Talk:Kevin Folta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lede needs attribution

I've added a "by whom" tag to the Lede; the reader is not getting the amount of detail we require. This information must be included in the text. Without that, it is misleading. Words from a blogger or an editorial should be differentiated from those of the Supreme Court, for instance, and we have given no indication of the authors, so important context is missing. (I was accidentally logged out during my re-addition of the tag today, so it looks like a random IP jumped in here, but it's just me). petrarchan47คุก 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "No scientific misconduct was shown in the emails."

I question the statement, stated in Wikivoice, "No scientific misconduct was shown in the emails." Is that an absolute, objective fact with no valid different point of view? With this content, Wikipedia is saying in Wikivoice that there was no scientific misconduct by Kevin Folta. SageRad (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is talk about getting some sort of mediation for this article, though I can't recall where I saw that. It does seem that the contentiousness around Monsanto-related articles hasn't subsided. They should probably all have wider input from the community. The same people (or newly awakened accounts) saying the same things will only continue the gridlock. Established, respected NPOV editors with no opinion on the subject of Monsanto and GMOs would really be of benefit to this suite, IMO. petrarchan47คุก 21:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe any of the sources currently dispute there was no scientific misconduct. That's what the relevant section currently summarizes to though, so if that's disputed, best to work it out based on the section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The details you're looking for are found in the COI section and the cited reference. Ledes only summarize what is in the article and we're also weighing concerns about having the information take up too much space in the lede. I was looking for something to generalize essentially the last two paragraphs of the section, so if anyone has other suggestions in that regard, I'm all ears. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to remove the phrase "and no scientific misconduct was shown in the emails." I have read all of the sources that are cited for that portion of the lead, and none of them say that or anything close to it. Just because they don't mention scientific misconduct - one cannot conclude that there was or was not misconduct, and as far as I know, that is not even an issue. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, the sourcing of much of this article is somewhat dubious - many editorials and blogs that would not be tolerated as reliable sources in other articles. It's still better than adding poorly sourced negative info about the BLP though. Minor4th 22:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reading the article body. Ledes are not based on sources, but summarizing the article itself. You'll find the note on no misconduct here. Also keep in mind that WP:PARITY is at play since this deals with a fringe topic. Editorials, etc. are where this controversy has played out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was indeed an oversight on my part. Brustopher has pointed to the correct citation and corrected my error. I added the additional context from the sources as well. Minor4th 22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement needs in-line attribution. It is a reckoning of opinion, which when stated in Wikivoice lends credence that is undue to that reckoning. There are other sources that do opine that the record does show wrongdoing, so it is a contested reckoning. There is not consensus among all sources that this is the case. There are sources that reckon the reality differently. Nature is a respected journal, but there are indeed other sources. We cannot put an opinion on morality like this in Wikivoice when there is valid dissent. It needs attribution. SageRad (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I kind of agree. It is an issue in controversy and should not be stated in WP voice. And since there's a single source that can be attributed, I dont think it's proper to include it in the lede. Maybe more appropriate in the lede to briefly summarize the controversy and leave the conflicting views to the discussion in the body. Minor4th 19:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is needed in the lede, and i agree that "close ties" is subjective, but the source uses the term "close ties". The emails were about more than just the $25,000 grant. They represented confirmations of ideological alignment. Nature says, "The records, which the university gave to US Right to Know last month, do not suggest scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta. But they do reveal his close ties to the agriculture giant Monsanto, of St Louis, Missouri, and other biotechnology-industry interests." SageRad (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys and guyettes. I'm quite busy at the moment so I've only skimmed through the above conversations conversation and may have the wrong end of the stick here. Is the argument that if "no scientific wrongdoing" is in Wikipedia's voice, "close ties" shouldn't be either. My first concern would be that Folta has categorically denied that his ties with Monsanto are close, and given this is a subjective issue we shouldn't state it in Wikipedia's voice. Regarding "scientific misconduct," I'm not much of a science nerd but I'm assuming there are clear set university academic conduct guides for scientists that Folta adhered to, and a clear definition of what scientific misconduct is. If this is the case I'd support presenting this in Wikipedia's voice. If not, perhaps not. Brustopher (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "Is the argument that if "no scientific wrongdoing" is in Wikipedia's voice, "close ties" shouldn't be either." I think you got a negative wrong in this statement. My position is that it's fine to cite the Nature position, as long as it is attributed in the text. If we are going to state the position of Nature then yes, i would argue for both "close ties" and "no scientific wrongdoing". SageRad (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The "close ties" argument is disputed, whereas no wrongdoing isn't disputed by any sources here. If someone wants to bring up any non-fringe sources that say otherwise, then we can discuss that, but right now we have Folta saying there was on wrongdoing as well as another independent source. Please also keep in mind we're dealing with a WP:LEDE and not the body. This talk of attribution and sourcing really shouldn't be needed for a lede. We're supposed to be roughly paraphrasing the relevant sections[1] and let all the things needing attribution play out in the section. We also can't attribute the Kloor article as "Nature" because it wasn't written by the editorial staff of the journal. Adrian has mentioned this previously, but we also need to be wary of legitimizing fringe points of view here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "close ties to Monsanto"

It seems to me you're classifying the notion that Folta had "close ties" to Monsanto as a fringe position. It's a valid point of view, and it's sourced right to this news report in Nature. I'm confused by your position. SageRad (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest reading the article, namely where Folta disputes the claim of close ties. The term can insinuate a much closer relationship than expected of an academic researcher, and that nuance is addressed to some degree by Folta's comment. The fringe aspect to be wary of here is the shill-painting of Folta by an advocacy group through weasel words, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Nature article, i have read it, of course. It uses the words "close ties". I find this phrase to reflect a strong POV: "the shill-painting of Folta by an advocacy group through weasel words, etc" and i would caution that this phrase does not reflect everyone's point of view and does not establish that those critical of Folta are WP:FRINGE by any stretch except by your assertion. SageRad (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this very article in my above comment. Please refrain from further policy violations with your now editor painting. It is disruptive on article talk pages. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you answered my question, thanks. As for your "Please refrain..." look at your own words. Please stop. I was seeking clarification with my comment "It seems to me you're classifying..." and you introduced the painting with your responses. We are dealing with a topic about which there are multiple valid points of view. Let us rise above being partisan in this discussion. SageRad (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you're still not seeing the problem with your behavior, but I'll leave that for ArbCom to sort out. There's no doubt there's painting going on of Folta in sources, especially in the NYT piece and moreso in other unrelaiable sources out there, so taking that discussion on content and then trying to paint an editor in some fashion is highly disruptive. We're looking at a very close parallel to Climategate in the events we're describing after the emails were obtained where we do not consider all points of view to be "valid" or of equivalent weight, hence the mention of fringe. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We are dealing with issues that are relative, and must be reckoned from multiple points of view. You're still holding your judgment above mine, using a phrase like "you're still not seeing the problem with your behavior" and still trying to tell me i'm being disruptive. Please cease. SageRad (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Then please WP:FOC as I've been asking you to do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been focused on content. That is exactly why i noted and took issue with this edit of yours, and why i asked you to clarify in my comment "It seems to me you're classifying..." You never really clarified, other than to say "shill-painting of Folta by an advocacy group through weasel words, etc." and then to lord it over me. Please cease and desist. This is not productive. SageRad (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a lead section. Information there is supposed to simply summarize the content in the body of the article. Adding the attribution, such as it is now, has a few problems. The first is that the Nature article only takes up one paragraph of the criticism section, yet appears to have extra weight in the lead. The summary is giving the impression that the Nature article is the prominent source, or the source giving most of the criticism. There's also the perspectives of the NYT piece, as well as the perspectives of Kevin Folta, Nat Biotech, the Gainesville Sun, etc. The Sun in particular calls it "a close relationship". None of the other sources seem to have the impression that Folta was close to Monsanto or other biotech companies, and Folta himself denies it. It is at least contentious, rather opinion-oriented, and potentially libelous. It would be better to summarize the situation as WP:DUE in a way in which all (or most) of the sources agree, then leave the finer details in the main section where proper attribution and nuance can be addressed. Adrian (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit in light of this ongoing discussion looks to me like pushing a POV into the article contrary to consensus building that is going on here. SageRad (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, perhaps instead of drama-raising comments like POV-pushing, perhaps you could focus on content and show how that edit doesn't accurately summarize the section per WP:LEDE? With respect to the actual changes I made, they should be very much in line with things discussed here so far and accurately reflected the sources that are cited in the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)\

