![]() | This page 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. |
I've refrained from responding to this in the ArbCom case thread, but I can't let it pass entirely without comment. It is, to put it bluntly, as crass an example of unthinking technocratic dogmatism as I would ever expect to come from someone with whom I am more often than not in agreement. Science doesn't 'care' about who owns GMOs - but it didn't care who owned Zyklon B either. Science (or at least, the natural sciences - we'd best not get into discussions about what if anything the social sciences have to say on the matter) isn't about 'caring' about anything. The natural sciences are simply irrelevant when one is discussing issues beyond their remit - which self-evidently includes people making personal choices over their lifestyles, of which diet is a significant constituent part. You can argue that science provides no grounds for excluding GMOs from a diet - but you cannot argue that science is 'in favour' of GMOs. Such choices may be informed by science, but the decision will be made by individuals with concerns that science simply has nothing to say on. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It might be useful to identify a few aspects of the debate that fall into different categories. The attempt to classify and label genetically engineered food as somehow different than other kinds of food is a political minefield that extends through the organic food labeling movement. The problem is that we have people who are involved in agriculture and in food production who have very particular ideological perspectives on what it means to have an "organic" or "pesticide free" or "GMO-free" food which are not informed by empirical facts associated with the foods or food production themselves, but rather with a fetishization of "natural" or "not made in a lab" ingredients and processes. After the fact, it may be possible to identify empirical tricks to generally figure out whether certain preconceived identifiers are there or not, but at the end of the day the labeling movements are fraught precisely because there is no empirical test that can distinguish whether a tomato that's been genetically engineered with a certain trait is somehow different than one that's been bred using traditional horticulture methods for that same certain trait. The raw estimative math is somewhat interesting to do as an exercise, but it turns out that while it's difficult, it would be possible using certain clever methods to mimic genetic engineering using certain ludicrous and unnecessarily intense methods of traditional horticulture. If such is possible, how can a label be truthfully applied to a product that the food is "genetically modified"? This is where the politics enters into the question. Ultimately, the argument by the anti-GMO activists simply is not scientific no matter how much they protest that it is. Unfortunately, we have a name for that, "pseudoscience".
It is possible, mind you, to be opposed to Monsanto and corporate agriculture and not adopt this line of reasoning, but so far that's not what the anti-GMO movement has decided to do. It's too bad because that's part of the reason they're losing the battle. I do blind taste tests of food from time to time and often find that vegetables grown on smaller farms taste better than vegetables grown on larger farms. If some of those local farms adopt certain crazy ideas of, say, biodynamic agriculture, I will roll my eyes and argue with the farmer that they are being needlessly ideological, but if the food tastes good and there isn't anything else available, it's basically getting pissed off because of someone's religion. I wouldn't shy away from halal butchers or from kosher delis just because I think their food laws are arbitrary. So, yes, there is an additional aspect of this question which is broader than science. The issue is that most imams are not advocating that we say that non-halal meat is environmentally damaging and unhealthy according to studies published in the Journal of Islamic Science. Get my drift?
jps ( talk) 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just giving you a head's up. I have a strong suspicion that Secrets of the Last Nazi might have been created as part of a paid editing ring. I don't want you to delete the article history right now, since I'll need it as evidence if/when I bring this up at ANI and SPI. If I can weed through the author's article and find enough good sources, I'll try to write a new version of the article. If/when that happens, I was wondering if you'd be willing to delete the article history for the book to discourage recreation of the article to the puffery laden version. If sourcing was ever provided to give the book notability, it'd have to be TNT'd anyway because of the various issues with the sources, which are many. (A lot of misrepresented sources, bad sourcing, etc) Just giving you a head's up. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
- for this insult calling an editor an idiot within a criticism. Cheers. Doc talk 08:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello JzG,
You recently deleted a page that I was working on and I would like to know the reason why. Also if this deletion was by mistake I ask that the page please be restored so that I can continue to work on it.
