish's language to "reported an increase in tumors and toxicity." Based on the above talk discussion, we're also not in a position where we've established a need to change the current language either, so we could just leave it as is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that last version is the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Kingofaces43's objection when I endorsed David Tornheim's suggested language. But seeing those objections, I think the best way to address them would simply be to remove the parentheses around "including... tumors". That reads better than "reported an increase in tumors and toxicity", because there wasn't really an "increase" in toxicity. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem with subsetting tumors in the phrase is that toxicity and carcinogenicity studies are two separate things, so it wouldn't be proper to say "in toxicity . . . including tumors" in this instance. It's a nuance, but an important one in this instance. The study did try to report an increase in toxicity (effects on various organs), but would going back to replacing toxicity with toxic effects in my last quote clear that up? Sometimes people associate toxicity solely with mortality, so was that what you were thinking saying there wasn't an reported increase in toxicity? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add that I only suggest these changes because we mention the study was used to suggest a link between glyphosate, etc. and cancer by Seralini in the rest of the lede (and article), so it doesn't become a huge weight issue in this once instance of changing cancer to tumor. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Please take it easy on the edits when we're in the middle of discussion and a forming consensus. I prefer the wording of Tryptofish's and David Tornheim's proposal, and it is more accurate than what you have added to the first paragraph. The Arjo source you cited says nothing about cancer or Seralini emphasizing "cancer" findings in the press conference. I cannot find any source that describes Seralini as emphasizing a cancer link at the press conference. From all sources on the subject it appears that Seralini DID emphasize the large tumors with pictures of rats with large tumors - and the media interpreted that (unscientifically) as a GMO/cancer link (which is why we need SCIRS for this type of information and don't rely on mainstream media to tell us what scientific studies say and mean.

I tweaked the edit made by Kingofaces in the first paragraph, and I welcome further discussion and will self revert if requested. Minor4th 01:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make any significant changes to content at this time. It was all existing content that was reordered only.

Likewise your recent change is incorrect and deleted sourced content. The very title of Arjo said the study claimed RR corn and glyphosate caused cancer. Sources discussing the issues with the claims at the press conference have already been discussed, so we cannot downplay that Seralini tried to claim a cancer link at the press conference or in the study. I do suggest reverting, and also remembering that WP:PARITY applies in fringe subjects as SCIRS sources will not always cover fringe subjects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I self reverted at your request, but please don't consider the matter settled. I read the entire Arjo paper and it does not say what your sourcing it for, other than displaying pictures of rats with tumors. As you have been privy to the ongoing related discussions, attributing the "cancer" link to Seralini is a misrepresentation. You can talk about how the media or even other scientists inferred a link with cancer or that Seralini's press conference was interpreted this way, but you can't say that "Seralini emphasized the cancer findings" at the press conference because he didn't and there's not a source that says he did. Moreover, the Arjo source in particular should not be used because Seralini has responded to that article with a claim that it is libelous and defamatory. Besides all of that, it is just not necessary for WP to make the claim that Seralni himself linked GMO to cancer or that he "emphasized cancer findings" when Seralini has very directly addressed this issue and stated that he is making no claim about cancer and agrees that his study was not designed to draw that kind of conclusion. Minor4th 02:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have indeed reviewed the talk section and there is no legitimate reason presented to say Seralini didn't try to display a cancer link. I've only seen original research in that regard. The Arjo paper demonstrates the link in the study, and we also have the Butler source saying Seralini portrayed that as the main result of the study at the conference. We can pull up more sources in that regard, but there's no rush to do that. As a WP:FRINGEBLP subject, Seralini doesn't get the final say in this article when it conflicts with the weight of the scientific community. Fringe subjects often balk at criticism, and we don't always report on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Arjo source doesn't say that, as I mentioned. Would you mind linking the Butler source you're talking about and maybe quoting the part that says Seralini emphasized "cancer findings"? Is there a reason you are so dug in about saying Seralini made the cancer link, when he actually didn't? Minor4th 02:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Butler is pretty clear on the press conference bit. Also, I suggest working on the body of the article first where many of these sources are before worrying about the lede. The lede follows what's in the body. Given that others above have told you that Seralini pushing a cancer link is appropriately sourced, it's time to drop the stick on the topic. That's why many editors have been seemingly "dug in" to avoid giving undue weight to Seralini's version of events. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose the more accurate and neutrally worded version below, including the reference to a non-controversial Nature article for the source. The following describes how the media ended up running away with the cancer story without falsely attributing a "cancer link" to Seralini. I have expressed my disagreement with KOA's proposal that is currently in the first paragraph; from the comments above, I believe this version will be acceptable to all and addresses the cancer/tumor issue:

The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy surrounding the publication, retraction, and republication of a journal article by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. The article, which first appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp. At a press conference announcing his findings, Séralini displayed photographs of treated rats with large tumors, leading to widespread media reports of a link between GMOs and cancer.

This is more in line with what Tryptofish and David Ternheim were discussing before Kingofaces43 made a different edit. There is nothing about giving undue weight by accurately referring to tumors instead of using a more inflammatory and controversial term like "cancer" that was not part of the study or the press conference from any source I have seen. Minor4th 02:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, we need to be saying "cancer", and we need to be clear that this was Séralini's main line. This what the best sources, like Nature, tell us. Our job is to relay faithfully what the best sources say on this topic. Wikipedia does not engage is revisionism. I agree with KoA it's time for this particular WP:STICK to be dropped. Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't wave around pictures of tumour infested rats at a media conference and then act surprised when they link it to cancer. However, unless we have something from Seralini saying cancer or someone from that press conference implying he said cancer I think we should stick with tumours. The readers are smarter than a lot of us give them credit for and we should trust them to see through this. The bigger problem to me is that the failings of the study are not mentioned early enough. I think the third paragraph (starting "after the paper was published...") should be added to the opening paragraph. Publishing by press conference is bad, but drawing misleading conclusions is worse. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I went back and reread Seralini's paper, as it was republished per the second EL on the page, to look specifically at what he said about tumors and cancer. I saw a couple of things that are worth noting here. First, in the Results section, there is a subsection titled Tumor incidence, which contains this sentence: "The real tumors were recorded independently of their grade, but dependent on their morbidity, since non-cancerous tumors can be more lethal than those of cancerous nature, due to internal hemorrhaging or compression and obstruction of function of vital organs, or toxins or hormone secretions." He does indeed make it clear there that he does not consider the results to be determinative of cancer, but he also makes it clear that he is concerned with lethal tumors, as opposed to non-lethal tumors. Going through the Results, he names the kinds of tumors that he found in the rats: adenocarcinoma (cancer), adenoma (non-cancer), fibroadenoma (non-cancer), carcinoma (cancer), cystadenocarcinoma (cancer), Wilms' tumor (cancer), and fibroma (non-cancer). He also describes the cases where there was metastasis. Thus, he is clearly not talking only about cancerous tumors, but he clearly is discussing cancer, in part. In the Discussion section, paragraph 8 (beginning: "In females, induced euthanasia..."), he discusses how the majority of deaths and euthanasias of female rats were due to mammary tumors, and he goes on to discuss how such tumors are cancerous. He also says: "At this concentration in vitro, G alone is known to induce human breast cancer cell growth..." Thus, he is very clearly describing cancerous tumors as playing a significant role in his results, and he is drawing attention to the possible role of glyphosate and Roundup in causing cancer.

So I think that a fair reading of his own statements in the paper are that, on the one hand, he made a point of saying that his results do not prove anything about cancer and that some of the tumors were non-cancerous, but that on the other hand, he does treat cancer as being something of importance in his results, and the tumors as something that was lethal, as opposed to saying that there were no significant cancer observations. He is saying, in effect, that his results do not prove a role in cancer, but that they raise a significant possibility of cancer. It seems reasonable that, however the press may have misrepresented the press conference, he would have said roughly similar things there, and we know that he showed photographs of the rats with tumors. I think that, on the one hand, we can give credence to Seralini rejecting claims that he said that he had found proof of cancer, but we should also recognize that he did "emphasize the cancer aspects". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

^Thank you for reading the paper. I think you now understand where I was coming from and now are saying many of the same things I was saying or trying to say. I agree with everything you said, except the last part of the last sentence where you say that he "emaphasize[d] the cancer aspects" at the press conference. I am not certain whether Seralini emphasized potential cancer aspects at the conference or not without further review of RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome, but if you disagree with me about that aspect of what he emphasized, then you should not think that I now agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

And I re-read the paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

GMO Claims in the lede

We got now the following claime in the first sentence claimed there was a strong link between genetically modified organisms and cancer. I might care less about the cancer issue, but I see a problem with the GMO claim. It was about GMO maize but as well about Roundup, right? Evaluation? Polentarion Talk 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. My fault & now fixed. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible compromise?

How about changing "Séralini emphasized the cancer aspects of the work" to "Séralini emphasized the health implications of the work"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine - or "Seralini emphasized the tumors I. The treated rats by displaying pictures at a press conference ..," or anything else that does not state in WP voice that Seralini "made a definitive link between GMO and cancer." I also have no objection to saying that scientists believed Seralini was implying a GMO/cancer link by waving around rat tumor pictures at a media event - if we have reliable sources that say that. I am not trying to minimize any of this, and I am fully aware of all the criticism -- from the experiment design, sample size, etc to the science-by-press-conference issues. I completely agree that all of those should be covered in the article. But I am only talking about the very first paragraph where we are describing the actual study - we should not claim that Seralini considered this a cancer study or made a definitive link between GMO and cancer. Minor4th 21:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also consider the possibility of saying something like "Seralini focused on the possible carcinogenic implications from his study" (or something along those lines)-- that is closer to accurate because he did speak of a suspicion of possibly carcinogenic effects tha need to be followed up with appropriate studies to either rule it in or rule it out. Minor4th 21:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps: "Séralini emphasized the potential cancer implications of the work"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I could live with that if it's referring specifically to the press release and his media commentary right around the time the study came out. I believe that to be accurate - I think the Nature source is pretty good for that content. Minor4th 21:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not read all the RS yet, but from what I read, I also would be far more comfortable with:

"At a press conference announcing his findings, Séralini emphasized the potential cancer implications of the work."

than the existing language

"...emphasized the cancer aspects of the work and displayed photographs of rats with large tumors."

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

O I think we need to mention the photos - those were a key part of the PR drive. There's a piece in Le Monde from the time about how it was impossible to avoid the photos, including the wonderful (Gallic?) thought that if radios had eyes, we'd even see them on the radio! Alexbrn (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

^What is your RS for the photos? I have read many articles about Seralini and the study, some of which would not be considered RS. I do not remember which ones do or do not mention the photos. I do know the photos of the very large tumors are definitely in the original study. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how they were presented at the press conference (though they had been distributed as part of the embargoed article). The more significant information is they they are lurid and, by being shown without the (comparably tumourous) control rats, evocative of the misleading idea that These Evil Chemicals cause huge tumours. Alexbrn (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is no WP:RS that supports the claim that the photos were displayed at the press conference, that language needs to be removed. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim introduced a variant on the above based on a source that was tagged as questionable per WP:RS. I replaced it with an exact quote from a Nature article which was already included as a source and which addresses precisely the point of whether the link to cancer (rather than tumours or mutagenesis) was intentional on the part of Séralini. Spoiler: it was. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you totally changed the language back after we agreed on acceptable wording. "Potential cancer implications". I do also think there are reliable sources for Seralini showing the rat tumor photographs at the press conference, perhaps the Nature article. That should also be included. But don't undo the carefully constructed language about "cancer" after we have worked hard to reach consensus. I would go add the bit about the photographs myself, but I just reverted Guy's edit so I don't want to make further edits and get accused of violating 1RR again by making a normal edit. Minor4th 15:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I object to the reversion. Guy's edit was the more neutral, since plainly stated & backed by strong RS. Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Please read the relevant ongoing discussion among multiple editors. Minor4th 16:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I have: when a substantial proportion are objecting and the text is even tagged {{rs}}, there isn't "consensus". Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for that wording relating to potential cancer implications. That's especially when the offshoot conversation above occurred only in a matter of a few hours when others hadn't responded yet when many of us are in the midst of holidays. In this case it's best to just go with what the sources say as JzG did and as pointed out many times above. If someone doesn't think JzG's version was an improvement over the last language it replaced, they're welcome to revert back to that if they can demonstrate it. We'd already reached the point that the content adequately reflected the reliable sources, which include both Arjo and Butler, so there's no reason to continue conversation over the tumor/cancer aspect. On the note of Arjo et al., there has been no discussion of it's actual reliability since the tag, so at this point there's no need for the tag or just removing the source. It's probably one of the most reliable sources out there on the subject as it was published in a journal as an analysis of the events at hand. It also supports the cancer language, so I have restored it alongside the Butler source.