The edit in itself in the context of this ongoing discussion seemed notable to me. You removed the words "close ties" which we've been discussing here, and that is how it seems to be POV pushing. In the edit, you seem to be pushing toward a more favorable presentation of Folta, while we're discussing the lede here. SageRad (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, please stop the talk page violations. Time to drop the stick in that regard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your point escapes me. I'm troubled by the edit that i noted. I think it's counter to making a good article. Please desist from your accusation and contention. SageRad (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been quietly watching this page, and at this point, I can no longer keep track of what the content issue is. Kingofaces43 and SageRad, please just stop arguing about talk page propriety. Please let me suggest that each of you put, here on the talk page, a version of the lead text that you prefer. Let's have the two (or more) possible versions here, side-by-side, and then discuss the relative merits of each. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS: I find Template:quotation a useful way to display that sort of thing in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested versions

My content issue above was the deletion of "close ties", which is sourced to the same Nature news article that provides the "no scientific wrongdoing" language. Both are significant, and one was deleted. I contested this edit because it seems to be pushing too hard in one direction, toward one POV that holds that Folta did nothing wrong or even unseemly and would call any criticism of him "fringe" and exclude that from this page. The content issue is the inclusion of the quote "close ties", to make it simple. SageRad (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Based on that, I think (but correct me if I'm wrong) that we are comparing these two sentences:

According to Nature the emails revealed that Folta had "close ties" with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests, but revealed "no scientific misconduct" by Folta, who denies any wrongdoing.

and

The emails showed that Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests, but revealed no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta.

And I think I understand from this talk that both "close ties" and "scientific misconduct or wrongdoing" are direct quotes from the source.

I think WP:BLP should play a big role here, which means that we don't present wording that implies something bad about Folta without very careful context. In that sense, it seems to me that the second version, the one that leaves out "close ties", is the more BLP-compliant one. There is no POV violation in using the original wording for misconduct etc, because it accurately reflects the source, whereas without a lengthy direct quote, "close ties" could mean things that the source does not say (perhaps bribery). But I think it would be reasonable to include the words "According to Nature" at the beginning, for more specific attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "close ties" in the lede has been discussed above a bit already. Currently[2] the lede just says Folta communicated with companies like Monsanto, and the dueling claims of "close ties" and the rebuttal of that by Folta and other sources are in the in the body of the article. We’re really not in a position to just pick one or the other for summarizing the lede, so it’s better to have the general description in the lede and let the body work out the details. Basically, we have multiple sources in the body of the article that we are trying to succinctly summarize in the lede, so the focus here should be on what the body currently says rather than focusing on individual sources. The no misconduct type statement also needs to be paraphrased because that idea is shown in multiple sources too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC

MInor4th

(edit conflict)BLP actually says that negative or positive information that is controversial should be removed. Here we have two statements - no wrongdoing and "close ties" from the same source. Both aspects are controversial and disputed. Even mainstream scientists have said that Folta should have disclosed his relationship with Monsanto, just to avoid the appearance of conflict. Given that, the Nature article -- which is actually an opinion piece -- should not be summarized in the lede for either of those disputed/controversial aspects. I suggest something along the lines of:

In 2015, a pro-organic advocacy group obtained Folta's university emails via a FOIA request. The emails revealed a relationship between Folta and biotech industry interests that has raised questions about Folta's academic independence. Folta denies any wrongdoing, and some in the scientific community have described the FOIA request as an attempt to harass scientists who speak publically about controversial issues.

Something to that effect - it might need a bit of wordsmithing. In that manner we eliminate the controversial claims from the one source, and neutrally provide an overview of what the reliable sources say, collectively. Minor4th 19:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the no wrongdoing content is multi-sourced, not just to the Nature piece and there currently aren't sources presented in the body that say there actually was scientific misconduct. That currently doesn't show the statement is controversial. I'm sure we can get into how the kinds of things mentioned about Folta's reimbursements are not considered a financial conflict of interest for an academic researcher, but that's a topic better left for the body and another time as we're talking about the lede here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What specific objection do you have to my suggestion? Is it too neutral? Minor4th 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was responding mostly to your comments that both "close ties" and "no misconduct" were controversial. Specifically in your suggestion, "revealed" becomes a bit of a weasel word here implying something was hidden. Showed is a much more neutral term. It's much better just to say Folta communicated with the companies and leave it at that as we can't really say there was anything out of the ordinary at this time. Those issues are discussed a bit above already. The body can delve into what the accusations were and the rebuttals (including those other than Folta saying there was no wrongdoing), but the open question of Folta's academic independence in the lede is a bit too leading in one direction consider we've only had insinuation presented in sources so far. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that saying, in Wikipedia's voice, "has raised questions", followed by "denies any wrongdoing", adds up to innuendo in Wikipedia's voice, so I'm not seeing a problem with it being "too neutral". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish v1, v2

The page now says:

In February 2015, pro-organic activists obtained Folta's university emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The emails showed that Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests, but revealed no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta. Several voices within the scientific community characterized the incident as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who engage in public discussion on politically controversial topics.

I suggest instead:

In February 2015, pro-organic activists obtained Folta's university emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to Nature, the emails showed that Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests, but revealed no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta. Some in the scientific community characterized the FOIA request as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who engage in public discussion on politically controversial topics.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence is the only place I see issues. It would not be according to Nature because it's an opinion piece from an individual, not the editorial staff of the journal (unlike the Nature Biotech source). There are also multiple sources in the body mentioning the contents of the email and no wrongdoing. That's why I'm looking to paraphrase what we can without needing attribution. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I did not know that. So how about:

In February 2015, pro-organic activists obtained Folta's university emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to an editorial in Nature, the emails showed that Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests, but revealed no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta. Some in the scientific community characterized the FOIA request as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who engage in public discussion on politically controversial topics.

If you are going to create a paraphrase so as not to need attribution, you may run into problems with the fact that there are dissenting sources, even though the preponderance of sourcing supports what this says. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

MInor4th v2

Tryptofish, you might be right about my previous suggestion adding up to innuendo - that is not what I was going for, which is why I said it might need some wordsmithing. However, it is improper to claim that the emails reveal no wrongdoing in WP voice because there are many claims of "wrongdoing" - from failure to disclose the grant and the relationship with Monsanto, to alleged improper influence on his academic independence and even criticism from other scientists that he should have made the disclosure up front to avoid this kind of assault on public scientific discourse. We are not there yet on the lede - there is so much weight given to the Nature op-ed re: no wrongdoing that the lede does not really summarize the article very well. How about this version:

In 2015, a pro-organic advocacy group obtained Folta's university emails via a FOIA request. The emails showed a relationship between Folta and biotech industry interests, leading to a public debate about Folta's academic independence. Many in the scientific community have defended Folta and have described the FOIA request as an attempt to silence scientists who speak publically about politically controversial issues.

Minor4th 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad - Minor4th hybrid

I'm alright with dropping the attribution to Nature as the story is really a news piece by Keith Kloor. It could be attributed to "Nature science reporter Keith Kloor, or it could be unattributed, as the claims seem incontrovertible. What troubles me about this copy is that it ends on a note about the FOIA request being an attempt to silence scientists, whereas there is an equally valid point of view that sees the FOIA request as being a push for transparency. That remains an imbalance in the lede. I suggest:

In 2015, a pro-organic advocacy group obtained Folta's university emails via a FOIA request. The emails showed a relationship between Folta and biotech industry interests, leading to a public debate about Folta's academic independence. Many in the scientific community have defended Folta and have described the FOIA request as an attempt to silence scientists who speak publicly about politically controversial issues. Others noted that such FOIA requests can be useful to promote transparency.

An example of a source to support the added content is here. SageRad (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

When you say: "Others noted...", that immediately leads me to ask who those others are, and that in turn takes us down a road of making this more complicated than I think it needs to be. I can see your point about who gets "the last word", as it were, but just as you might be concerned about giving Folta's critics that last word, other editors might want to give it to Folta's supporters. If this were a page about the pluses and minuses of FOIA, then a point-counterpoint would be appropriate. But it's a BLP, about Folta. On the other hand, I'd be fine with an attribution to Keith Kloor, and I'm also fine (having just looked at that source, and verified that it does talk about the grant), with adding that Monsanto gave Folta a grant. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think SR's addition and the proposal I made above pretty accurately describe what our article and the reliable sources say.

