Talk:Séralini affair/Archive 5

	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

	Gilles-Eric Séralini, October 2015
Study type	Two-year rat feeding study
Lead researcher	Gilles-Éric Séralini, professor of molecular biology, University of Caen
Funding	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.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

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)

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: [2] 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)

Infobox, first section

^ ^a ^b Declan Butler, "Rat study sparks GM furore", Nature News, September 25, 2012.

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:

--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^[1]
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 ^[2]
Republished	Environmental Sciences Europe, 2014

^ Declan Butler, "Rat study sparks GM furore", Nature News, September 25, 2012.
^ Science Direct

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)

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)

^ Declan Butler, "Rat study sparks GM furore", Nature News, September 25, 2012.
^ ^a ^b [1] A scientific analysis of the rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie
^ Science Direct

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)

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. [3]
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)

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. [4] The Washington Post says there was a telephone conference call with US reporters on 19 Sept. [5] Agence France-Presse appears to have attended a press conference in Paris on 20 Sept; [6] 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.^[1] 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.^[2]

^ "France orders probe after rat study links genetically modified corn to cancer". Agence France-Presse. 20 September 2012.
^ Cite error: The named reference Barale-ThomasMarch2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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: [13] 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: [14]; Here's another article about his conflicts in Spinwatch [15]; another article that discusses Christou and the Seralini paper - no idea if this is reliable source or not [16].

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: [17]. 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. [18] 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: [19]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert

I see Tryptofish has reverted 13 of my latest edits. [20] 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:

provided a better source for the press conference (AFP, which was there), and a quote from them about the confidentiality agreement in a footnote. [21]
added a hyphen to long-term [22]
rats which "get cancer" to rats which "develop tumors" [23]
swapped two paragraph positions in lead, so that the science criticism is in one, the press-conference criticism in another [24]
removed that only the text of the article was republished [25]
removed a "me too" source; using the editor-in-chief for what the editor-in-chief said is appropriate and sufficient [26]
removed another "me too" source; we already use the source the former relies on [27]
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 [28]
fixed the punctuation of the source I had just added (the template was messing up et al). [29]
fixed a ref name; added an author and date to another ref; fixed some writing [30]
fixed a ref name [31]
minor copy edit [32]
very minor copy edit [33]

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. Jus da fax 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! Jus da fax 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 ([34]), 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:

[35]: 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, [36], 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.
[37], [38]: not that big a deal, but removing sources creates some appearance that there is less sourcing.
[39]: 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: [40]. 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?" [41] 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: [42]

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. Jus da fax 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": [43]. 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: [44]! 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)

[ButlerNature25Sept2012-1] Declan Butler, "Rat study sparks GM furore", Nature News, September 25, 2012.

[ButlerNature25Sept2012-2] Declan Butler, "Rat study sparks GM furore", Nature News, September 25, 2012.

[3] Science Direct

[ButlerNature25Sept2012-4] Declan Butler, "Rat study sparks GM furore", Nature News, September 25, 2012.

[VIB-5] [1] A scientific analysis of the rat study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini et al. Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie

[6] Science Direct

[AFP20Sept2012-7] "France orders probe after rat study links genetically modified corn to cancer". Agence France-Presse. 20 September 2012.

[Barale-ThomasMarch2013-8] Cite error: The named reference Barale-ThomasMarch2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

Lead sentence wording

Description of study in lead

Infobox, first section

Kimsky RS

Press conference(s) and images

Images of control group

Additional sentence about images

More problems in the lead

Break

1.5 million times

Break

It would be helpful to slow down

Revert

Rebuttal

Complained