Thank you 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
JaytheBeard24 (
talk)JaytheBeard24
The page I was working on I didn't have a login at the time and didn't realize I needed one. The page itself is Oscar Dowdell-Underwood. The page only list accomplishments and history of the person. The page by no means goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. I ask that this page be restored. JaytheBeard24 ( talk) 13:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)JaytheBeard24
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Energy Catalyzer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
While I have no opinion in the articles about the Koch family and their dealings, I do think you should be aware that that account tied into the AN/I thread and other things on the site is tied to Daily Kos, who flat out admit to operating these accounts. I am tempted to file an SPI to see if there are any other accounts hiding out there, as I would not be surprised if that was the case, especially since they seem to have an agenda of making sure that his criticisms are known, and are complaining about anyone who removes their work, instead of trying to fix it to make it work. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 16:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy, as someone like myself with a computer background, could you spare a few moments to say whether this article justifies its space on Wikipedia? It appears to me to be the ultimate ego trip and a waste of time reading. Regards JRPG ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy, thanks for your interest in various medical sources available from The Wikipedia Library. We need some responses from you to process your requests:
We're working on a method to streamline our application process, but for the moment we've still got a lot of forms. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
would you consider making at least a blank user page so that links to your name are not red? When I just replied to your comment, I saw the redlink, and then had to double check that I didn't put a typo into your name. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi JzG, You recently deleted a draft article I was working on: Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist). This is my first article, and I have been learning along the way with the various admin suggestions, so I was surprised when instead of getting feedback (or approval), the page was simply gone. Looking at Wikipedia's documentation, I can't even access my old draft to make any more edits. Had I known this was a possibility, I would have saved my work locally. If I'm reading your reason correctly, you felt that my article was some sort of veiled advertising; I’m sorry you felt that way, as that is far from my intentions.
I would love the chance to continue editing my article, until it meets Wikipedia's standards, as I truly believe the subject of my article is noteworthy, and would contribute to the Wikipedia knowledgebase. Is there any way to either get a copy of my most recent draft, or to be able to continue editing my article?
Thanks for your time, and please feel free to give me feedback! I'm eager to become a better writer and editor. Joseph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephcotten.global ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this comment or the dispute you are having with the IP on talk:Shaun King (activist), but your wording choice seems inflammatory. Please consider redacting. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 01:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear JzG/Guy, i write to ask you to undo your closing of the RfC on the Monsanto legal cases page here. I had requested for an editor who is uninvolved and neutral on the topic to do the closing for a good reason, and i see from your edit history that you are not neutral on the whole cluster of controversies that involves Monsanto and GMOs and glyphosate and the like, from some recent edits of yours. I hope you will do this. I've been advised that asking you to undo your close is the first step in the process. SageRad ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't know whether I pinged you or not (because your username page doesn't exist - does that result in a ping nevertheless?). Anyway it was on user talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Ok, IHTS ( talk) 08:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy.
MyTuppence has
repeatedly removed a ref improve tag from
H. Montgomery Hyde without explanation or resolution of the problem. Most of the article is clearly unsourced. After the last reversion he posted a warning for improper placement of maintenance tags on my talk page. I had also placed two on his for the improper removal of tags, which he has since deleted. After a brief and
frank exchange on my talk page, and at his request, I posted to him on the
talk page of the article. As of this posting, he has not replied. Out of deference to 3RR I am not restoring the maintenance tag. But this seems about as clear cut as one can get. He has offered no defense for his persistent removal of the tag. Your assistance in this would be much appreciated. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 07:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Imposition of an Arbitration Enforced Sanction against me by Bishonen and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Soham321 ( talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have requested here for an uninvolved editor to review your closure of the RfC that you closed here because you are an involved party to the controversy, and you refused to voluntarily undo your closing of the RfC when requested on the 15th of September, here. This is simply notification that there is a discussion that partly involves you on the Administrator's Noticeboard. SageRad ( talk) 18:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 05:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the SPA accusation. While I have edited e-cigs a lot. A look at my editing history will show that I am a very active editor. E-cigs are an interest of mine, but I have also created articles on glass, and closed 175 RFC's. SPA has a very negative light to it. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy, only after editors said he was a SPA he quickly started to edit other topics. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)