I think describing the issue as "Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotech interests" completely misses the point of the controversy. The take away from the articles about the emails is that Folta actually received a grant from Monsanto and that he had been in regular communication with Monsanto's PR company who seemed to try to influence the content of his answers on the website. Those issues and Folta's nondisclosure of them is what led to the initial media reports and criticism -- after that, there have been several responses from science commentators that Folta's public discourse is scientifically sound and that he was not improperly influenced by industry interests. That's kind of how I think the lede should describe the issue and how the article should also treat it. We can't ignore the criticism, we just need to balance it with the context and discussion that followed. Minor4th 21:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to make my proposal the new lede? SageRad (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, not yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's take a while and talk it out. I won't make any edits. I'd like to hear reasoned oppositions or agreements. SageRad (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish v4

Sure, I think we may have edit-conflicted in my reply to your previous version. How about:

In February 2015, pro-organic activists obtained Folta's university emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to an editorial by Keith Kloor in Nature, the emails showed that Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests and had received a grant from Monsanto, but revealed no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta. Some in the scientific community characterized the FOIA request as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who engage in public discussion on politically controversial topics.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The concern i have with your proposal is that it ends on the note about FOIA requests being immoral. In my proposal, i had provided the balance that some see the FOIA requests as useful. I have no concern about whether the initial claims are attributed to Ketih Kloor or not. The claims seem incontrovertible to me, and the tone is neutral. SageRad (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with everything except mention of the grant. Going through the sources, the grant was received by the University, not by Folta specifically for use in his own program. It was an unrestricted grant with no expectations of how it would be spent, projects, etc. so it seems like undue weight to be mentioning that grant in the lede. One can't really easily dig into that or the reimbursements in enough detail for a lede, so that's' why I opted for the claim of close associations in my original addition to the lede. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I think that is giving way too much weight and prominence in the lede to one editorial. This is better:

I say we go with this version that I suggested just above:

In 2015, a pro-organic advocacy group obtained Folta's university emails via a FOIA request. The emails showed a relationship between Folta and biotech industry interests, leading to a public debate about Folta's academic independence. Many in the scientific community have defended Folta and have described the FOIA request as an attempt to silence scientists who speak publically about politically controversial issues.

That accurately and without much too much detail or POV describes what happened. It's factual and not slanted either for or against Folta. I don't really think we need to say that FOIA requests can be useful for transparency, as that is self evident as the intended purpose of FOIA. Tryptofish, what are your objections to this? Minor4th 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems good and very neutral in tone, except that it still ends with only the one note sounded about FOIA requests being immoral attacks. There is another valid point of view that FOIA requests are useful tools for citizens to ensure that tax dollars are spent on sound practices, as expressed here. SageRad (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, I still feel the way that I tried to explain above about that "last note". It should not be a point-counterpoint, because this is not an article about FOIA. I have several problems with the last version above. On the one hand, "a relationship" is too vague and suspicion-implying, and also "public debate" reminds me of the PR trick of "teaching the controversy". There wasn't really such a general debate in the public: there was a debate between activists and the scientific mainstream. On the other hand, there is no need to say "Many in the scientific community", because "Some" is adequate. The language makes it sound like a bigger battle of views than what it really was, and again, this is a BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish here. WP:COATRACK comes to mind as we need to be focusing on the BLP. It's best to avoid complicating language and keep this simple. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I don't see how adding the idea that FOIA is good for transparency adds anything. Making a wikilink to FOIA will probably solve that issue, since the article Freedom of Information Act (United States) mentions the purpose of it in their lead section and discusses it in depth for anyone who doesn't know what it is for. I feel comfortable with Minor4th's most recent version. It sounds neutral and seems to address most of the issues we have been discussing so far. Adrian (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: "I don't see how adding the idea that FOIA is good for transparency adds anything." Gotcha. WP:POV in your own words. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think adding the additional FOIA statement is a neutrality issue, but more of a WP:COAT issue. None of the people involved seem to think that the FOIA is a bad thing. The people who are defending Folta are concerned about how the FOIA is being used in this case (for cherrypicking, in the case of Nature Biotech, for example). Adding information about how some people believe FOIA requests are useful tools (which is not in disagreement) would not seem relevant, particularly in a lead section. Adrian (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Adrian, that is the point. The three opinion pieces currently used to support the sentence "Several voices within the scientific community characterized the incident as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who engage in public discussion on politically controversial topics." are quite negative on "how the FOIA is being used in this case". There exists an equally valid point of view that holds that the FOIA was well used in this case, to force some transparency where it was needed. That point of view is omitted from the lede currently, and this is imbalanced in terms of NPOV. My proposed addition was not just "about how some people believe FOIA requests are useful tools" but was specifically about "how the FOIA is being used in this case". The source i suggested spoke directly about the use of FOIA in this case, and opined that it was appropriate and useful. That is a valid point of view held by many. It needs to be represented. SageRad (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason why the scientists and journal are included is because they are experts on the subject matter. It appears you may be attempting to put WP:FALSEBALANCE into the lead section. Also of note, the LA Times source you provided (which is an op-ed opinion by a journalist) also agrees that FOIA bullying happens, particularly underlining climategate, the same thing that the experts are comparing this situation to. What the science experts are saying is that a scientist is very unlikely to be swayed by having their expenses paid (which is a customary thing to do) and receiving a small donation for a program that, as far as experts are concerned, accurately represents the scientific consensus. Something that non-experts, such as the general public, may not understand. Contrast with Benbrook, whose entire salary was provided by an industry lobby and was allegedly commissioned with a large sum to craft a study with deliverables in order to specifically cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Something that FOIA requests have recently exposed. Notice that no scientists (that I am aware of) are scrambling to defend him.

I've swayed from the topic at hand a bit, but I think you can see my point; all views shouldn't be equally represented in a lead section, and expert opinions in the scientific community are absolutely relevant to the case at hand. This especially holds true when a BLP subject's reputation is on the line. Adrian (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not false balance, but actual balance. Not equally represented but duly represented. Perhaps the content represented by this source belongs in the body, and if it seems due, then in the lede later. SageRad (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Option of leaving it out

I've been trying to think of some alternative way that might help move towards consensus. Looking over the page history, it looks to me like the second paragraph of the lead is a relatively recent addition to the page. Would it be better to simply delete the second paragraph? The controversy would still be covered in depth lower on the page. Keeping in mind, again, that this is a BLP, perhaps putting this controversy in the lead ends up being WP:UNDUE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The notion to include the criticisms section in the lead was introduced by editor Wuerzele, who hasn't really been part of the discussion yet aside from a few edits. I noted my concern about including it above. I think this option could remain on the table, but we seem to be the closest to coming to a consensus in this debate we've ever been and I'd like to see how the other option pans out. Adrian (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Adrian "we seem to be the closest to coming to a consensus in this debate we've ever been": Agree.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It could be an option. I only added this after it was asked why we didn't have the info in the lede for some time. That was meant to be as simple as we could summarize that part of the body as written while covering all the major details. I think it should have some mention, bug I have no prejudice against taking the WP:BRD approach and removing that section of the lede until there is consensus either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish King is correct. Thanks Kingofaces43 for your first stab at including the COI issue.