As a second reminder, content in the lede follows content from the body and does not need to be sourced per WP:LEDE. Sources are good for controversial subject ledes, but if someone wants to argue whether content in the lede matches a source, that needs to be dealt within the body rather than always trying to insist on pairing a source to an exact sentence in the lede. In the case of the pictures, it's a bit of a sky is blue argument as they would be included in the press release for the media to use (copyright things, etc.). If someone really wants to nitpick the events of the press conference though, I've added a source detailing exactly that the pictures were shown during the press conference. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So much for "compromise". There is so much for me to object to here. First, I never proposed deleting the mention of the photographs. It is a complete misreading of what I said to think that I was proposing to end the sentence after "... of the work". I was clearly proposing only to replace the part of the sentence that said "Séralini emphasized the cancer aspects of the work".

On the other hand, the page now has a quotation about it being a media event. The quotation is put in quotation marks, but is unattributed. This is similarly objectionable. It was these things according to whom? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - I am on the same page as Tryptofish as far as the most recent edit that included "potential cancer implications" and also includes the bit about photos of large tumors at a media event. IMO it is accurate and neutral and gives appropriate weight in that one sentence. I have not checked the refs yet, but the wording is good. Minor4th 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Due to 1RR, I am not going to do this, but we really should change "Séralini emphasized what he said were its cancer implications" to "Séralini emphasized its potential cancer implications". That would be more consistent with the discussion here, and would decrease the way that it sounds like Wikipedia is saying "well, he said it" (per WP:ALLEGE). The edit that reverted "potential" said in the edit summary that all implications are by definition potential. That's somewhat true, except that simply saying "its cancer implications" makes it sound like the preponderance of sources consider those implications to be credible, which paradoxically is the opposite of what that edit intended. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, I looked pretty hard for a source that specifically said that he "displayed" the photos at the press conference, and I could not find one that was that specific. But I added sources that make it clear that the photos were made available to the press, whether or not they were actively displayed, and I corrected the text accordingly. I also moved and attributed that quote about the media event. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"its cancer implications" makes it sound like the preponderance of sources consider those implications to be credible ← I'm sorry what? This complaint makes no sense to me. In this context the phrase in question means "what the article text implied". If you really want to qualify it put "claimed implications" or somesuch. Alexbrn (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then I will try to explain. In other contexts, one can say something like "this work has important or groundbreaking implications" (an entirely appropriate thing to say about the discovery of the double helix of DNA). Strictly speaking, those implications would still be "potential", in that they haven't happened yet, but nonetheless that wording makes it clear that the implications are important and likely to be true. Likewise, here, a reader coming upon this page fresh would likely understand "its cancer implications" to make it sound, in Wikipedia's voice, like there is a significant possibility that Seralini had found results that might turn out to be important to cancer research, and then as the reader continues to read the page, that would start to sound like it does not make sense. There is a big difference between "potential implications" and "important implications", but you seemed to assume that "implications" only means something speculative and easily dismissed. That's why we still need to make it clear that the "implications" were not of the important or groundbreaking kind. We could leave it as "what he said", or we could change it to your suggestion of "claimed" or "implied", but all those options run afoul of WP:ALLEGE. Just saying "potential" would have been so much easier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Implications are that which is implied. I can understand your desire to clarify that these are not implications that are accepted as valid but putting "potential" in front of the word doesn't do that job IMO (as then it still implies the potential of them may be accepted). To really close this down I'd put "supposed implications", "claimed intentions" or something. In this case WP:ALLEGE is not a stylist nicety that applies, since the claims are ... well, "claims" (as RS tells us). Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to push it any farther. As things stand, I'd prefer to leave the wording as it is now, in terms of "what he said". It's certainly accurate, and certainly better than something like "what he claimed or alleged". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that wording should be changed to "Seralini emphasized the potential cancer implications" - but I can't make that edit either right now because of 1RR. I'm good with whatever the sources say about the photos and the media event - whether he displayed them or made them available. I believe it was the Butler source that I looked at for that content so you've seen the same thing I have. Minor4th 20:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Alexbrn about "cancer implications". Implications becomes an unneeded and potentially ambiguous qualifier (that can also infer credibility). We already had a version, "Séralini promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding. . ." that is straightforward and unambiguous. The term "cancer results" is already implying an assertion by Seralini as it came from the study, so there's no need to add further qualifiers, especially since both his promotion outside the paper and the paper itself are readily debunked later in the text.

Also Trypto, I get the feeling you may have missed this edit of mine seeing your comment about photo sources. The source specifically says, "He presented color pictures of rats with grotesque tumors to emphasize his point." in reference to his actions at the press conference. Most sources are ambiguous on if they include the press conference in that meaning (not excluding it though), but this source is more clear. The current lede misses the detail that he actively pointed out these pictures during the press conference, but instead implies a more passive tone. The previous edit in this diff would be more appropriate by removing what you added in the next. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking your first point first, please start by seeing what I said during an edit conflict with you, just above. Alexbrn's edit was the edit that made it say "cancer implications", so if you don't like that phrase, you aren't agreeing with him. He was, instead, objecting to calling the implications "potential", and that is what I replied to above. I really do not like your use of the word "promoted", as it pushes too hard on painting it in a negative light. It may arguably be true, but it simply is not needed. Given unclear sources as to what exactly Seralini said at the press conference, and given his own insistence that he did not actually claim to have demonstrated carcinogenicity, we should be influenced to some extent by what he said in the retracted and republished paper, so please see my reading of that in the #Reverts section above.

As for your second point, are you telling me that there is a book from Oxford University Press that actually says that he displayed the photos during the press conference? Good heavens, why are you only pointing that out now, and only putting it down lower on the page instead of in the lead?! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Trypto. I actually intended to quote "potential cancer implications" as a whole. To many flurries of edits going on here today that things are getting lost in the process. What I was agreeing with was that qualifiers can introduce ambiguity, which I why I'm saying to just say cancer results instead. Hopefully that clears it up. Promoted shouldn't be considered a negative term, but we also have to realize that the mainstream reaction to Seralini was negative anyways. The term should be in line with most of the sources currently used.

As for the Oxford source, I just took a second look through more in-depth sources this morning and found it. I included it in the body because people are focusing too much on the lede when they seem to be forgetting that content should be resolved in the body, while the lede is only a summary that follows that body. We don't need to source everything in the lede as I mentioned a few posts up, which is why I didn't source it up there. This is partly why I'm hoping people take a break from worrying about the lede and deal with their content issues in the body first like we should to avoid this very issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful explanations. I really do think that a lot of what is going on here is editors misunderstanding each other, and that it would be a good idea all around to take things more slowly and deliberately. (Just because you decided to pay less attention to the lead does not mean that everyone else understood it likewise.) So please let me get our communications very, very clear here. If I understand correctly, you have found a source, a book from Oxford Univ. Press, that specifically says that Seralini "presented color pictures of rats with grotesque tumors to emphasize his point" during the press conference. Do I understand that correctly, yes or no?

If the answer is yes, then I agree that we should change "and made photographs of rats with large tumors available to the press" in the lead back to something like "and displayed photographs with large tumors", and we should source it to that book. That's if the answer is yes.

Even if "promoted" is one possible word that can be considered in line with the sourcing, there is no reason to insist that it must be the only word that we use. It's not like "emphasized" is wrong. And it is important for editors to work together here, and try to meet one another part way. So I'm asking you to stop insisting on "promoted", in the interest of getting to consensus.

Likewise, you need to be flexible about "cancer results", because other editors here feel strongly that the sources also indicate that Séralini's position is that he did not actually prove that cancer was caused, and that the tumors were not the only "major finding", as opposed to the organ "toxicity" – and the sources are on the side of saying that Séralini has taken that position (at least after the fact). And if you (and Alexbrn), like me, want to make it clear that any putative cancer results were incorrect, then you should be receptive to using qualifying language to indicate that the results were not correct. Taking the position that "Séralini emphasized the cancer results" is accurate, whereas "Séralini emphasized its potential cancer implications" is wrong, is not reasonable. It's a small victory to get consensus to use the word "cancer" at all, and giving it more nuance not only helps get consensus, but it also actually makes it more accurate, both by being closer to Séralini's stated position and by not making it sound like the "results" were scientific results. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oxford source

I found the relevant section in in Google books. Seems that the answer is yes, that statement appears in an OUP book. Appears to be written by Bruce M Chassy. shellac (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

So that would be:

• Chassy BM (2015). Herring RJ (ed.). Chapter 24: Food Safety. Oxford University Press. pp. 587–614. ISBN 978-0-19-539777-2. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

It's a good source and should probably colour our overall treatment of the topic. It sees the affair as a deliberate act of media manipulation by Seralini in an attempt to discredit GM food and modern agrichemicals. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is in line with the rest of the reliable sources, showing that the cancer claim was made by Séralini himself, clearly deliberately. The only remaining puzzle is why we should be looking for a "compromise" between this and Séralin's own post-hoc spin. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Just so. There seems to be an idea in the air that our job is to forge a WP:LOCALCON to appease various editors' POVs. It isn't, and in fact that would be to fall into the WP:GEVAL fallacy. We need to be faithfully reflecting what the best sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why am I looking for compromise? Let's be clear, I would not be in favor of presenting misleading information as fact. But if you look at what I have been proposing, I'm not doing that. I'm just suggesting ways that we can find (local) consensus while still being precise and accurate. So sue me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be framing the tenor of our entire article around one source. We write neutrally, even if the sources we use employ more inflammatory or advocacy-laden language. We certainly shouldn't be attributing motives and intentions directly to Seralini when he has not adopted or ratified those intentions and motivations. Minor4th 16:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish. We report what strong RS says without fear or favour (and material by a reputable academic published by a university press is about as RS as it gets). That is the essence of neutrality. Seralini and his fans might not like that, but - tough. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and it is clearly an RS insofar as the immediate question, which is that it substantiates our saying that he displayed the photos at the press conference. I'm going to make that edit to the lead now, as I would only be reverting my own edit from yesterday.

I also think that it's a reliable source overall, and indeed it does seem to be a mainstream view, and I am sure that no one here is saying that we should use it as a single source for everything on the page. I see nothing wrong with citing it for things that are also cited to another source, as additional sourcing, and nothing wrong in most cases of using it to cite something for which we do not have other sources. The area where we ought to use some discretion is in citing it for matters of opinion. The fact that Seralini displayed photographs is not a matter of opinion, but the view that, for example, "the orchestrated media event was part of a carefully laid plan" involves opinion and conjecture on the author's part, and so we should present it, if we present it at all, as an attributed opinion, rather than saying in Wikipedia's voice that things happened exactly that way. I would hope that we can agree on that overall approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, statements about motivation should be attributed when included (unless there is no doubt). Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See #Sourcing, below, for continued discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory Agencies find Glyphosate probable carcinogen

• Comment When we write about the health scope of his work it makes sense to mention that many authorities (EPA, WHO, California etc) recently declared Glyphosate probable carcinogenic, which seems to support Seralini's findings. prokaryotes (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't, because the headline claim is about GMOs not glyphosate and because the "probable carcinogen" rating refers only to extremely high doses, well above anything likely to be experienced in the real world. Séralini's paper - the subject of this article - had no part int hat decision because its conclusions are untenable. Weaselly apologia trying to show he wasn't really promoting agenda-driven pseudoscience, only belong if cited to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Didn't they used his study as well? prokaryotes (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If we have reliable sourcing that government agencies cited Seralini in making regulatory decisions, we should report that here. However, we should not utilize government decisions as implying that Seralini's study was scientifically correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

News embargo

I disagree with this edit: [12]. Given that this particular news embargo was very atypical in nature, I don't see the value in pointing out that typical news embargoes are common. It seems to downplay the reality of what was unusual here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It is in the source article by Butler ("Journalists often receive embargoed journal articles, "), so for NPOV, it should be included. Critics of Seralini wish to emphasize what is *unusual* by making what is usual seem unusual too, so for NPOV this claim needs to be in the article. --20:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That said, I did not mean to over-emphasize that new embargoes are common. The need for mention about news embargoes is that the negative coverage of Seralini makes it seems completely abnormal to have any restrictions on reporters receiving information. I was not aware that some restrictions are indeed common practice until I saw it mentioned in the Butler article, and I think the ordinary reader would not be aware of this either, so it needs to be made clear in the article, which is why Butler did so. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I worry that putting it that way in the lead section ends up being overkill. After all, we would not say that he used a microphone at the press conference, only to point out that it is common to use a microphone. More importantly, although it is indeed common to have embargoes about journal articles, those embargoes are normally imposed by the publishers of the journals, in order to protect their copyrights. In contrast, it is extremely unusual to have the authors of a journal article request an embargo, because they normally have every interest in getting the news out about their work. So this was not even typical of an embargo, outside of the unusual confidentiality pledge. It might be a POV problem if the page were to say that the embargo was unusual, but the page only said that the confidentiality clause was unusual. And the whole reason why this page passes WP:Notability is because of the things that were unusual, so there is nothing wrong with emphasizing the unusual things, so long as the information is not misleading.