The last sentence does not belong into the lede

• It looks like blaming. to me its strawman building, in your defense of Folta.
• the at first vague statement immediately became focus of numerous revisions since from "voices..."to "some voices", then "many voices", then {who} then 3 refs and as noted above even the per WP:BLPSPS impermissible Novella blog is now in the lede. --see unresolved discussion over 3 sections. i can see why it was added: Folta defenders dont WP:LIKE the COI issue being the last sentence.

so, yes to the first sentence, the second sentence: delete. the dispute and its details should only be mentioned in the body for now, until history has sorted the back and forth out. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've read everything on this talk since my last post, and I'm having difficulty understanding some of the arguments that have been made, but I'm not hearing anyone saying that they feel strongly that the second paragraph of the lead must be retained. It seems to me that WP:BLP is what is most important here, and if editors do not have consensus in favor of the prominent display of a matter of controversy in the lead section, then it probably should not be there. I'm about to delete it, for the time being. That does not mean that it cannot be put back, if that's the eventual consensus. But I strongly advise other editors not to revert it back without a clear consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm good with leaving it out of the lead and just dealing with it in the body. I do wish others would please try to stop throwing around accusations of POV and bias. This has been the most collaboratively editors have worked on this article since it began. We might all have different opinions but as far as I can tell all the suggestions and discussions above were made in good faith, and it just poisons the atmosphere when accusations of POV are thrown in the mix. Minor4th 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This deletion with teh accompanying edit summary is disruptive, absolutely. No consensus. I worked to get this in here. Trypto turns up and deletes it. This is nuts !--Wuerzele (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe there is a language issue here, but I understood your previous comment in this section as saying that you did not object to removing this material ("the dispute and its details should only be mentioned in the body for now"), although I'll admit that what you said was difficult to follow. In any case, the fact that you worked for it previously does not preclude anyone else disagreeing with you. And it is not disruptive to adhere to WP:BLP, so I strongly suggest that you either take that back, or back it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you misunderstood it. "a language issue""... ? this isnt helpful. maybe there is a hearing issue or vision issue? ( 9I just pinged you to the Inadequate Lead" section, so you can read it .

So, to be clear: the details about the dispute regarding the COI is too complicated to have in the lede.(sentence 2 , I said this clearly above) but the fact that there is an allegation of COI MUST be in the lede, its the core of the issue and why people come here to read. There was an agreement about this fact before you arrived here. the question was how to phrase the last sentence. The rash edit you made appears disruptive, there is no WP:urgency to get this done when YOU want it: There was absolutely no consensus. you took out what I, kingofaces43, {{U|sageRad, adrian232, andbrustopher -dont thihnkPetrarchan47 was part- had worked on. minor4th had deleted one little sentence (also a rash edit) which was reverted, because she had not read the source carefully and before i could tell her, Brustopher had already done it, for which i have thanked him.

tryptofish, you just arrived here yesterday. i advise you to study past edits and archives meticulously. see whats going on yourself. You've wrongly alleged against me about the Novella source (which to me shows you havent studied the issue carefully) and made crystal clear at Arbcom with your findings of fact and your proposed remedies, whom you favor and whom you want banned. this is a page under WP:DS. i ask you to self revert or I will reinsert sentence 1. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and a few of us here haven't been saying we must include the information in the lede right now (i.e. there's no WP:DEADLINE). I thought it would be worthwhile to take a stab at trying to include the information in the lede, but since that hasn't worked out, I do think Tryptofish's removal at this time is the best option until some consensus is reached. Keep in mind I'm saying this as it was my preferred version (and still is) that was removed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My concerns have basically remained the same throughout this dispute. I want it included, but only if it's concise and doesn't give undue weight to the people accusing him of a COI. It doesn't need to be included. If someone comes to read the article because they heard about Folta having a connection to Monsanto (or similar), they can easily find the information with a click in the TOC. Maybe they'll also read about his work with strawberries that he's done for the past 13 years, or his work communicating about agriculture technology. Maybe that's what they came here to read about. It appears all Tryptofish has done is revert that part of the article to its most recent consensus, which is before the COI paragraph in the lead was created. This is consistent with the guidelines of WP:BLP. Adrian (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ok but looks like youre back paddling from consensus.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, thank you for pinging me. In fact, I had already read that talk section, and what I think I see there is you expressing one opinion, and other editors all disagreeing with you to various degrees. By "language problem", I was referring to the facts that I see you using German on your user talk page and I often am left unsure what you mean to say in your comments on this page. Attributing it to possible language differences seems to me to be more of an assumption of good faith than if I were just to complain that you do not express yourself clearly. My question in this section was about deleting the second paragraph, not deleting individual sentences, so I was confused by your reply, in which you seemed to be talking about changing sentences instead of what I had asked for comments about, and in which you did indeed seem to be OK with the idea of treating the controversy lower on the page. I guess I construed that "controversy" to be the entire controversy, whereas you intended to refer only to the views of Folta's defenders as controversial. You complain that you think that I made this edit because of my pre-existing position in the ArbCom case. That is not true. I am not targeting you, but if you think that I am, I suggest that you take it up with ArbCom or at ANI, but I'm certain that doing so will backfire on you. Now what I see from the discussion in this section is that the participating editors, other than you, do not have a problem with temporarily deleting the paragraph. You do not get to unilaterally determine consensus any more than I do, but I am taking the BLP policy very seriously. I would argue that reinserting the sentence "In February 2015, pro-organic activists obtained Folta's university emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request", which is the first sentence, would result in a lead that does not make sense. If one were to reinsert the first two sentences: "In February 2015, pro-organic activists obtained Folta's university emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The emails showed that Folta had communicated with Monsanto and other biotechnology interests, but revealed no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing by Folta", which is not what you seem to be saying, that could perhaps make some sense, although the question then arises why an incident in which a group made an FOIA request that didn't reveal much would belong in the lead section of a BLP. So that is why I take it that editors created the third sentence, which perhaps (but I don't know) is what you meant when you said the "second sentence": "Several voices within the scientific community characterized the incident as an example of activist groups attempting to silence scientists who engage in public discussion on politically controversial topics." If we put this material back at all, in the lead, it seems to me that it is the issue of sources discussing an "attempt to silence" that makes it lead-notable. And it is also necessary per the BLP policy that we present the page subject's perspective if we discuss this matter in the lead at all.

Not too long ago, I responded to an RfC at the talk page for the BLP about Hillary Clinton. The question was whether or not to include a poll that showed people not trusting her. My position in the RfC, which ended up being the closing consensus, is that BLP forbids us to present an isolated incident as though it were the defining matter in the person's life. I mention that, because I think that we have to be careful of the same issue here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We could leave any mention of the controversy out of the lede, but i think it's an important part of a complete description of Kevin Folta, and that it would serve readers to at least mention the controversy in the lede. It's been in the news a lot and stirred a lot of controversy. I'm surprised that we would consider leaving it out of the lede. We could simply mention that there is controversy around conflict of interest due to alleged close ties to Monsanto. Something brief and neutral. Then it would be briefer, and we wouldn't be worried about wordsmithing the lede in this contentious subject. SageRad (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that you are right about that. I never argued that we must completely omit it from the lead, merely that we should leave out the previous version until we had worked out a better consensus, and that anything that would replace it needed to comply better with BLP. But I, too, think that a simple, single sentence, one that indicates the existence of the controversy without going into any details about the FOIA request, the e-mails, or opinions about the e-mails, would be an improvement to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but I think as soon as you put a sentence in about the alleged COI and Monsanto, someone (e.g. KingofAces) will then add to the lede that no scientific misconduct or wrongdoing was found and then we're right back where we started. 15:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Minor4th 15:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you can read that other editor's mind, I suggest that you reconsider that unhelpful remark. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I struck it as I see that it could be interpreted in a way I didnt mean. I mentioned one editor who I believe has been in favor of the "no wrongdoing" addition. what I should have said is simply that it would be good to get more input from those who have been active on these issues, and hopefully arrive at something agreeable without getting into another revert war. I didnot intend to single out any one editor as having behaved inappropriately so I apologize if it came across that way. Minor4th 15:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Further sources to look at

These were included by Wuerzele as a "Further reading" section but were then deleted. There was then discussion at the BLP noticeboard where editors suggested using them in the text, not as a "See also" section. I bring them here, so we can discuss them on the article's talk page, which is the right place. So here they are, the three sources that are currently not in the text that were suggested by Wuerzele:

• Tom Philpott. These Emails Show Monsanto Leaning on Professors to Fight the GMO PR War Mother Jones, 2 October 2015.

• Ralph Nader. Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information Huffington Post, 2 October 2015.