I'd like to suggest that we have this material about embargoes normally being common practice in the "Publication strategy" section of the page, where more detail is appropriate. If we can agree to cover these points there, I would be happy to support that. However, I think it works much better there, than in the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's first comment but not the proposal to include it elswhere. The relevance of Séralini's press launch is not in any way related to run-of-the-mill press embargoes. We don't include embargo details in discussions of research unless there is something highly usual, as there was here. Including the wider context of press embargoes, which is normally entirely unremarkable and not mentioned at all in discussions of research on Wikipedia, appears to serve merely to water down the well-established criticisms of the way Séralini spoon-fed the story only to selected favourable journalists, and including the comment about normal press embargoes is WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree generally with Tryptofish's suggestions - further explanation about news embargo in the body, and I don't think it's necessary to qualify it as "common" in the lede. As a compromise, maybe in the lede have wording like "not unusual" or "not uncommon" - the qualifier "common" though sounds like we're somehow hedging or couching our language. It's not SYN because it's exactly how the source describes it. Minor4th 18:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

For me, the most important consideration is that the lead should only discuss the confidentiality pledge, and leave out the broader issues about embargoes. I'm neutral about discussing embargoes lower down on the page, but would be willing to do so if that helps us get to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is similar to the earlier question about peer review. Press embargoes are normal, but PR launches to hand-picked journalists are not. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we at least have a consensus to take it out of the lead? It really sticks out like a sore thumb there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine. Perhaps we should wait for David to comment? Minor4th 23:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That's what I intended. I'm in no hurry with this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If I don't hear any objections by tomorrow, I will go ahead and remove it from the lead, with no prejudice against some coverage lower on the page. I will also note that in #Break 2, below, editors are agreeing that a source from the Vlaams group is a good source, and it describes multiple ways in which the embargo was not typical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing

See also: #Oxford source, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 added a source for Seralini having featured the rat photographs at the press conference, rather than simply having distributed the paper in which the images appeared. Kingofaces added the source without the author's name, as The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 606. [13] He later added the author as Ronald J. Herring, when in fact Herring is the editor. [14] Tryptofish corrected the author's name, but instead of the article title ("Food Safety") used a sub-section title ("Media and Manipulation: An Illustrative Case Analysis"). [15]

The citation is Bruce M. Chassy, "Food Safety," in Ronald J. Herring (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics, and Society, Oxford University Press, 2015 (pp. 587–614), p. 606. Chassy worked for Monsanto as a lobbyist. [16] And his article says only that Seralini "presented color pictures of rats," which doesn't tell us whether the press conference (if it was a physical one) featured the images separately from the paper.

A reporter who attended the press conference would be the best source for this kind of thing, but in general would it not be better to avoid sources with such an obvious COI, on either side? If COI sources are used, it should be because they're the most appropriate source for the point being made, and there should be in-text attribution so that COI source material isn't presented in Wikipedia's voice. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I'd agree that Chassy's lobbyist position attenuates the usefulness of that source. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

SV: Thanks for the catch. I deleted this addition of the category "media manipulation", which was added coincident with use of this source. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That was unnecessary as we have multiple reliable sources that discuss the media manipulation around *both* publications (if you absolutely insist on a statement explicitly saying this was media manipulation then [17] will do nicely). I restored it. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the category is appropriate for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Sarah's comment, I have been looking for a good source about what actually happened at the press conference, and I have as yet been unable to find anything from a reporter who was at the press conference and reported about pictures of rats. Here is a source that reports about the press conference and actually has a picture of Seralini from the press conferenced and a picture of the rats with an explanation that the pictures were made available by CRIIGEN: [18]. I think it's safe to say the Seralini group made the photos available (they were also published as part of the study) but there's no verifiable indication that he displayed the photos at the press conference. Minor4th 18:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely missed the fact that Chassy has been a lobbyist. I just assumed, mistakenly, that Oxford University Press would have reliable authors, and was influenced by what other editors were saying in #Oxford source, above. Given his affiliation, however, I completely retract my earlier endorsement of the source, and I think that we should go back to saying only that the photos were made available to the press, rather than that Seralini displayed them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made that edit. Minor4th 18:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that your edit restored the language about "potential implications". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I did restore that language, as it is better language and we are no longer afoul of 1RR on that issue. Minor4th 18:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll not argue that further, it was just an attempt on my part to tighten-up and isn't worth spilling more pixels over. Alexbrn (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: - on your most recent edit, can you self revert the word "treated" back in? It's an important point that Seralini only showed pictures of treated rats and did not show pictures of control rats that might also have developed tumors. Minor4th 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. I missed that (although there really was no difference between treated and untreated; nonetheless, I get it that that's what the photographs were). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

Reading the above, there don't appear to be any legitimate issues with regards to the source. Herring is the editor of the book, so in this case, content is approved by Herring at the least and potentially by peer-reviewers (looking into whether the latter occurred, though it tends to be the case with these books). Books are a little different than journals as the editor is in essence an author of the whole collection as they are standing by the content behind it. That would remove issues with individual authors for content like this as the editors do engage in basic fact checking from a WP:RS perspective.

Even ignoring the fact that Herring was the editor, Chassy is not a lobbyist and there is no COI demonstrated. There is a huge difference between being a paid lobbyist and lobbying alongside another group such as a company. Academics will sometimes work with companies to work out things like pesticide regulations. That's part of their job, just as it is to work against the companies when they are doing something out of line. Contributing to GMO Answers wouldn't be a COI either, so I'm not seeing where the COI or lobbyist claims come in when you really dig into the background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right. And I'm changing my mind yet again (and I should stop assuming that other editors got it right). I just went back to the source, and looked at the List of Contributors on page ix. It says that "Bruce M. Chassy is Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Illinois." (And Oxford University Press is a publisher who uses high quality authors, as I suspected.) That's a world away from being a professional lobbyist. He is thus an expert academic who may also have provided expert opinion to Congress. He is a reliable source for our purposes, and we should use the source as I previously said near the bottom of #Oxford source. And that includes going back to saying that Seralini displayed the photos. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC) It was the EPA, not Congress. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Chassy acted as a lobbyist for Monsanto, and was or had been in receipt of a Monsanto grant, so it would be inappropriate to place contentious material from him in Wikipedia's voice. More to the point, though, he wasn't at the press conference, so he doesn't know whether Seralini displayed photographs of the rats.

The article still says, in the lead, that he "made photographs of treated rats with large tumors available to the press," and elsewhere: "Séralini held a press conference on the day the study was released in which he ... featured large images of rats with tumors."

Those photographs were in the paper, and the paper was distributed, but were the photographs featured in some additional way? I believe there was a website, but I don't know how to find it or whether it was part of the press conference. American journalists were told about the paper by telephone conference, rather than during a physical press conference, so no photographs would have been featured during that.

The article should explain what happened in a way that makes it clear to people who were not at the press conference. We should make our way through POV with facts that are sourced to the most appropriate source for each point, i.e. writers not involved with either side who we can be reasonably sure know what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I felt a need to look into this some more, and I found this source, [19], from The New York Times, that describes Chassy's relationship with advocacy. It's a reliable source for the information, but I am not suggesting that we use it to source this page, just that we use it to understand who Chassy is, as the author of the Oxford Univ. Press chapter. According to the Times, he is indeed an emeritus professor. He is one of multiple academics who were criticized by anti-Monsanto activist groups (note: I am describing those groups, not editors here) after emails were released indicating Monsanto recruiting them to advocate in favor of GMOs. Chassy says that he already publicly opposed an EPA plan, as a professor and expert, before anyone in industry contacted him to provide money for him to travel, create a website, and speak to the EPA. That certainly makes him someone that the activist groups want to discredit, but it does not make him a "lobbyist", and it does not change his status as a mainstream and reliable source for our purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is a link that brings up the List of Contributors (Chassy, and everyone else) in the Oxford University Press book: [20] (first click, page ix). It's not a book by lobbyists, nor even a book by people from industry. It's a book by university academics. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The NYT article says:

"[Monsanto], in late 2011, gave a grant for an undisclosed amount to Bruce M. Chassy, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, to support 'biotechnology outreach and education activities,' his emails show.

"In the same email in which Dr. Chassy negotiated the release of the grant funds, he discussed with a Monsanto executive a monthslong effort to persuade the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon its proposal to tighten the regulation of pesticides used on insect-resistant seeds."

That gives Chassy a COI, so he ought to be avoided as a source for contentious material unless there's a need to use him for some reason, and so long as we attribute the material in text. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I kept getting edit conflicts in my previous comments, so now I will actually reply to what you said, sorry for not having done it sooner. I think you may be right about him not being present at the press conference, so I'm still wavering about what I think about whether we should or should not say that Seralini displayed the photos. If we stay with saying that the photos were made available, Minor4th's source does make it clear that the photos were made available. As for a COI, I read – and provided! – that same NYT link. If we are going to make judgments based on it, we should not leave out:

"In an interview, Dr. Chassy said he had initiated the fight against the E.P.A. plan before Monsanto pressed him. But he conceded that the money he had received from the company had helped to elevate his voice through travel, a website he created and other means."

It's not like the money went into his pocket, and it's not like the money changed his position about anything. In the second paragraph of my earlier comment in this talk: [21], I tried to take a balanced view of how we should use this source, and my opinion hasn't changed from that second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of when he was paid, or whether it changed his mind, accepting the money gave him a COI. Had Chassy wanted to do those things anyway, he could have done them without accepting money from Monsanto. In any event, a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a comment on someone's state of mind.

This is a history article. It's important to understand the science to be able to write it well, and it's important to understand how to use the most appropriate sources to establish that what some people claim happened really did happen. Chassy wasn't at the press conference, so he does not know what happened there, and what he has written about it is ambiguous. So for all these reasons (COI + wasn't there + has not written about it clearly), he is not the best source for this material. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I tried to get across in my previous comment, that depends upon which material we are sourcing. And I'm starting to think that we really do not need to say that Seralini actually displayed the photos at the press conference. "Had Chassy wanted to do those things anyway, he could have done them without accepting money from Monsanto." That's framing it in a very misleading way. If this were an academic who had spoken in favor of evolution over creationism, or in favor of mainstream climate science over climate change denial, it would be the same situation. I'm sure the Koch brothers would be eager to find out that a climate scientist had gotten a grant from a company that makes solar panels. Where Chassy presents his opinion, of course we should attribute it to him, rather than saying it in Wikipedia's voice. I've been saying that all along. But it is untrue to label Chassy as a lobbyist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Oxford Handbook makes no mention of Chassy's financial relationship with Monsanto (that I can see). The book was published in 2015. The New York Times published Chassy's emails to Monsanto in September 2015, so perhaps OUP didn't know about the relationship. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

As if he would not have been used as a chapter author because of that. He is not a professional lobbyist. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if OUP had published that paper as they did, unflagged, had they known about the relationship. I would expect at least to see in their description of him in the contributor list that he had worked for Monsanto. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If only we could have agreed not to say that Seralini displayed the photos at the news conference, without having to go into all of this stuff. Chassy did not work for Monsanto. He was not their employee. He did not receive salary from them. He was never a paid lobbyist. It is very unlikely that he crafted anything he wrote in the book to please Monsanto, or that he changed anything he would have written as a result of what they did pay for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't say that Seralini displayed images at the press conference, because we don't have a good source (or any source) saying that he did. But it's worth having these sourcing discussions, because there may be others to whom the same applies. The key issue (whether we call it lobbying or not) is that Chassy had a financial COI with Monsanto. We don't know whether he had disclosed it before the NYT published his emails a few months ago. It's therefore worth checking that nothing else in the article in WP's voice relies on sources with a COI, whether it's in relation to Monsanto or its opponents. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I really don't want to prolong this discussion beyond its expiration date, and I feel like it's already gone on for too long, there is one more thing I feel the need to point out, in the spirit of making it a useful sourcing discussion. It isn't like OUP, as a publisher, would have decided to use Chassy as a chapter writer. It would have been a decision made primarily by the editor of the book, Ronald J. Herring, a Professor at Cornell University. Academics in a particular field tend to know one another. The editor would have known if, hypothetically, Chassy were the type of character who takes money and alters his opinion to please the donors. It would not have depended on waiting for the Times to publish the emails. And Chassy would not have been invited to write the chapter, if his writing it would have later reflected badly on the book. There would have been a collective decision about what Chassy's chapter would be about and how it would fit into the rest of the book, even though the final writing would have been Chassy's. It's just very unlikely that Chassy got himself into the book to promote a "COI" contrary to his pre-existing expert opinion, and got away with it. That's not to say that he witnessed what happened at the press conference. But we should be able to hold a nuanced understanding of the source material, as neither definitive nor worthless, but rather somewhere in between. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's worth having the discussion, beyond the point about Chassy, to discuss what constitutes a financial COI. A COI is a description of a situation, such as "X has received money from Monsanto/Seralini." It doesn't mean "X has a POV about those things" or "X has changed his POV because he was paid." It's not about actual state of mind. It's about the public's perception of state of mind, and whether payment would appear to have interfered with the source's independent judgment when it comes to the payer's interests. The word appear is crucial.

A source worth reading: Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest," in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470. See in particular p. 447:

"A person is judged to have a conflict of interest on the basis of being in a conflicted situation, whether or not that person thinks he or she is capable of resisting the temptation or corrupting influence of the interest that could interfere with her judgment."

It's easy enough to avoid sources that we know have been paid by Monsanto, Seralini or related groups, unless they're the most appropriate for the point being made, in which case use in-text attribution and flag the relationship. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion, sincerely. But I also want to explain why I have been feeling so strongly about the issue. At this point, we have clear consensus against using Chassy as a source for what happened at the news conference, and I fully agree with that consensus. And if the discussion had begun with something along the lines of: Chassy had an appearance of a conflict of interest because of the funding he got, and he was not present at the press conference, and anyway we now have a better source from the Vlaams group – then I would have enthusiastically agreed with that, and there would have been no problem.

But instead, what I first saw when I read the discussion that had begun here was "Chassy worked for Monsanto as a lobbyist." Well, no, he didn't. He was never an employee of Monsanto, and never received a salary from them. He was never a professional lobbyist. His profession was as a university professor, and an expert in the subject matter of this page. (That does not mean that he is an unimpeachable source, nor does it mean that he personally witnessed the press conference.) But if hypothetically we had a bio page about Chassy, saying that he worked for Monsanto as a lobbyist would have been a BLP violation. And it is unnecessary, to establish that he was not the best source for what Seralini did at the press conference.

If, at a page about evolutionary science, we were to have a creationist POV-pusher come around and say that we could not cite a source written by an academic expert on evolution, because that expert had given lectures and received a speaking fee, and therefore had an apparent COI, that would be an incorrect reason to discount that source.

When I read that Chassy was a "lobbyist", my immediate reaction was to feel badly that I had supported using the source, and I retracted my previous support. I wasn't looking to prove any points. But when I realized that he was much less than a "lobbyist", I felt that there was overkill in making the case against citing him. Again, all that was needed was to point out that he had an apparent COI and was not present at the press conference and we have better sources. I keep seeing editors on this talk page treating sources as though editors are partisans in a dispute. We shouldn't be. One doesn't have to "go for the kill" (metaphorically speaking) to argue against using a source. And that goes in both "directions". There is also no need, for example, to demand that we say that Seralini claimed to have proven carcinogenicity at the press conference, when in fact he clearly denies having made that claim, simply to make him look extra bad. This page is under discretionary sanctions, and we can work on finding the best sources without making it a two-sided dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends how lobbyist and worked for are defined. The latter needn't refer to a salary; for me, it refers to anyone acting for an entity for compensation or even without it. In this case, the person was compensated. As for lobbyist, if I write to my MP to highlight the importance of clean streets, I'm lobbying. If I'm compensated for my efforts by Street Cleaners, Inc., I'm lobbying on their behalf (perhaps as well as on my own behalf).

Those words apart, the only thing I wanted to highlight was that the source had a COI in relation to Monsanto, however we express it.

I very much agree about trying to stop this page from being a two-sided dispute. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Break 2

Reading the above, I don't think we should use Chassy as the source for the press conference info because of the apparent COI and because he does not seem to have been at the press conference. I don't think he's a reliable source for that information. We shouldn't use him as the source for that kind of info just like we wouldn't use Folta -- there's an apparent COI, even if the scientists views are completely independent. If Seralini was "waving around" photos of rat tumors and it was a notable event, it would have been picked up by other reliable sources so we could actually verify the information.

Since we are on the subject, once we settle this issue, I'd like to take w closer look at the Arjo article that is cited throughout the body and in the lead. I think the primary author is or was a Monsanto investor and another f the authors has a similar conflict. Especially since there are BLP implications in this article, I think we need impeccable sources. I'd like to see if we can find some sources for the content besides the Arjo article. Minor4th 21:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've pretty much come to the conclusion at this point that we ought not to say that Seralini actually displayed the photos at the press conference, and I do think it is appropriate to consider that Chassy was not present in person at the press conference. But I remain uncomfortable with dismissing a book written entirely by academics and published by a university press on the basis of "an apparent COI". There is a difference between a COI and a POV. I certainly think that Chassy and other scientists have a POV, as Seralini has a POV going the other way. But that does not mean that Wikipedia should treat those as "equivalent" POVs, requiring an equal balance. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The whole book isn't being dismissed on the basis of COI, just that one paper. Yes, COI and POV are not the same thing, but in this case Chassy has a clear financial COI, and it's not an apparent COI, but an actual one. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not dismissing the book as a reliable source. I was only commenting on Chassy not being a reliable source for the content about what happened at the press conferenceMinor4th 22:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Minor's question about sourcing, I found this helpful; not currently used that I can see. It's by the Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie, and it seems detailed and knowledgeable. I haven't yet looked into COI issues, but on the face of it it looks like a fair overview. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I read that source, and it looks like an excellent one to use for this page. In light of the most recent discussions, it is worth looking at the examination of the press conference on the last page of the source. And the source also provides a lot of detail about the specific flaws in the Seralini paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I had looked at that source a couple days ago but I had no idea if it was reliable or not. Minor4th 22:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. It was the first source I saw that went into detail. It might be worth contacting them to ask about other sources for that press conference. Given how central the press conference has become to people's perception of what happened, it would be good if Wikipedia could publish a definitive account of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Chassy has a dog in the fight and if that is the sole source then it should not be included. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

OK then, I also agree that we should not use Chassy as a source for what happened at the press conference. I also remain supportive of the Vlaams source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should characterize experts who speak out about certain things as having a dog in the fight and being unreliable (the spurious COI claims from other editors don't help either). Right now, it's looking like Chassy is giving a bit more detail on something that other sources are more general about. I don't see this as conflicting sources at least. What's your thinking behind exclusion here Guy? Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, there are lots of independent sources writing about this, so there's no need to cite COI sources, unless there's a particular point where they're the best source – e.g. the only one in a position to know. But in those cases, you flag the source to the reader, rather than presenting it in WP's voice. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that problematic COI sources shouldn't be used, but seeing as this source doesn't have a COI, there's no need to be discussing it here. As already mentioned, things like an unrestricted grant or a professor doing their job is not a COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence wording

Would there be any problem with changing the wording of the lead sentence from: "The Séralini affair is the name for the controversy surrounding the..." to: "The Séralini affair was the controversy surrounding the..."? (In other words: is the name for → was.) It seems to me that the simpler wording would be more straightforward, and also WP:NOTDICT. (But maybe there's an issue that I'm overlooking.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; "is the name for" is awkward. I would suggest something like "The Séralini affair is the controversy surrounding a two-year toxicity study led by French molecular biologist Gilles-Éric Séralini." Then explain what the study purported to show, and that it was published in 2012, retracted in 2013 and republished in 2014. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this would be a problem. Guy (Help!) 00:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like this would be an improvement, so I will go ahead and do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Good proofreading/copy-editing, thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox, first section

Gilles-Eric Séralini, October 2015
Study type	Two-year rat feeding study
Lead researcher	Gilles-Éric Séralini, professor of molecular biology, University of Caen
Finanzierung	Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN)
Published	Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2012; retracted, 2013; republished, Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014
Article	Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al., "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 19 September 2012, pp. 4221–4231.

Are there any thoughts about creating an infobox? It would make some basic details easier to find. The clinical-trial box has appropriate parameters (shown) or we could create our own with the generic box. I've used a photograph of a Sprague Dawley rat, but we could use GMO corn, Seralini or none.

The box apart, the first section should describe the study: where and when, type, number of rats, groups, what was being tested, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about whether we really need the infobox, but if we use it, I would much rather have a photo of Seralini, since he is much more central to the subject than rats are. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Swapped for an image of Seralini, but unfortunately we don't have a high-quality one. I cropped this from an existing one. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. reasons to be given later. One prime reason is that readers should have access to the study, right near the top, rather than hidden at the bottom, as was recently done. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• I don't like inboxes in general but have no objection to this if others are in favor. Minor4th 22:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support addition of infobox - now that I see it with the picture of Seralini instead of the rat tumor, I like it. Minor4th 18:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Only if it has a parameter to show its retraction and the reasons for it. Don't forget, this is not actually a scientifically valid study, it's an anti-GMO study performed by an anti-GMO researcher funded by his anti-GMO think-tank and promoting an anti-GMO message that goes well beyond whatt he data actually support. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'll add that my feelings about infoboxes depend on the page. In this case, I tend to feel that an infobox is probably not that desirable. When the main topic of a page is a controversy, as it is here, then it can be difficult to really capture a summary of the page in infobox format. In fact, as I look more critically at the draft here, aside from the rat photo, I also do not like the way that the information is really about Seralini and the journal article, which is all it really describes, whereas the actual subject of this page is the controversy about the journal article and its release. And it would be very difficult to reduce such a controversy to an infobox. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think if the image is next to a good lead, the combination will give readers a quick overview of what happened. Guy, the link to the retraction is there, and readers can click on it to see the reasons. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for changing the image. At this point, I would rather just add the image as a thumbnail in the lead. I agree very much with Guy that any infobox needs to really be about the controversy. Having a link through which readers will come to the fact that there was a retraction does not come close to satisfying that need. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

We can add the reasons the journal retracted in a few words.

Readers come to this article for different reasons. Anyone wanting a very quick overview – show me the original article, retraction, reasons, where and when things happened – will have difficulty extracting it from the lead, or even from any other part of the article. I originally came here as a reader, and I had to go elsewhere to get the basics. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the paper was republished and that Seralini had offers from four journals to republish it, and that he got a whistle blower award for his work. I also believe there are studies that have been released with more rats that validate the concerns raised by the study and regulatory rulings that fall in line with those concerns. So the controversial nature of the retraction and criticism of the study is certainly not the end of the "affair". SV: It is regrettable that you had trouble finding basic info. on this subject from the article. That has bothered me too about this article and other articles in this subject area. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please no infobox. The subject of this article is the "affair", not Seralini and not the paper. I can't see how the essence of the "affair" could be made into an infobox. Alexbrn (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Info box is not possible": I disagree with such assertions. One need only look at the page for Creation–evolution controversy and see that key information on a dispute can be reduced down to tangible major parts in an WP:NPOV fashion. I would say this dispute between Seralini and his critics is pretty small compared to the Creation-Evolution controversy and some of the others listed below! Now whether the final infobox is NPOV may be a more complex issue. Other examples of complex controversial subjects with info. boxes (from List_of_controversial_issues:

• Spanish–American War
• French Revolution
• Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
• Buddhism
• Love Canal
• Tom Cruise Re Scientology

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• There isn't a need for an infobox here. It's not a BLP, and the affair should ideally be adequately summarized in the lede instead. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• The infobox is a bad idea, and at this point, I'm pretty strongly opposed to it. By way of illustrating what I mean, I offer (not seriously!) an alternative version. Because the "infobox clinical trial" template (and, by the way, this was not a clinical trial), does not have all the parameters I want, I'm showing this in table form. Just imagine this instead as an infobox, with the same photo and caption at the top. This version really does come much closer to reflecting what this page is about, as opposed to simply reflecting Seralini's paper. But it should be obvious that it does not work. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead researcher	Gilles-Éric Séralini, professor of molecular biology, University of Caen
Journal article	Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al., "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 19 September 2012, pp. 4221–4231.
Criticized for	Poor experimental design, inconclusive results, improper release to popular press.
Also released	Forthcoming book and documentary film.
Retracted	2013
Republished	Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014

• I think we are getting somewhere working together. I have no objection to your addition of this section:

"Criticized for || Poor experimental design, inconclusive results, improper release to popular press."