• Jack Kaskey. How Monsanto Mobilized Academics to Pen Articles Supporting GMOs. Bloomberg, 2 October 2015

SageRad (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Philpott article seems to mostly rehash information from the NYT piece. The Nader source is a blog, and not RS. The Kaskey article doesn't mention Folta until the last section, and only seems to be usable for Folta's point of view about the "organic movement that vilifies scientists" and what he's said about his outreach program and what happened to the Monsanto grant which has already been covered, no new facts regarding the COI allegations. Adrian^[232] (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Nader source is an op-ed at Huffington Post. It's an edited piece. It's an acceptable reliable source as to the opinions of Nader, if we choose to include any content based on it. SageRad (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A blog is not the same thing as an op-ed. Yes, it can be used for the view of Ralph Nader, albeit partisan. Ralph Nader doesn't seem to say anything notable about Folta in particular in any regard. Adrian^[232] (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute related to the contents of the lede and the body section. Until consensus is reached, please participate in the dispute at the talk page and propose changes here. Once the dispute is closed, the consensual changes will be applied. Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis for your recent reversion of a productive edit to this article. The added content is not related to any "neutrality dispute", which as far as anywhere I can see is about the lead section. The new content is well sourced, productive, and relevant to the subject of the BLP. It is not required for anyone to check in with other editors before adding new content with the WP:BRD cycle. Since you appear to have cited no policy to support your reversion, and have not objected to the content of this edit, I am restoring it. Adrian (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to what Adrian has been trying to add to the page. Simply adding biographical information about the research that Folta does seems to me to be a separate issue from the issue of the conflict of interest accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality flag pertains to the ENTIRE article. Every section.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the comment above, with no explanation, the neutrality tag was placed without justification initially, and without further explanation. Unless specific, policy based reasons are forthcoming, I shall remove it. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, in the interests of peaceful editing, let me suggest that you wait on that until the long-overdue decision at the GMO ArbCom case is revealed, because that might resolve the whole thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I kept my paw hovering over the delete button? -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that that can result in hairy paws. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede issues

Looking at one aspect of the lede, which currently stands at:

Kevin M. Folta is a professor and chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. From 2007 to 2010 he helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome. Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to address misconceptions in agriculture, especially relating to biotechnology.

I personally find it a glaring omission to not mention the COI issue at all as that seems to be the main aspect of notability at present regarding Kevin Folta. But here, i focused on the second sentence of the current lede, which uses Wikivoice to describe Folta's activity as "uses outreach programs to address misconceptions in agriculture, especially relating to biotechnology".

Here's how that language evolved into the lede:

• Adrian232 added content here including the language "utilizes outreach programs to confront misconceptions about modern agriculture technologies" based on the UFGI source
• Wuerzele tagged the article with "inadequate lead" here
• Jusdafax here added "what he believes are" before "misconceptions"
• Kingofaces43 added description of the COI, ending with the troubling of the use of the FOIA, here
• Kingofaces43 then restores "what he believes are" that was accidentally deleted due to edit conflict here and then removes it here to include it within his edit
• Wuerzele adds quotes around "confront misconceptions about modern agriculture technologies" here
• Kingofaces43 removed the quotations marks and rephrased here

Here are my issues with this:

• The UFGI source does support the "misconceptions" language, but is it adequately NPOV? Given the source's close proximity to Folta himself (aligned field from same university), it seems likely it could be a biased summary of his work. There are other sources, and especially many in regard to the recent COI controversy, including the very notable New York Times story, that would characterize his activity somewhat differently.
• This language uses Wikivoice to cast things that Folta says as correct and those reckonings about biotechnology at variance with his contentions as misconceptions.

Folta is an advocate -- self-described -- who works closely with Monsanto and the industry at large to promote the notion that GMOs are safe, that agrochemicals are safe, and in general opposes Vani Hari actively (to the point of contributing to a book that is essentially a long polemic against her) and the like. These are the things that would be lumped into the domain of the "misconceptions" that Wikivoice is here endorsing as such. I think this is trouble in regard to NPOV. SageRad (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this is the day when I keep agreeing with you! I'd be fine with changing the second sentence to something like: "Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide information about agriculture and biotechnology." Pursuing what you and I just discussed in the section directly above, I'd also be fine with a third sentence that would be something like: "Folta argues against criticisms of GMO foods, and GMO opponents have criticized Folta for what they say are his industry connections." I intend that last sentence as very much a rough draft, and it clearly needs further revision and wider input from editors participating at this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Remarkably enough, again I agree with both of you. I think those two sentences would be an improvement in the lede and accuratelt/neutrally describes important info about Folta. Minor4th 15:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Also agree. Wikipedia, as noted, needs to speak in a neutral voice. Jusdafax 15:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with some of SageRad's points here, but I do believe that the core argument being made is reasonable. Using the term "misconceptions" could be construed to support Folta as speaking The Truth™, which no single human being is actually capable of. Folta can be wrong. I would like to emphasize that Folta's outreach has been regarded by many to be accurate to the science, and as a public scientist that is his primary duty, which nobody seems to have challenged at all.

So to expand on Tryptofish's drafts I think the two sentences would be better worded as: "Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide science-based information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta is critical about concerns surrounding genetically modified organisms, and GMO opponents are concerned that he might have too close of a connection to industry." The last phrase in there I'm still a little dubious about, since it feels like an accusation of guilt by association, which the WP:BLPSTYLE specifically advises to look out for. I used the word "critical" in the first part, because Folta has agreed with some concerns about GMO's. Adrian (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that you raise valid points. Let me suggest this, taking into account what you said: "Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide science-based information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta has been critical of concerns surrounding genetically modified organisms, and GMO opponents have criticized Folta for what they say are his industry connections." What I did was use your suggested language at the start, then slightly wordsmith the beginning of the second sentence while retaining your point about "critical", which is certainly an accurate characterization of what he says. I think that "of concerns surrounding" could probably be tightened up some more, but I don't have a good idea about it right now. But I then grafted on the end of the sentence from my suggested version, because that places the position as being what the GMO critics say, instead of what Wikipedia says, and I think that addresses the issue of implying guilt by association in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The last phrase still concerns me as it can still act as an unweighted aspersion in the lede. That gets back to the issues discussed in the section above though, so I think it's best to focus on the issue at hand. I still see no problem with misconceptions in the language though. Public misconception is a huge problem is this field. Wikipedia wouldn't be endorsing specific views as truth, but simply that he he focuses a lot misconceptions (a similar parallel would be using the term to describe a quack medicine debunker). The university page is a plenty fine source for this language as that's where you will find information on professors. That's generally where would would expect to find information about an academic's program for anyone else. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I continue to strongly oppose basing any wording in the lede on the "university page." It's a primary source, not neutral, and indeed pushes a POV. Jusdafax 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it's a real !joy for me to log in today and see the edit summary of the page edit that put a POV tag on the page.

As for the university page, it's a reliable source for the University's perspective, but we shouldn't be using it for a balanced view of the conflicts between Folta and his critics – but let's not get further bogged down in that. I continue to think that we need to keep the lead simple, because the alternative is to get stuck with a perpetually escalating tit-for-tat in which one POV must be balanced with the opposing POV.

I think it's reasonable to be concerned about an implied aspersion if we were to say something like "his critics have objected to his ties with industry", but I am not seeing that being seriously proposed. But "GMO opponents have criticized Folta for what they say are his industry connections" (with emphasis added here, by me) doesn't even say in Wikipedia's voice that he has any industry connections. It merely reports that his critics say that he does, and they do say that.

So that gives me an idea:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta has been critical of what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and GMO opponents have criticized Folta for what they say are his industry connections.