It could be added to the info. box that SarahSV created rather than this new format. I saw no problem with the original format--it included all the same information + an image. (I do not think the info. box should include mention of the book or documentary film, as the focus here is on the study, not the other materials.) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean that we should change the format. It's just that I don't know how to incorporate those categories into the infobox template. Of course, editors would really have to agree about how to incorporate information about things that are critical of Seralini, and I have doubts that there will ultimately be agreement. But I will say that, for me, an absolute requirement would be that any infobox would have to adequately cover such things as criticism, because this is a page about the controversy, rather than about Seralini's paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I used the clinical-trial infobox because it's the closest we have. More parameters can be added to that template (e.g. a reception parameter), or we can create a dedicated infobox for this article using the generic template. The additional parameters posted above would be fine, except for "forthcoming book" etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If it's possible technically to do those things, then I'm open to discussing it. And I didn't really try that hard to write the "forthcoming" line properly, so I'm sure that there are better ways to accomplish it. But I would insist on including a sufficient amount of information about the controversy, so simply deleting that line from what I put in the table would not suffice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Gilles-Eric Séralini, October 2015
Lead researcher	Gilles-Éric Séralini, professor of molecular biology, University of Caen
Criticized for	Science by press conference: using a press conference to announce the study while preventing journalists from contacting skeptical scientists, overstating the health implications of the results; coordinated release of a book and film.
Journal article	Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al., "Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize", Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(11), 19 September 2012, pp. 4221–4231.
Scientific criticism	Use of rat strain that is prone to tumors and failure to acknowledge this in article; too few animals tested for statistical significance; too few control animals; incorrect analysis of death rates and tumor rates; failure to demonstrate dose-response relationship.
Retracted	2013
Republished	Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014

I'm pleasantly surprised to find that other editors aren't objecting outright to including criticism, etc., so I tried harder to get the infobox display to work. Here is a draft, still very much in draft form. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that. Re: other aspects, we could add Science by press conference. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tryp - you can add to the list of criticisms: 1. small sample size, and 2. the use of a strain of rats known to develop tumors. Those are two of the mainstream criticisms found in a variety of sources. Minor4th 01:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Infobox. We are having trouble distilling the controversy into a lead section. Trying to make an accurate, neutral infobox is just going to add to the headaches. AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Infoboxes should address the question: "if you knew nothing about this and wanted the 10-second version, what would you want to see?" I think that's not too difficult in this case, and once in place next to a good lead, it would help the reader a lot. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's all well and good for sports and singer bios (although even that is not without controversy). But some articles do not have a "10 second version", especially the he said, she said, everyone else said cases. Also there are weight issues, one word summaries tend to exacerbate these. I think introducing an infobox here before the lead is sorted is premature at best. Also, this talk page is a nightmare to follow. It would be best to deal with the current issues than introduce new (and in the scheme of things relatively minor) ones. AIRcorn (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My basic inclination is to oppose it too, and for that same reason. But I'm happy to continue to experiment with a draft version, for the sake of further discussion. I've just expanded the part that I previously left as "tbd", by creating separate lines for criticism of the publicity, and criticism of the science. I sourced it to the Vlaams source that we seem to agree is a good source. Let's see what we all think about it, after these revisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to edit the second version, but I'd suggest a "two-year rat feeding study" parameter at the top (to answer the question "what was this?"); followed by the journal parameter; followed by retraction and re-publication links; then one shorter criticism section, e.g. "flawed study design, use of rat strain prone to tumors, too few rats tested, incorrect analysis of death and tumor rates; failure to demonstrate dose-response relationship; science by press conference". SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the point where we start to run into the issues that lead me to think that an infobox won't work, but I'm happy to keep exploring it. I don't think a "two-year rat feeding study" is what the "affair" is, or even what the journal paper really is. And while I am receptive to presenting the criticisms in other ways, I think that we need to cover both the scientific and the publicity/political criticisms, if we are really to provide a précis of the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• An infobox is only useful if it provides easy access to key points. The second infobox is basically the lead crammed into infobox form. It will just repeat information in a less readable form. The first one doesn't give the incident enough context. This is not the type of article that benefits from an infobox. AIRcorn (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Another voice to suggest "no infobox". One of the perennial arguments against infoboxes is that they act as a sort of Procrustean bed that distorts the subtleties of the article. Whether that's a generally applicable concern is in another argument, but in an article like this where every clause is being carefully scrutinized and hammered out, it seems very salient. I think it would be better to improve the lead, but even on far less controversial articles, it's difficult to write a lead before the article has been fleshed out and stabilized. Choess (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that both of those comments directly above make very good points. Even though I am experimenting with ways that might make an infobox work, I agree that it is very likely better not to have one on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Press conference(s) and images

Until recently the lead said that he "displayed photographs of rats with large tumors" at a press conference. Now the lead says he "made photographs of treated rats with large tumors available to the press," and the body says: "Séralini held a press conference on the day the study was released ... and featured large images of rats with tumors."

My understanding is that Seralini distributed his paper to reporters, and that the paper contained photographs of rats with tumours. The original paper is here; the images are on p. 4226. I can't find an RS that says he featured, displayed or distributed the photographs separately.

1. How many press conferences were there? The Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie mentions a press conference in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on 19 Sept 2012. [22] The Washington Post says there was a telephone conference call with US reporters on 19 Sept. [23] Agence France-Presse appears to have attended a press conference in Paris on 20 Sept; [24] this is apparently a photograph it.

2. Did he display or feature images, or "large images," of rats, or distribute them separately from his paper? I can't find a source for any of that. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There were apparently 2 press conferences -one on the day the study was published and one in Paris the following day. I have not found any source that says that Seralini displayed or passed out rat tumor photos, but it is indisputable that the photos were part of the study, and those photos were picked up by the media. There is very little reporting of the actual press conference, so I think we are really limited in what we can say about what actually happened - there's much more information available about how the press events were interpreted and criticized in the aftermath. Minor4th 22:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's what I know, which is incomplete. I'm under the impression that there was a single press conference, and also a telephone conference call. I'm not aware of anything more, but I might just not have read about it yet. (Could the discrepancies between the 19th and the 20th reflect time zone differences?) As for the images, I'm not sure where the wording lower on the page, about the large images, came from. I've mostly been paying attention to the lead section. Where it says in the lead that the photos were made available to the press, that comes from the source cited at the end of the sentence. Minor4th added that source, and I've checked it. It isn't obvious from a first reading, but the information is in the image caption for the rat photos in that source. The caption says that the photos were made available by CRIIGEN, and the timing of the source, dated Sept. 20, indicates that CRIIGEN did that around the time of the press conference. We know that Seralini is a founding member of CRIIGEN, so we can safely assume that CRIIGEN made the photos available in cooperation with him. I tried to find the diff from this talk page where Minor4th talked about adding the source, and I didn't find it, but I remember that she said that she felt it was reasonable to treat CRIIGEN releasing the photos on Seralini's behalf as equivalent to Seralini doing so individually, and I agree with her about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would say the conference call was a press conference too, so that's three so far. And I recall seeing a source refer to something in London, so that may be four. If he had displayed, featured or separately distributed the images, I would expect to see one of the original sources refer to that. Perhaps there was an accompanying website that did it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Reuters, dated 20 Sept 2012, says there was a news conference in London, and one in the European Parliament on Sept 20. RT, dated 19 Sept 2012, refers to one in London. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Images of control group

Should the lead say that the paper contained images of treated rats with tumours, but none of the control group with tumours? SarahSV ^(talk) 06:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that needs to be detailed in the lead - right now it says that photos of "treated rats with tumors" were made available. In the body, it should go into more detail about how the study included pictures of treated rats but no pictures of control rats that might also have developed tumors. Minor4th 18:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the major sticking point of the pictures was that no controls were included (and that sources indicate there likely wasn't a difference in the number of tumors) mention of the controls should be more than prominent enough in the controversy for the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including it in the lead if others think it's appropriate. Minor4th 19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional sentence about images

I've added the second sentence below to the lead:

At the press conference, Séralini emphasized the study's potential cancer implications, and photographs from the article of treated rats with large tumors were widely circulated by the media. The French Society of Toxicologic Pathology complained that, because such tumors are found in older rats, the inclusion in the article of those images appeared to be a public-relations exercise.

I think the new sentence helps to explain, to a reader with no prior knowledge, why scientists saw the images as problematic. Anyone should feel free to remove it if they disagree. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've revised the sentence to fix several issues with it, and also to try to address the issue noted above, about the control group. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

1.5 million times

The lead says: "within hours the news had been blogged and tweeted more than 1.5 million times." The source is Arjó, et al., 2013; full text. The source says: "Within hours, the news had been blogged and tweeted more than 1.5 million times."

How could the source know this? The next footnote in the source leads to this article, which doesn't appear to mention it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, as I mentioned above, I think that source is questionable because of COI and a clear advocacy agenda. See Seralini's direct response to that article here: [25] in which he says the article is defamatory and details the undisclosed conflicts of interests of the authors:

Christou ...is also linked to Monsanto [18]. He is named as the inventor on several patents on GM crop technology, for most of which Monsanto owns the property rights. These include patents on the plant transformation process [19] used to make glyphosate-tolerant transgenic corn plants [20]. ...Christou’s failure to declare his current interests - his inventor status on patents concerning the company that developed the products we tested - could be considered grounds for retraction of a paper in a scientific journal, according to ethical guidelines for scientific publishing [22].

and

In addition, Christou and his co-authors made numerous mistakes, false and unsubstantiated assertions, and misrepresentations of our data. The title of Arjo et al.’s paper includes defamation and a misrepresentation of our research, implying that it is ‘pseudoscience’ and alleging that it claimed Roundup Ready maize and Roundup herbicide caused ‘cancer’ in rats - a claim we never made.

Really, you need to read more than what I've quoted here. In particular, read the section titled "Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud or errors". I do not believe this is a reliable source for info about Seralini. Minor4th 00:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to read beyond the self-serving claims of Séralini? I disagree. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. Seralini wouldn't be considered a reliable criticism here. Fringe subjects come up with many reasons to attempt to discredit mainstream science. In fact, Seralini is called out exactly for these ad hominem tactics here. Other sources citing Arjou show it is considered a reliable source in the scientific community, and it's also a good secondary source of the overall controversy.

Journal articles aren't going to cite a specific twitter link. There's nowhere to document exactly what the count was that day, and it would be considered something basic enough that doesn't need to be cited. One could dispute any source out there if we're going to engage in this level of scrutiny. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This article in Independent Science News says that Paul Christou (the journal's editor) was the lead author and that Monsanto "holds patents for the production of GM crops on which Christou is named as the inventor."

It also says: "It is normal practice to declare inventor status on patents as a competing interest in scientific articles, but Christou did not disclose either conflict of interest – his editorship of the journal or his patent inventor status – in his critique of the Séralini study."

I don't know whether that is a good source, or whether what it says is correct or relevant. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of this. I just noted Seralini's comments about the authors and it raised enough of a question that I think the Arjo/Christou article that we cite should be looked at more closely to determine if it is a reliable source for criticism of Seralini or if it is influenced by a COI. Minor4th 00:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Christou was a Monsanto employee from 1982-1994 according to his CV: [26]; Here's another article about his conflicts in Spinwatch [27]; another article that discusses Christou and the Seralini paper - no idea if this is reliable source or not [28].

I don't know if all or any of these are reliable sources, but there seems to be enough info there that raises the question of a COI and possible bias among Christou and his co-authors of the paper we cite. We should look for sources that are not burdened by an apparent COI.

@Guy - no I would not recommend taking Seralini's word on it - but he raises an issue that we ought to at least look into. Minor4th 01:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. According to Christou's own CV he worked for Monsanto for 12 years. The issue of COI is a separate one from the 1.5 million tweets and blogs within hours, which seems to have no appropriate source. I would recommend this (Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie) to explain the scientific objections instead, along with the explanation from the journal about the retraction. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at the bigger issue of the source paper and not just the 1.5 mill claim. I may be mistaken but I had thought the Christou article was used to source the scientific objections, and my point was that for substantive issues of scientific criticism, I would rather replace the Christou article with better sources that do not have the apparent COI. The source you reference above (vib) is a good one and describes the science objections in a way that is very easily understood. Minor4th 02:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was being used as an additional source anyway. The only thing that relied on it was the 1.5 million, and those researchers aren't in a position to know that (and didn't cite a source). SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Minor4th 02:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The removal and claims of COI are inappropriate (again). Of the two patents mentioned, Christou was only listed as an inventor on the first in Seralini's citation 19, but that patent would have expired prior to the whole Seralini affair (utility patents last 20 years). Citation 20 doesn't list Christou as an inventor at all. There's no COI from an expired patent. Being a former employee of a company also doesn't create a COI, especially when that was over 20 years ago and when they have been a university professor since 2001. If the senior author Arjo (who typically has final say about the content in the paper even with a separate corresponding author) had a current patent, that would be a bit shakier of ground, but not in this case. We shouldn't be removing high quality accounts of the controversy by improper COI accusations as has happened twice now recently.