That sentence structure, with "what he says" followed by "what they say", accurately describes what each "side" says, and it attributes it to whoever is saying it, instead of putting it in Wikipedia's voice. It makes it clear that the purported "industry connections" are not something that Wikipedia vouches for, but instead are what Folta's critics say (while also keeping us on the right side of WP:ALLEGE). If one sets aside the past editorial battles about this page, and simply takes the language as it is written, it's neutral and it doesn't give either side "the last word". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds almost there except that it's not only GMO opponents who are critical. Could we just say "some" ? SageRad (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! As for "some", my experience is that it inevitably results in an editor coming along and putting a tag after it, and per WP:WEASEL it's a reasonable tag to place. And if we start going down the road of spelling out all the possible categories of critics, then we end up over-complicating things. My hope would be that editors who would ideally like to indicate that there are other kinds of critics too, and editors who worry about giving the critics the last word or implying that there really are serious industry connections, will just realize that both "sides" of the editorial dispute would be giving a little compromise in the interests of consensus, and not let the allegedly perfect become the enemy of the good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

How about something like ...", and Folta's critics have expressed concern over what they say are Folta's (or his) industry connections." Minor4th 22:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking again at the page, I can see how the "concerns" have come from journalists and others as much as they have come from GMO activists, so I'm starting to agree that "GMO opponents" probably isn't the best wording. At the same time, I'm trying hard to think of the most succinct and neutral way to say it, which isn't easy. Perhaps something like: "and Folta's critics have pointed to what they say are his industry connections." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On further thought, maybe change the verb tense to: "Folta criticizes what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and Folta's critics point to what they say are his industry connections." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'm probably just thinking out loud too much here, but: "Folta criticizes what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not entirely comfortable with the tone of that version, so I'll suggest this, and then log out for the night: "Folta criticizes what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and has been the target of controversy over what some critics say are his industry connections." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the wording of the last phrase there. Let me combine two of those versions and propose: "Folta has been critical about what he sees as misconceptions about genetically modified organisms, and has been the target of controversy over what some critics see as industry connections." This keeps the same tense through both phrases, and replaces "say" with "see" to emphasize the perspectives rather than the accusations. Adrian (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed awhile back now, but the problem with saying the equivalent of "Folta says are misconceptions" isn't quite appropriate using the university source as it is acting in a secondary fashion and describing Folta's program, not saying that Folta said something specifically. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Adrian232, having slept on it, I also like the formulation of "has been the target", and I would like to continue to work with that part of it. But I would change "Folta has been critical about" to either "Folta has criticized" or "Folta criticizes", because that keeps it more firmly in the active voice. I'm neutral about whether the critics "say" or "see", because I think that either wording accomplishes the same thing, so either way works for me. Kingofaces43, I guess I don't understand what you are saying, so please clarify for me. I would have thought that Folta has actually "said" those things, and if he never has, I would wonder why we are even considering any of this. Does Adrian232's use of "sees" instead work better for you? Or how about "regards"? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Has been the target of" is definitely POV, as it takes a side by naming Folta as a target, when it could be that transparency is the goal. How about something so simple as "Critics are concerned over Folta's industry connections."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageRad (talk • contribs) 00:24, November 3, 2015‎

agree 100%- target is very POV.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess I disagree with all of that. I don't see "target" as being POV, any differently than being the "target of criticism". Even someone seeking transparency would be seeking transparency about Folta and his connections and motivations – that's still directed at him. And your suggested language assumes as fact that Folta has significant industry connections, which is why I would insist on language such as "what they say are industry connections" or "what they see as industry connections". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I read "has been the target of" as having a POV because it means essentially "targeted" which implies that Folta has been hunted, and wrongfully singled out. It doesn't seem to describe a situation where that had fair reason to include Folta in probe on a number of people who seemed probably involved in industry connected advocacy. "Targeted" seems like it imputes a negative light on those doing the "targeting", like Folta's on the run at the wrong end of a gun's barrel.

On the other question, i just assumed that Folta's close ties to industry were an accepted fact as even the Nature news used in the article uses the term "close ties" directly. But i do see that he denies the "close ties" phrase, as evidence by the article using this source though even this source seems to be skeptical of his denial. I had the sense that in a BLP, we are supposed to give a benefit of the doubt when the subject doesn't like mention of it, so i went to the BLP guideline, but what i found at WP:PUBLICFIGURE was "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." SageRad (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Currently it reads:

Kevin M. Folta is a professor and chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. From 2007 to 2010 he helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome. Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to address misconceptions in agriculture, especially relating to biotechnology.

How about we leave out the word "miconceptions" altogether to avoid judging what's right and wrong in the lede? How about something like this?

Kevin M. Folta is a professor and chairman of the horticultural sciences department at the University of Florida. From 2007 to 2010 he helped lead the project to sequence the strawberry genome. Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002, especially relating to biotechnology. Critics have raised concern about possible influence by what they say are his close ties to the agrochemical industry.

SageRad (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with this wording. We cannot say in Wiki-voice that he addresses "misconceptions," as that endorses a POV. The final sentence is neutral and accurate. Jusdafax 21:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I've pared back the lede to remove "misconceptions" in the meantime, while we discuss the final version. SageRad (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want to say "misconceptions" in Wikipedia's voice either, so I think part of the problem is that this discussion has gotten so complicated that editors are starting to have, um, misconceptions about what other editors actually said. As for "target", if it's not agreeable to some editors, then I'm perfectly OK with dropping it. It certainly isn't worth arguing for. But please remember that one version that I proposed above is:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta has been critical of what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and GMO opponents have criticized Folta for what they say are his industry connections.

What that does is to put both perspectives in the voice of what Folta and his critics, respectively, "say" – instead of in Wikipedia's voice. Another editor then suggested framing it in terms of "see", instead of "say". That would give:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta has been critical of what he sees as misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and GMO opponents have criticized Folta for what they see as his industry connections.

I'm completely neutral between "see" and "say", so I'm fine with either of those versions. Subsequent discussion also revealed that we should not say "GMO opponents" because not all the critics have been GMO opponents. I also think it might be better to revise the verb tense. Taking those issues together would give either:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta criticizes what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections.

or:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta criticizes what he sees as misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and has faced controversy over what his critics see as his industry connections.

Can we work with something based on those last two versions? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting a chance to respond finally, but source mentioning the misconception terminology should not be used to say "Folta criticizes what he sees as misconceptions" because it is an outside party commenting on Folta, not Folta himself. We're basically writing text like we have dueling primary sources when that isn't quite the case. I also restored the language to the lede as a "POV" hasn't been established on this talk page by using it. Saying he addresses misconceptions in general is very different than saying X is a misconception. If we were doing the latter, then some of the comments above about the term would have some merit and need stronger sourcing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The only source for the "correcting misconceptions" is the University's own promotional content and should not be used to soyrce the lede. All editors participating in this discussion agree that "misconceptions" should not be stated in the lede in WP voice, except KoA who just reverted it back in, bypassing the developing discussion and consensus. @Kingofaces43:, please revert yourself and allow this productive discussion to continue without making controversial edits. Thanks. Minor4th 23:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith, I reverted it. Kingofaces, I originally suggested the language about misconceptions because I thought that you had recommended it. As I asked earlier, if Folta does not see the criticisms of GMOs as misconceptions, why are we even discussing any of this? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue is attribution if that wasn't clear before. Essentially, unneeded attribution can functionally act like weasel words when included in the proposed Folta says, opponents say language proposed above. If we had a source directly from Folta saying that he thinks X is a misconception, attributing it as "Folta thinks . . ." would be appropriate.

In this case though, we only need to say he addresses misconceptions without attribution. Part of that is because it's not specific just to GMOs or endorsing a specific POV that would require attribution (plenty of other possible agricultural misconceptions), but also because because we have a source other than Folta outlining that for us in its own words (university pages are generally considered reliable for descriptions of programs) that makes Folta says type attribution incorrect. Basically, saying something like "Folta addresses misconceptions about agricultural science in his outreach program." is all we need. If someone sees an endorsement of a POV in saying just that, that might be an issue with the reader reading too far into the sentence, but I haven't seen a legitimate problem presented on this talk page actually based on the type of language I just quoted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue with the word "misconceptions" as it was used, even though sourced to one article, is that several editors agreed that its use in this context lent Wikivoice to support Folta's positions implicitly, and therefore it used Wikivoice for one POV among multiple. That is why i removed this word in the time being while we are further discussing the lede to reach a consensus version. When KoA says "The issue is attribution if that wasn't clear before" that is not correct. The issue for some editors was otherwise, and was stated in the above dialogue already. When KoA writes that if "someone sees an endorsement of a POV in saying just that, that might be an issue with the reader reading too far into the sentence"... well, it also might be that the other editors' opinions are valid and that this is a concern as several editors have noted. SageRad (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, no one has actually demonstrated a point of view issue here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I think I understand what you are trying to say about what Folta has, literally said or not said. And I'm neutral about which verb we use, and indeed would prefer not to have a lengthy argument over it. I'm OK with Folta "says", "sees", "addresses", "writes about", "posts about", "perceives", "considers", "regards", "thinks", and on and on and on. But if he "addresses" these issues, there is nothing weasel-wordy about saying that he "says" that. "Says" does not only mean the literal act of opening and closing his mouth so that words come out. It's the position that he takes in his outreach efforts to the lay public. Period. Please let go of this over-focus on the university website versus Folta's overall public positions. And if for some obscure reason you would rather say "incorrect information" or something like that instead of "misconceptions", whatever.

SageRad, whatever verb we come up with, it comes down to saying that Folta "sees"-or-something-else it as "misconceptions" and his critics "see"-or-something-else it as "industry ties".

I wish that we could stop wasting time discussing whether or not something is a POV, and make a productive decision about which verb to use, and then we can wrap this up and move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, remember that there are options that don't use the word "misconceptions" in the lede, like one i've suggested above, to avoid this whole issue easily. I'd like to move on, too, but i just removed the word in its present use and it was added back. That causes us to have to continue discussing it, i guess, or have it forced into the article. SageRad (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There are also options that recognize that Folta considers these things to be misconceptions, but that do not use the word "misconceptions" in Wikipedia's voice. It is NOT POV to say that Folta considers these things to be misconceptions. It's just reporting accurately what he believes. It would be POV to say in Wikipedia's voice that these things actually are misconceptions, but it is not POV to say that Folta says that they are misconceptions. Please tell me explicitly that you understand what I am saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do absolutely understand and agree with what you're saying. SageRad (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Now, it would be great if Kingofaces43 would select one or more acceptable verbs. It's not difficult. And once we are there, I think that I can be able to propose something that we might agree on. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First Tryptofish, I think where we were getting hung up in the past is because we're maybe trying to synthesize too much about Folta in one piece. The ledes that have been proposed here are focusing more on his views, whereas this [3] part of the lede was meant to focus on what he does. Once we get past his strawberry research in the lede, I'm looking to have three remaining ideas: 1. What he actually does as part of his outreach program (focusing on agricultural education, addressing general misconceptions, etc.) that the university page source is appropriate for 2. His actual views. 3. Something related to the email controversy. They're all related, but should really be looked at individually. There have been undercurrents from other conversations that could make it confusing which point I was focusing on, so is that making sense so far? Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, let's set aside past disagreement, and please, please, answer me directly about this: how does something like "Folta criticizes what he sees as misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms" misrepresent Folta's position? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, I'm working towards that in the above thread comment since this one is based on a separate reply from SageRad. There are a few details that should be handled somewhat separately, so I just want to make sure we're on the same page on how I'm looking to address them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying not to miss anything, but PLEASE answer this question directly: how does something like "Folta criticizes what he sees as misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms" misrepresent Folta's position? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I never meant to imply you were trying to miss something. I'm just asking if you are seeing where I'm coming from in my above comment about the three areas to focus on in the lede? There are some issues that are broader than misrepresenting Folta, but I'm trying to put the horse before the cart here since there has been some confusion on what exactly was being discussed in the past. Just trying to move forward incrementally here with all the different things going on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please just answer a simple question? How does something like "Folta criticizes what he sees as misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms" misrepresent Folta's position? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to work forward slowly because of previous confusion, so please refer to my post above on the three points to cover in the lede if something isn't clear (which is why I was asking for confirmation first). The sentence you just provided is for describing his views more than anything (#2). The misconceptions language really belongs in #1 describing the actual outreach activities like I mentioned previously. The views in #2 should reflect the Views section mainly on how to handle the disconnect between science and public understanding. The misconceptions language has really only been discussed in the context of his program, whereas his actual views summarized in the article are a bit different than just saying he critcizes misconceptions on GMOs. I'm letting #3 (email controversy) be for now to focus on these two ideas. Is that making sense as to what things I'm looking at? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are treating this as three sub-topics, and I understand what the three sub-topics are, and I am fine with covering those three sub-topics. But, given that we actually ought to come up with some wording for the page, it seems to me that, if I label each of those three sub-topics in what I have been trying to discuss, then we get:

(1) Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. (2) Folta criticizes what he says are misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and (3) has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections.

or:

(1) Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. (2) Folta criticizes what he sees as misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and (3) has faced controversy over what his critics see as his industry connections.

What I am not getting is why you seem to be unwilling to address why what I just labeled as (2) should not be what we say for (2). You still have not addressed that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I did address it above (not trying to be obtuse or anything here, so please keep questions coming something isn't clear). The misconceptions language belongs in 1. for describing his program (see the conversation with SageRad below). It also doesn't belong in 2. because that is not an accurate summary of that section of this article, and it ties together 2 and 3 too much to make them appear as competing ideas like we would see with a piece of content with dueling and equal sources. It's the comparison insinuated with 2 and 3 I'm seeing as another issue that doesn't quite reflect the body. A summary lede on Folta's views according to the current version of this article would be something similar to:

(2) Folta believes public awareness is needed to address a disconnect between science and public understanding, and he also believes demonstrating the scientific consensus of genetically modified foods, similar to other controversial topics such as climate change and vaccines, requires working to not alienate the public audience. (3) (Lede content on email controversy) . . .

I didn't include that when I first was working on the lede because I wanted to keep things short, but if we're going to describe his actual views, it will be something close to this as far as main points covered. Do you see where I'm seeing a disconnect between this an some recently proposed ledes discussing his views? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing the point of that, and I'm getting close to taking this page off of my watchlist. All your version of (2) does is make it a lot more verbose, and a lot less likely to get consensus from the editors who disagree with you. I do not agree with your arguments about (2) and (3) not properly being presented as two sides to a controversy. I do agree to some extent that (3) isn't really "equal" to (2), but that seems to me to be "equal" in the WP:RGW sense of the word. In other words, I'm complaining that you are trying to use the lead to say that the people behind (3) are wrong. I don't think we can properly do that in Wikipedia's voice. The reality is that, as of now, the controversy exists at the level of a controversy where what I proposed seems to me to be WP:DUE, whereas either a lengthy passage in the lead about the FOIA request (like the one that I deleted) or a lengthy disquisition on why Folta is better than his critics do not belong. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wait, where is the comment that I'm trying to use 2 to make claims about 3 coming from? I'm saying to deal with 2 and 3 separately. The whole point of my focus on 2 is that if we are going to describe Folta's views in the lede, we should be summarizing that section in the article per WP:LEDE as there are more to his views than just GMOs (outreach, etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did not actually say that you are trying to use 2 to make claims about 3. But I do think that your proposed version of 2 goes on at too much length about what Folta believes, and that you will not get consensus to implement the lead that way. I get it that you want to deal with 2 and 3 separately, and I said that I disagree with you. The critics in 3 are criticizing him in relation to his positions in 2, in relation to what they allege are his industry ties pertaining to 2. You seem to me to be insisting on a needlessly wordy lead, for no good reason. On the other hand, I'm receptive to including more of his views beyond GMOs, because I think that's a good point, since he has a broader range of interests. But we can still work with that, without making it overly complicated. I'll illustrate that, sans the numbering:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. He seeks to increase public awareness of scientific consensus, and to counteract public alienation from science. Folta also criticizes what he says are (/sees as) misconceptions surrounding genetically modified organisms, and has faced controversy over what his critics say are (/see as) his industry connections.

Does that work for you? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to verbosity, my last quote was meant more to outline the other concepts within his views to cover, not a proposed lede. Focusing on misconceptions about GMOs alone is a bit undue weight looking at the views section and is not something specifically outlined in the article. How about dropping the misconceptions phrase and just having:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. He seeks to increase public awareness of scientific consensus and to counteract public alienation from science on topics. He has faced controversy over what his critics say are (/see as) his industry connections.