On the blogging and tweeting specifically, I already mentioned above that this is content you'd wouldn't expect a citation for within a source. WP:BLUE is practiced by journals as well. It's not our place to quibble over how the authors know this, only that it is published in a reliable source, especially as a secondary source. Otherwise, we're getting into original research territory by engaging in this level of critique. If they were informally summing up shares, tweets, etc. you wouldn't expect them to put together a formal table, and there wouldn't be a citation because it would be part of their secondary summarization of the events. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th: I would not take Séralini's word on anything relating to this study or its retraction and republication. His claims of COI and the like amount to throwing shit at the wall to see if any sticks, and he has shown a complete lack of intellectual honesty throughout (see also the bullshit study purporting to show that all lab rats are getting cancer because of GMOs in their feed).

The retracted study shows clear evidence of motivated reasoning and bending over backwards to be fair to its author is antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia. There may be legitimate science showing roundup and/or GMOs to be hazardous, but this ain't it, and we absolutely must not pretend that it is. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Guy - I'm not bending over backwards to be fair to Seralini; I'm just trying to find the best sources and improve the quality of our content. As mentioned above, the Arjo/Christou source wasn't needed anyway since we have a better source for the scientific objections to the study. So I think it's appropriate to remove it, as Sarah has done. Minor4th 13:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder of the guidance in WP:MEDRS

... editors should determine quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

If a study has been peer-reviewed by a respectable mainstream publication, we trust to its peer review process rather than arrogantly taking it upon ourselves to out-perform the expert panels. The only time where one can use such external criteria to question sources is when there is good RS to back it up - and in this topic area the person who is most questionable is Séralini. I find it amazing that there seems to be a mood in the air to pay careful obeisance to the letter of his discredited paper while attempting to shoot down other papers from respected sources which have not be found to suffer such problems. We reflect accepted knowledge here, and the simple truth is that for better or for worse industry resources contribute in large part to that body of knowledge, hopefully checked and harnessed by the rigours of publication. If editors don't like that then tough: we're not here to change the world works but to reflect what the bests sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you'd be wary of an academic source written by someone recently paid by Seralini or who had worked for him for 12 years.

How could those authors know that "[w]ithin hours, the news had been blogged and tweeted more than 1.5 million times"? We need to ask where those figures come from, and why sources are being added without anyone wondering how the authors know what they claim to know. (That's not to mention that the sentence was copied word for word from the source.) SarahSV ^(talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about the particular claim, but in the case of Seralini we have RS casting doubt on the validity of his material; my point is that sources can't be dismissed for purely personal reasons (as the guideline tells us). Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That claim is the only thing that relied on this source; it was otherwise used only as a "me too" source. But an author having a COI with one of the parties isn't just a personal reason to reject source material. It means it's best not to use it unnecessarily and without in-text attribution. See Wikipedia: Independent sources, which is what we should use here, unless for some reason an involved source is the most appropriate. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes multiple sources are used for content, especially when the overall community has rejected Seralini's claims in this case. There's nothing wrong with using this source, and attribution would be improper in this case since there isn't a COI. Considering that other sources have chided Seralini for these very same COI aspersions, we shouldn't be mirroring that or considering the source unreliable because of that. I'll work on re-integrating the source into the article at some point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do no re-add the source without discussion and gaining consensus here on the talk page. Yes, there is something wrong with the source for the content that it was used to support. It's not reliable because of the apparent COI and pro-industry bias. We have better sources for the content we need in this article. There is no need to tack on another unreliable source for the same content, just for the sake of including a reference you like. Minor4th 18:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No one has demonstrated a legitimate COI issue here yet (or reliability since other sources take it seriously), so there's no reason to exclude the source from the pool of sources we currently use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, you argued that Chassy didn't have a COI either, and have previously argued elsewhere in favour of using COI sources. You may be relying on a different definition of COI.

The article is problematic. It lacks precision, it's repetitive, it's a quote farm in places, and so on. These things happen when lots of people contribute to a contentious issue and everyone's nervous. The best way to proceed is to insist on a high degree of precision and to use the most appropriate source for each point. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have said you've been incorrectly claiming COI. At this point, you can't repeatedly claim COI about an author without appropriate evidence and expect it to stick. That's why the sources can technically be used at this point per WP:CONSENSUS. You need to demonstrate legitimate COI issues for such weight, not things that amount to loose aspersions about an author that wouldn't be considered a conflict of interest in the real world. As mentioned before, this is not the place to right great wrongs. I'm aware some people out there would love to consider former employment by a company over a decade ago a conflict of interest, but arguments like that won't go far here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Chassy's involvement wasn't a decade ago, and you argued that he had no COI either. Anyway, the point is that this source doesn't have consensus, and it wasn't being used to support anything that mattered anyway. Let's reserve the arguments for issues that matter to the article. If there is something you want to add to the article, and if this source is the most appropriate for it, that can be discussed at the time. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Break

There wasn't any COI demonstrated in the discussion about Chassy (who also isn't the subject of this specific source in referencing years since employment). As of right now, there aren't arguments supporting lack of consensus for this sources. I bring these things up because this inappropriate method of slinging COI claims regardless of validity needs to stop to prevent further disruption in this topic. For instance, there hasn't been a strong argument against including the 1.5 million tweets content in this conversation. The COI aspect is readily dismissed, and the reliability of the claim has also been adequately addressed. That's why I'll work on re-integrating it (probably after the holidays) unless some reasons do come up for not including it that would constitute no consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is another source that states the 1.5 million number: [29]. But I'm not sure whether it might just be mirroring either Wikipedia or the Arjo paper. I'm about as far as one can get from being an expert on Twitter, but doesn't Twitter post numbers about the numbers of times something is re-tweeted? I have the impression that I've read stuff about that. If that's so, then it wouldn't be outlandish at all for Arjo et al. to have looked that number up and reported it accurately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That source is dated after the Arjo paper. Twitter must keep these stats, so if we want to restore it we can use Twitter as a source, but the sentence included blogs, and I have no idea how Arjo et al. would have found that information. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's dated after, and could be mirroring it, but I do not know if it is mirroring it. Anyway, I agree that a better idea would be to source it to Twitter, and I think it's unimportant for us to mention blogs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Twitter isn't the only source of the count as it mentions blogs, posts, tweets, etc. This just simply isn't something that wouldn't be expected to be sourced to Twitter, etc. either by us or in the sources we cite. Many news sources include a counter of Facebook shares, tweets, etc., so that would be how one would begin to pull those numbers together. Even if we were in a position to critique how the numbers were obtained (we're not), it isn't something to be concerned about. We expect reliable source to synthesize such basic information for us. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, having an RS is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Sources have to be appropriate for the claim. When I'm writing about FGM, I don't use anthropologists to explain about urinary-tract infections, but I do use them to describe the views of African feminists. Using biologists to tell us about Twitter and blogs isn't appropriate, especially when the figure seems to have come from nowhere. By comparison, Twitter says that the phrase or hashtag "Black Lives Matter" was tweeted nine million times in 2015. [30] The claim here is that Seralini's study was tweeted and blogged 1.5 million times within hours. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, a good distinction to keep in mind is whether or not the information being sourced requires expertise. In the case of urinary-tract infections, it makes very good sense to rely specifically on sources by medical experts. In the case of going to the Twitter website and looking up a number, it's not like that's something only IT professionals are qualified to do. Even a biologist can do it, and get the number right! So it's a stretch to say that the authors of the Arjo paper were poorly qualified as a source because they are not experts on Twitter. The concern about that source is that they might, perhaps, have a bias (whether or not they literally have a COI), and also, since perhaps even Wikipedia editors can look things up on Twitter, we have an alternative in being able to cite that instead. But it bothers me when I keep seeing questionable reasons being brought up to dismiss sources, and that's one of the issues that concern me in my comments below, about taking the time to discuss issues where editors disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The sentence was "within hours, the news had been blogged and tweeted more than 1.5 million times," sourced to Arjó et al. but not sourced by them. That material does require some expertise, which is why we know that it sounds unlikely. So we look to see whether Twitter gives a figure for tweets about the study (I haven't found one so far), and we wonder how Arjó et al. could have known how often it was blogged about within hours (or even at all). (And "within hours" of what, given that there seem to have been several press conferences/conference calls over at least two days?)

Using this sentence only as an example, I'm arguing in favour of clarity and precision. We're dealing with a mess of claims and counter-claims, and the way to get through it is to insist on a high degree of precision. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we already agreed to leave out the blogs. What kind of expertise does it take to look at Twitter and say that there were more than 1.5 million tweets within hours? I'm not arguing in favor of using the source, but I don't see what kind of clarity and precision is reflected in saying that there is some kind of expertise needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean that the sources need appropriate expertise, as in the FGM example. Twitter is the expert on tweets. Or maybe there are other sources that compile Twitter stats. Biologists don't, so either that figure came from an expert source (let's find it and use it), or it came from nowhere.

It's important not to overlook that Arjo et al. included blog posts. I don't think those biologists (or anyone) could know how often people blogged about this, especially "within hours" of an event they do not specify.

This issue isn't important. I'm using it as an example of why it matters to use appropriate sources for each point, not just any RS, and to be very precise. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that they really meant that it was tweeted more than 1.5 million times and it was also repeated in various blogs, but of course they did not word it that clearly. And Twitter really isn't an "expert", so much as a more reliable source. I'm all in favor of being careful and precise, but I'm reacting to such strong efforts to doubt sources that are academic publications. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm responding to the idea that any academic RS is ipso facto appropriate for any point, which seemed to be what Kingofaces was arguing – for example in this post, second paragraph – which is why I used the FGM example above. This is a very basic point. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made (emphasis added)." That's all I want to say. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhere earlier you said that it's a good thing to have careful discussions about sourcing, and right about now you may be coming up against "be careful what you wish for". I'm pretty close to agreeing with you, and I do recognize that this discussion is going on longer than the corresponding page content merits. I think we agree that context matters and that most sources are not ipso facto appropriate for everything. I think we can agree that the Arjo paper isn't quite enough to source the Twitter data, but I hope that we can do it without portraying Arjo et al. as being suspect about everything. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's important in general. I do get concerned about sources when I see authors not wonder "this doesn't sound right." The article was e-published in February 2013, which is the earliest reference to that figure I can find. It was added to Wikipedia in March 2015, along with "At the press conference ... Seralini displayed photographs of rats with large tumors," which isn't in the source. Again, the solution is to make sure sources are "reliable for the statement being made." That will solve a lot of issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to slow down

Yesterday, near the end of #Break 1, I suggested that editors should not approach these discussions as though we were on two opposing "sides", and part of what goes with that is not insisting on purging the page of certain sources, on the basis of a few editors deciding that there is a "COI". I feel, coming back here today, like what I said fell on deaf ears.

I tend to think that an author who was a longtime employee of Monsanto probably does have a COI, and I'm friendly to replacing such sources with better ones. But what I'm seeing above is some editors expressing concern that certain authors should not be labeled as having COIs, and other editors plowing ahead to delete the sources anyway.

There is no emergency here, and it's not that urgent. If editors disagree, please take some time to work those disagreements out before making edits that do not have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: [31]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Description of study in lead

The lead says: "The article, which first appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), reported an increase in tumors among rats fed genetically modified corn and RoundUp."

It would be more accurate to say that it reported liver and kidney problems, increased mortality, and more tumors than the control group. I would normally just add this, sourced to the retracted or republished paper, but I don't know what the consensus is on using Seralini as a primary source for a straightforward description of the study. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We have had this discussion in the past. In line with your comment, I was proposing a better description of the study's findings- which were primarily related to kidney and liver disease from chronic toxicity. Last time we discussed this, more editors were in favor of just discussing the "GMO/cancer" link because that was what the controversy was all about. As you'll see on this talk page, it took quite a bit of effort just to form a consensus to accurately report the increase in "tumors" as opposed to "cancer." You will see comments above from editors that no one cares what the actual findings of the study were. (I disagree).

I considered that a compromise and dropped the issue of including Seralini's toxicity findings and conclusions, but I would support a more accurate description of the study, including the liver and kidney diseases. I think it would be acceptable to use Seralini's paper to source the findings as well, and we should obviously attribute the conclusions to Seralini and not state them in WP voice. Minor4th 02:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with everything Minor4th said immediately above (on 02:23, 28 December 2015). --David Tornheim (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• FYI - this is how the first paragraph previously read, and I believe this is a more accurate and complete description: [32] but local consensus was against me. Minor4th 02:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The first section should describe the study: that it was a toxicity study, where and when it took place, who funded it, how many rats used, how many groups, diets, controls, what it purported to find. That was one of the things I found frustrating when I came here as a reader: that it doesn't describe the thing that's being criticized. We can sum up succinctly in that section what the key problems were identified as, in case someone objects that a description of the study ought not to stand alone. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the "affair" (which stems from Seralini's cancer claims) and not the paper. The technical focus of the study isn't that relevant. Alexbrn (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone chose to add "affair" to the title doesn't mean we ought not to describe the study. The Profumo affair and Dreyfus affair tell us in detail what happened to cause the scandals. You can't understand the criticism without knowing something about the study. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both comments from SarahSV and further think it is important that Seralini's response to criticism (and others who defended his work) be included per comments here by Masem that this is a "he said; she said" controversy and should be covered appropriately per WP:NPOV. That some editors reject anything that the study or the study's author said as WP:Fringe is truly amazing. Are these editors truly arguing that only one side of a controversy should be available to readers? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't provide a forum for continuous tit-for-tat arguments, especially when doing so will create undue weight for a fringe subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally, the paper itself shouldn't be used a primary source here since there's other commentary on it. The main controversial aspect was the tumors in this case, so that is in the lede. The more complete version of the tumor claims plus the other toxicological factors treated as more minor details in the controversy can be fleshed out in the body. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We can describe the study, but the details of its content that are not relevant to the "affair" should not be in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• One small problem: the study didn not find these things. It claimed them, but its claims were not supported in the data, hence the retraction. It's also important to remember that the study was conducted by an anti-GMO activist, funded by his own anti-GMO think-tank, and clearly set out to prove harm rather than neutrally test a premise. To portray it as an honest and open-minded scientific endeavour, when we have so many sources showing that it wasn't, would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it's best to avoid the words find and found when referring to the study. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Background section (and lawsuits)

This was repetitive and there were sourcing queries, so I've tightened it. Note that I only copy-edited. Most of it is unchecked, and I don't know whether anything important is missing. Before and after. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this information is also repeated at Gilles-Éric Séralini. Moving and trimming was discussed above. I think it should just be a summary of his previous work on GM and responses to it by the regulatory agencies. I trimmed out a lot of the detail here, but was too bold in removing some info. The 2011 paper is up at RFC and I should not have touched that (forgot about that when editing sorry). Not sure why the lawsuit is relevant in the background section for the 2012 paper as I don't think greenpeace funded it (it is mentioned at Seralini's page and certainly applies there). It could be mentioned alongside the 2007 paper, but it kind of sticks out where it is now. AIRcorn (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aircorn, this is about:

In 2010 Séralini sued Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, for libel, after Fellous criticized Séralini's research, in part because it was funded by Greenpeace. The judge ruled that the charge about the funding was defamatory. Fellous was fined €1000; Séralini was awarded a symbolic €1 in damages.

This was at the end of the article with the 2015 libel decision, so I moved it into chronological place and shortened it. I left it in because it seems relevant that he has sued over some of this criticism. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Something that should also be in the article is that Fellous was found guilty of fraud and forgery for forging another scientist's name without permission in an effort to smear Seralini. This happened in 2015 I believe. It is all related to discrediting Seralini because of his 2012 study. I can look for sources. Minor4th 03:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

But he sued him in 2010, two years before the study was released. I think it fits in better at his bio article or if you can find more legal issues its own section. It seems out of place in among the previous studies. Did you have issues with the trimming up of the second and third paragraph. AIRcorn (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Minor4th that the lawsuit against Marianne magazine and journalist Jean-Claude Jaillet that is currently in the article -and- the lawsuit won against Marc Fellous both should be in this article. Both of those lawsuits should also be in the article Gilles-Éric Séralini. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Currently, the page has two sections in which lawsuits are discussed: the background section, and a subsequent section about Seralini's lawsuit following the disputed journal article. That makes sense to me. The lawsuits that took place before the publication and press conference belong in the background section, whereas the lawsuit that occurred following the publication and retraction, based on the allegation of scientific "fraud", should be covered in its own section as part of this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • PS: On the other hand, if we can find ways to make the background section more succinct, that would be good too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• This is actually a little confusing - re: Fellows, there were 2 court outcomes: 1 finding he had defamed/libeled Seralini (in 2010 I believe) and an indictment for fraud and forgery related to a letter he wrote about Seralini (in 2015). The libel suit against Marianne was definitely related to the 2012 study. The reporting about this is difficult to follow. Let me look into this further, and if anyone can shed light on this better, that would be great. Minor4th 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the study

The article doesn't mention quite a bit of the detailed criticism from scientists. The "scientific evaluation" section is incomplete and contains lots of quotes that don't mean much. There is a lot of good material on the retraction page in the letters to the editor. These are RS, particularly the ones from associations rather than individuals.

The article would benefit from a section near the top with two sub-sections: a detailed description of the study followed by detailed criticism, point by point. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to add more if you can find RS for it, I found a ton of blogs and and the like but not much usable that's not already there. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the letters to the editor would be a good source for specific criticisms. Also, the VIB source did a really good job of breaking down the criticism and explaining it in a way that was not too technical. I am on board with Sarah's suggestion to have a section with a point by point discussion of each criticism. Minor4th 01:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I provided a source below that talks about some of the main criticisms and how Seralini responded to them. Additionally, Seralini enumerated all of the criticisms and refuted them here (that response is already a ref in the our article). --David Tornheim (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I also like the idea of having more detail about the scientific design issues. (And we need to be careful about how we assign weight with respect to Seralini's "refutations".) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That is the key issue: that several factors undermined the design of the study, so that nothing useful could come out of it. There is some interesting material about how it returned a few results that should have been a red flag to the researchers. It is hard to summarize without being too wordy and without simply quoting, but I think it would be worth doing. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

where are we on this? Are we ready to start pulling this section together? Minor4th 23:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor4th, speaking only for myself I'm not ready to write anything, but if others are, that's fine by me. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to work on this when I have time. It is clearly important for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Kimsky RS

I suggest use of this journal article (Pages 19-24) regarding criticism of Seralini:

Link: :http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Illusory%20Consensus%20GMOs.PDF

Author: Sheldon Krimsky

Journal: Science, Technology, & Human Values

Date: August 7, 2015

Title: An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment

DOI: 10.1177/0162243915598381

Summary of key information and quotes in the article:

• Seralini published in 2009 in International Journal of Biological Sciences here that the industry studies of new GMO products:
  • were too short (90 days); Seralini proposed 1 and 2 years.
  • involved too few rats / too small a sample size
  • involved too few species (he proposed using three)
  • showed “signs of toxicity in the ninety-days, not proofs of toxicity”
• “Long-term tests were not popular with industry because of the time and expense. Ironically, when Séralini undertook such tests, his published results drew considerable criticism
• “They were very clear in their paper that they were not using a carcinogenesis protocol, which requires fifty rats per group.”
• “The paper was published on line September 19, 2012, and within a very short time letters of criticism began flooding the journal... Séralini had to deal with about fifty points of criticism.”
• The editor-in-chief of the journal, A. Wallace Hayes, wrote a few months later a defense of the review process of FCT, ‘‘Manuscripts submitted to Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT), such as the Seralini et al. September 2012 publication, are subjected to a rigorous peer review process.’’
• “Seralini and his colleagues (2013) wrote an eight-page response to the critical letters attacking their 2012 publication” here
• “Séralini was criticized for not following OECD guidelines in doing such experiments, but as he pointed out, there are no such guidelines for in vivo studies of GMO toxicity.”
• “ He was criticized for using too few animals. His response was that ten animals in each sex group was recommended by OECD in 1981.”
• “Seralini et al. responded to about forty-five individual criticisms, taking them point-by-point.”
• It was pointed out that the reasons for retraction do not square up with the COPE guidelines for retraction. [33]
• Seralini et. al. “argued that post hoc standards for papers that have found adverse findings of GMOs are far higher than the standards for papers that have found no differences between GMOs and parental plants. Monsanto-funded studies using similar strains and numbers of mice were not retracted because of deficient methods”

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a page about the source author, and it's worth looking at. He is an interesting guy, albeit a skeptic about mainstream scientific methods. As such, we need to be cautious about relying too strongly on him to represent the perspective of mainstream science. And the fact that Seralini responded to forty-five points is not the same thing as Seralini refuting each of those points. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Tryptofish, Krimsky has a definite POV here and cannot be used as a source to excuse Séralini's questionable practices. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Krimsky can be used as a source for the alleged COI aspects of this, because that's his area of expertise. Bias alone isn't an issue; all the sources have a bias. It is better not to use him as a source for the details of the study itself (its shortcomings or lack thereof), because that lies outside his area of expertise, and there are lots of specialist sources we can use instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand: what are the alleged COI aspects of Seralini or of his critics? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Krimsky specializes in COI, and that's why he has written about these cases:

"It has been well established in social science research that in some fields there is a funding effect in science from corporate sponsorship of research. That means that corporate-funded science tends to produce results that are consistent with corporate financial interests. The effect has been found in tobacco research, drug studies, and to a lesser extent in chemical health and safety studies."

This article is a review of the literature, and re: Seralini includes:

The second paper [Krimsky reviewed] was a published commentary that focused on conflicts of interest of those criticizing Seralini's papers ... The authors note that a new assistant editor of biotechnology joined the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology after Seralini’s article was published and that this assistant editor previously worked for Monsanto for seven years. The authors interpret the decision to retract their paper a little over a year after it was appropriately refereed grew out of the role of the new assistant editor who had a conflict of interest as a former employee of Monsanto.

I haven't looked at the paper he cites, so I don't know whether I'd regard it as an appropriate source. I'm only reproducing what Krimsky wrote, and noting that (on the face of it) he is an RS and an appropriate source for this point. But he is not an appropriate source for detailed criticism of, or support for, the study itself. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if he specialises in COI, or specialises in witch-hunts based on an idée fixe. I remain to be persuaded on this. Guy (Help!) 01:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I need to be persuaded further too. And in fact, I kind of expect that major changes to the page, affecting the overall POV balance, will, particularly in the context of discretionary sanctions, be discussed for more than an hour or so before being implemented. When I had concerns about the "news embargo", above, I waited days before actually changing anything, to allow editors who disagree with me to express their disagreements (and in fact, it wasn't me who eventually made the change). I've reverted the recent changes that were mostly to the lead. They can be put back if there really is consensus, but we don't have that consensus yet.

As for Krimsky, I think he's an interesting scholar, but he is hardly the final word that would allow for a wholesale dismissal of any source written by scientists who have worked with GMO plants. I asked what the COI was, and from what I can make of the reply, it is that some of the sources that criticized Seralini were written by scientists who had worked at Monsanto, as were some editors who dealt with the paper and its retraction. What I am seeing here is something where we should be pointing these issues out to our readers, but we should not be scrubbing the page of what the scientific community thinks about Seralini. The number of mainstream scientists who regard Seralini as an unscrupulous fraud is far greater than the number who have ever had a financial interest in Monsanto. And Krimsky is a critic of the scientific community, so he isn't a reliable source for what the scientific community thinks. He can be a source for criticism, but he isn't a vehicle to WP:RGW.

There is nothing urgent about any of this, so let's discuss it. JzG said that he needs convincing, so let's have that effort to convince before changing the page wholesale. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

More problems in the lead

This sentence in the first paragraph is not accurate:

Other publicly funded long-term studies uncovered no health issues with the same products.[34][35]

The sources used to cite that content do not say that either. Before I revert this, I am opening it for discussion to see if we can find a better, more accurate, way to say what needs to be said. Minor4th 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The second source relies on the first, so I removed it. It's not clear from the grammar what it means: studies had uncovered no health issues before the Seralini study or until the date of the source? Also not clear what the function of "publicly funded" is. The sentence was added here in May 2013. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the first source reliable and on point? What we should say is what it says. Lfstevens (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The first source doesn't say that either. I'm going to remove that sentence for now. I do not believe the statement is true and I'm pretty sure there won't be any reliable sources that can back up that claim. As far as I know, Seralini's study was the first to study fully formulated Roundup (as opposed to straight glyphosate). I do not think there are any other "publicly funded" long term studies that examined both GNO corn and Roundup. Minor4th 05:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but what does the first source say? Lfstevens (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this looks a lot like a steady chipping away of the reality-based perspective to undermine the undoubted fact that Séralini's conclusions are unsound. Ricroch found that there wasn't any evidence that studies are even needed - there is, effectively, nothing to study. I admit I have no idea why Kuntz was in there. Philosophers are not generally helpful in articles on fringe science (though the argumentum ad Kuhniam is common among advocates of nonsense). Guy (Help!) 10:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Philosopher? Kuntz is a biologist. shellac (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for "opening it for discussion" before deleting it, it would have been helpful to leave that discussion open long enough to really hear from all interested editors, as I also just said above. I think that there may indeed be a problem with stating categorically that there are "no health issues" whatsoever, across all studies. But the basic conclusion from the preponderance of sources is that the "health issues" claimed by Seralini are nonexistent, and that there are very few and minor health issues at all with Roundup-treated GM corn in the food supply. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Tryp but you are wrong on this one. There are no other long term studies of Roundup and Monsanto corn. I can give you multiple sources that indicate health risk from Roundup exposure. That is commonly known and even accepted in the scientific community - why are we trying to keep that information off Wiki? And why would we accept inaccurate scientific statements like the one I removed? If you want to say that Seralini's study is "inconclusive" (as the stated reason for retraction) and back it up with sources, I have no problem with that - That's why I said let's think about what we want to say from these sources, if anything. That is completely different than saying "other publicly funded long-term studies uncovered no health issues with the same products." There should be no objection to that sentence being removed or replaced. Minor4th 20:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, go look at the actual sources like I did - and you will see that those sources do not support that sentence. Guy, please dial it down - this is not a tug-of-war. @Tryptofish: - what's the deal? If you actually looked at those sources, I don't think you would have reverted. Minor4th 20:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The "deal" is what I said above, in an edit conflict. My question, in turn, is what's the rush? Did you ask me to examine those sources and give me an opportunity to reply before you deleted the content? If we had had time to examine and discuss these issues, then I would not have needed to revert. Now, let's work it out, deliberately and in no hurry, and then see whether or not the changes that you and others made should be restored. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm now going to log out until after the holiday, by which time there should probably be more eyes here. If anyone feels eager to work on it in the meantime, I would recommend creating a better version of the sentence in question, and proposing it here, in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reacted to being reverted again. I am fine with letting the discussion progress before making the changes. Minor4th 20:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. Fortunately, I saw your comment before logging off. It's perfectly understandable to feel that way about reverts, and reverting is one of the most problematic things about the social structure of Wikipedia editing. All I'm insisting on is that we get consensus before making major POV changes, and here, that means working up a better sentence instead of removing the sentence entirely. (And I didn't revert just you, anyway.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Also @Tryptofish: if you would unban me from your talk page, I would gladly give you a shout out on issues like this that need some consensus building - I think you have done very good work here since the case closed, and I appreciate it. Minor4th 20:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

No. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Minor4th 21:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence has been in the lead for 2 1/2 years, and it appears not to be sourced or correct as written. I don't know what it means as written. This is similar to the claims in the lead that Seralini displayed photographs of rats at the press conference, or that news of his paper was tweeted or blogged 1.5 million times within hours. Those claims were in the lead for 10 months. The default should be to remove anything contentious that's unsourced or poorly sourced until we find appropriate sources, or at least make it invisible, which might be a good compromise here. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There really should be nothing controversial about that type of edit, as it is very clear from a quick look at the sources that they don't support the content. Minor4th 00:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"The sentence has been in the lead for 2 1/2 years". If the sentence has been stable for that long, then surely there was not an urgent problem. There were alternative options besides deleting it (Template:Verify source for example), if one is concerned about alerting readers, without having to wait for the crafting of a revised sentence. Between the first post in this talk section, [36], and the edit to the page, [37], barely over 3 hours had passed, and that on the day of New Years Eve, when many editors were unlikely to be here. This was not a trivial fix, like changing a comma. It was a significant shift in POV balance, on a page that is subject to discretionary sanctions. Here, I allowed a couple of days for editors to object, and that really was just for a trivial change. And here, I allowed a couple of days for discussion about something where there were substantive issues, about which editors might disagree. Now I'm not saying that anyone else has to do that just because I did. You can do as you think best. But do not be surprised if there is pushback when there hasn't been prior consensus in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

Here is the sentence again:

Other publicly funded long-term studies uncovered no health issues with the same products.[38][39]

It would help if those wishing to keep it could copy below what the source says to support it (the first source above, Kuntz, cites the second) – or post other sources – then we can judge whether to keep it, perhaps rewritten. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess you missed it, where I said above that it wasn't a question of restoring the sentence in the same form, but rather revising it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert

I see Tryptofish has reverted 13 of my latest edits. [40] The edits included fixing ref names and poor writing, and I was about to continue the work, so I'm not sure what to do now. I deliberately made the edits separately so that, if people didn't like parts of it, they could revert those parts rather than wholesale.

The edits were:

1. provided a better source for the press conference (AFP, which was there), and a quote from them about the confidentiality agreement in a footnote. [41]
2. added a hyphen to long-term [42]
3. rats which "get cancer" to rats which "develop tumors" [43]
4. swapped two paragraph positions in lead, so that the science criticism is in one, the press-conference criticism in another [44]
5. removed that only the text of the article was republished [45]
6. removed a "me too" source; using the editor-in-chief for what the editor-in-chief said is appropriate and sufficient [46]
7. removed another "me too" source; we already use the source the former relies on [47]
8. removed "publicly funded" from a sentence because it's not in the source; and added a source and a quote in a footnote to support the sentence [48]
9. fixed the punctuation of the source I had just added (the template was messing up et al). [49]
10. fixed a ref name; added an author and date to another ref; fixed some writing [50]
11. fixed a ref name [51]
12. minor copy edit [52]
13. very minor copy edit [53]

SarahSV ^(talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's my view that your reasoning, as shown above, is sound. I have never edited here previously and am uninvolved, and strongly feel we should discuss this before any further reverts, while leaving this version operative. Accordingly, I have reverted Tryptofish. Jusdafax 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jusdafax. It would make things easier if reverting were more targeted, followed by an explanation on talk. Reverting unexplained edits is understandable in a well-developed article, but when we're dealing with a page that several people want to improve, it's good to maintain some forward movement.

I've been making small, incremental edits for the most part. If I make any more, I'll try to make sure each diff is clear. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wise call. Standing by, and suggest others do the same. Happy New Year! Jusdafax 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, Jusdafax, and to everyone else on the page. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring SV's work (and a bit of mine). I agree with this course of action. We are making small edits and discussing any substantive changes. I would like to see us continue to move forward with the progress we have been making. HNY! Minor4th 02:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• What is it with the sideline commentators insisting they are uninvolved? Anyway I see some clear double standards here when it comes to what version of the article should remain present while consensus is reached (see Talk:Genetically modified food#restored deleted material). AIRcorn (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Minor4th and Justdafax that a go slow approach "is prudent at this juncture." I will thank SarahSV for making the edits one at a time so single edits can be reverted. I wish more editors would do that, as I had a devil of a time trying to figure out things when paragraphs get moved around, as to what was added and what was deleted in the article Aircorn just mentioned above. I also agree that the page is improving. Happy News Years all! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish everyone a Happy New Year too. And as I have repeatedly said in this talk (link), I too am in favor of a go-slow approach. But the best way to accomplish a go-slow approach is to really go slow. In contrast, making 13 edits over just a few hours ([54]), some of which (as I will explain below) significantly altered some significant issues, isn't that slow, and it should be noted that it is often not possible to revert individual edits if there have been subsequent intervening edits. That does not mean that editors must go slow, but it is best practice on a page under discretionary sanctions to seek consensus in advance, and if one does not, one should not be surprised if one is reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I'd like to explain in more detail the issues that concerned me when I made the revert that is discussed above. Obviously, I'm not bothered by fixing a hyphen and so forth. But intervening edits make it technically impossible to revert some edits without reverting others. And there are other issues that I care about:

• [55]: The edit summary was "swapped paragraph positions, and ce", and the description above on this talk page was "swapped two paragraph positions in lead, so that the science criticism is in one, the press-conference criticism in another". If one looks at the actual edit in the diff, however, more went on than simply swapping the positions of two paragraphs, and the text changes were more substantive than a simple "ce". And in the version preceding the edits, [56], there was already a separation of paragraphs about the science and about the press conference. The edit actually changed how both the science and the press conference were described, and it takes a significant amount of examination to tease out what was changed and what was not.
• [57], [58]: not that big a deal, but removing sources creates some appearance that there is less sourcing.
• [59]: The edit summary was "ce" and the description here in talk was "minor copy edit". I'm sure this was not intentional, but that minor ce included the use of the word "complaints" that was later repeated in other forms, corrected by this edit of mine: [60]. The effect of portraying the mainstream sources as "complainers" is to make them sound petty, and to make the editors retracting the paper sound like they were responding to pressure instead of acting upon sound principles.

I'm not saying that any of this was done with bad intentions, and I'm sure that it was not. But I'm explaining why I felt, and continue to feel, that it would have been better to run some of this by the talk page before going ahead with the edits. There is no rush here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

^Above you indicate it would be inappropriate to suggest that "the editors retracting the paper sound like they were responding to pressure". Clearly they were. See my response below. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond more below, but I want to note here that there is a difference between pressure and widespread consensus, in that "pressure" tends to imply that coercion was used to make the editors retract the paper even if the editors did not really want to. There was no element of coercion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Complained

Just as a matter of interest, why is complained a "bizarre and unfortunate choice of verb?" [61] If the complaint (!) is that it implies they weren't right, it doesn't at all. I would say that it's a standard way to express what happened here. It's not a big deal, but I'm curious about how such ordinary language could be seen as bizarre. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a complaint (which may be baseless), it was a conclusion (which isn't). Guy (Help!) 22:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A conclusion can be just as baseless as a complaint. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought that I explained why it was the wrong choice of word in the talk section directly above (third bullet point). We can certainly agree to disagree on the obviously subjective aspect of calling it "bizarre", but the most important takeaway was that it was a very suboptimal word choice, especially when used so repeatedly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Complaint (or better "criticism" or "concerns") is an appropriate description of the letters that were solicited and arrived at the journal and the pressure placed on the journal for the retraction. In the Letter of Retraction, the Editor-in-Chief, A.W. Hayes wrote:

Very shortly after the publication of this article, the journal received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal’s standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published along with a response from the authors. Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process...

source: [62]

Ultimately, the result of the investigation (which followed the letters calling for a retraction) was that the paper was retracted for reasons that Seralini's group argues do not follow the COPE guidelines for retraction: The results were found to be "inconclusive" (not "invalid"). The Editor-in-Chief wrote "The retraction is only on the inconclusiveness of this one paper." If readers are led to believe that there is no connection between the letters that came in and the retraction, that would be a mistake on our part. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Complaining gives the impression of triviality. If something is examined and found to be wanting by people familiar with the topic they are not just complaining. AIRcorn (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah and David on this point. Jusdafax 08:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A complaint is no small matter. In U.S. law for example, a Complaint generally means the document that starts a lawsuit. Complaints also are lodged in non-legal settings (e.g. a University) and rules and employee handbooks of the institution may require that certain formal complaints be taken quite seriously. So, no, the word is not at all trivial. Please note, that I am not an attorney. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Aircorn that complaining can sometimes be understood as a shade of nuance away from whining. But please let me expand on that further.

For what it's worth, here is a link to the Wiktionary entry on "complaint": [63]. There are actually five definitions given, including the medical definition. The word has a range of meanings. In some usages, it can connote something that comes close to whining, and in other usages it can mean something much more like a well-reasoned expression of concern. So I am not denying that there are some usages of the word that would be entirely NPOV in the context we are discussing here. But the fact that we could use a word is not the same thing as saying that we must use the word, or that there are no better words to use.

And that brings me to what I think is the most important point about this. I really wonder what some editors are actually complaining about here! Above, David said in part: "Complaint (or better "criticism" or "concerns") is an appropriate description...". And Jusdafax agreed fully. So "criticism" would be an even better word choice. Well, take a look at the edit that I actually made: [64]! I was actually changing the word in three places (and it was more bothersome because of its rapid repetition), but the third change is the one we are discussing here, about the retraction of the paper. And what did I change "complaints" to? I changed it to "criticism"! So aren't we all actually in agreement? Or is there something else to complain about? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)