That addresses concerns I have over 1 and 2. I think 3 does need some work with additional weighting when you look at how the email controversy section is laid out, but I'm leaving that one be for now to focus on these other improvements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, good, thanks. Now I think we have worked out where we were misunderstanding each other. Yes, I could work with that. My one concern is "on topics" at the end of the second sentence. Is that a typo, or do you mean that there would be a list of topics there? If the latter, I would want that list to be brief. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops, typo there. I intended to have "on topics deleted. I originally had "on topics such as genetically modified organisms" in there to show GMOs are just one example. I removed it since it was a bit redundant since we mention biotech earlier in the lede. I'm fine with including that if someone wants to, but I wanted to keep it brief. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good! Let's work with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, note that there is a whole section of this talk page that begins with a discussion of the use of "misconceptions" in this way and how it contains an implicit POV in how it uses Wikivoice. Several editors have agreed on this. SageRad (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to that entire section in my comment about a POV not being demonstrated. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are aware of the very section in which several editors who have been active on this discussion expressed agreement that using the word "misconceptions" in Wikivoice in that way is indeed POV pushing, and yet you conclude that a POV is not demonstrated by that discussion? I don't really understand how you do that. Above you cite "just don't like it" (albeit in a somewhat hidden way tagged to "demonstrated") but this is not the case. People have expressed very clearly the reasons why they feel it embodies a POV in Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, yes, that is what I was referring to. There aren't reasons provided that actually indicate a point of view issue, though it is very clear quite a few editors have that opinion. We don't count votes in consensus building though. There's so much going on here in this section that it's probably better to separate out discussion on that alone if someone really does want to try to gain consensus that the terminology is somehow POV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

i think the reasoning is provided in "This language uses Wikivoice to cast things that Folta says as correct and those reckonings about biotechnology at variance with his contentions as misconceptions." I think that's fairly self-explanatory and obvious, as well. If Wikivoice uses the word "misconceptions" that casts in Wikivoice those things at variance with Folta's worldview that he may believe he is "correcting" to be wrong, by Wikivoice's assertion. That's what is meant by this sentence, as i believe that several other editors understood as well. SageRad (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a good example of where the discussion isn't addressing any POV problems. The content was simply saying that his outreach program is in part based on addressing public misconceptions on agricultural science. That is not presenting any of his specific views as truth, but simply saying that is what his program is tailored towards. He could be wrong about something and his program would still be tailored towards public misconceptions on science. It's a fact what his outreach program focuses on. It's an opinion what a specific misconception is. That was confounded in the previous conversations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

How do editors feel about:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002 and uses outreach programs to provide scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. He seeks to increase public awareness of scientific consensus and to counteract public alienation from science. He has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections.

I could support this language, and I think it might be getting close to what other editors have been looking for. In the last sentence, it would be reasonable also to change "say are" to "see as". I'm utterly neutral about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like this wording of "seeks to increase public awareness of scientific consensus and to counteract public alienation from science." That's a good neutral alternative to "misconceptions" without any implied truth. I can stand by this version. I also think "says" in this case is perfectly fine, since we're no longer doing a "his view / their view" type of thing, but simple statements of fact. Adrian^[232] (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think there is implied "truth" in the term "scientific consensus" here. That a a dynamic that's been mentioned at Arbcom as well. SageRad (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Is your concern based upon how the words "scientific consensus" are used within that sentence? If so, is there an alternative wording that you would propose? Or are you objecting to any use of the words "scientific consensus"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that the words are used to convey a position that is disputed as to what the scientific consensus actually is, or if there is a clear single consensus on this topic. This has been a lightning rod topic of discussion as i've observed it in this topic area, on some other articles. My concern is that in this topic, scientific consensus has become politicized and there has been a lot of advocacy around what is to be considered "scientific consensus" (and in this topic, the very subject of this article has been a key player, or pawn, depending on how you look at it). So, in the context of advocacy around what is scientific consensus, to reference the term in Wikivoice as an objective thing seems like trying to push a boat while you're standing on the boat. For that reason, it seems like a phrasing we'd be better off to avoid.

To put it another way, the phrasing suggested above places the notion that GMOs and agrochemicals are safe as "scientific consensus" and implies that people who question this or are concerned about risks or harms from GMOs or agrochemical are alienated from science, which is an improper characterization that i would not want to see in Wikivoice. It's too much written from the industry playbook, as i hear it. SageRad (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So then you are objecting to the phrase "scientific consensus" in general, rather than just objecting to the specific wording of the proposed language. In that case, I believe that we should go ahead with this proposal. You are entitled to your own opinion, but for us to reflect that opinion on Wikipedia would go entirely against WP:FLAT, and particularly against WP:FLAT#9. Controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been genuine controversy over this topic in this topic area, as here and here and probably 20 more links if i kept going. I'm not "teaching the controversy". This is a non-marginal controversy in the world as well as within Wikipedia. This is not like flat earth. It's not fringe. It's a significant point of view. SageRad (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose:

Folta has been active as a science communicator since 2002; he uses outreach programs to increase public awareness by providing scientific information about agriculture and biotechnology. Folta has faced controversy over what his critics say are his industry connections.

No need for that additional sentence about consensus and alienation - that is adequately covered by the first sentence, as modified by my proposal. This is watering down the email controversy since that is what has propelled him into notability, but it's a compromise. Minor4th 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This kind of takes us around in circles, to something close to what I also had been proposing earlier. Kingofaces wanted us to have more emphasis on what Folta does, and that is what led to the middle sentence. I think that, because this is a BLP about Folta, it is appropriate to give weight to what Folta does. To some extent, this new suggestion accomplishes that by saying that "he uses outreach programs to increase public awareness", which is different than earlier versions. Maybe that's enough. But I also see zero merit to objecting to using the words "scientific consensus", so that makes me hesitate to take it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree on the zero merit comment. There isn't any reason for removing such words because we are both describing what he does and what his point of view is that makes him notable as an academic. I've indicated earlier that I thought the last sentence will probably need some work in the future, but it's at least a starting sentence for now. I think it's pretty fair to say we've got a rough consensus for this version at this point looking over comments in this current subsection (i.e. by reasons provided, not number of opposing editors). Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have replied elsewhere in this thread regarding the "scientific consensus" wording, so i hope that gives a sense of the reasons why i object to it. It's been a contentious topic in this whole topic area of GMOs and agrochemicals, and for good reason (not for fringe or Flat Earth-y reasons). It's a real thing, and we need to take it seriously. You may see both "zero merit" to this, but i am saying it because i see a lot of merit to it. I'm not saying it for nothing. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clear, when you say "this version", I think that you are referring to what is directly below where it says "arbitrary break 2". I agree. I think that there are no valid, policy-based objections to it, and that we are getting to the point where this discussion cannot keep going on forever. Based upon what is at my user talk, I expect a decision from ArbCom within the next 24 hours, and after that, we should probably wrap this up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I was referring to just below arbitrary break 2 when I mentioned this subsection if it wasn't clear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say that talk of this nature about ArbCom is suggestively threatening and chilling... we all know what that means. Do you really think that is in the spirit of Wikipedia, or intellectual honesty and interpersonal respect?

Note that we do have content-specific objections to the use of the phrase "scientific consensus" in a way that is implied to be synonymous with what Kevin Folta was advocating for. (Note also that he's no longer advocating, so we could use past tense.)

I am WP:HERE for genuine reasons, and i am not pushing a point of view. I am pushing againstusing Wikivoice to embody a specific point of view that is not shared by everyone, and is genuinely controversial. Let's keep that clear. SageRad (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed summary of NY Times article

Again, because this has been a contentious article, i am explaining this edit i made to change the summary of the NY Times article regarding the controversy.

It used to say, "scientists such as Folta had received money in special grants from Monsanto to help with biotechnology outreach and to travel around the country to defend genetically modified foods".

I changed it to, "Monsanto had enlisted scientists including Folta to use their apparently independent voices to advocate for public perception and policy favorable to the industry."

Upon reading the extended article and looking through the 170 pages of emails in the supporting document linked to the article, this is much closer to an accurate summary of the article's main point as it relates to Folta, and its assessment of the significance of the findings about Folta, in the bigger picture. SageRad (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Adrian232 made four edits to this text in two diffs. In this one are two changes. Let me explain why they're not really accurate.

"Academics" is alright, and agrees with the headline of the article, but the real point of the article and the accompanying annotated document is that independent scientists are the "white hats" that Monsanto was seeking with this PR campaign. The note on page 84 of the annotated document linked by the article says "Here is praise for Dr. Folta for his work on this commentary piece, which was placed by the industry, including a reference to the "white hat" role scientists and others play in the debate."

Changing "perception and policy favorable to the industry" to "perception and policy that appeared favorable to the industry": The article and the accompanying annotated document make it clear that the policies and perceptions being pushed for by the campaign are indeed thought by the industry to be favorable to the industry, and that's why they're pushing for them.

In this edit Adrian232 made two other changes. Let me explain why they're not right:

"Monsanto" to "the agriculture industry": It actually is Monsanto being the prime actor here, and the article and the supporting document supports this very. very well. Let's be accurate.

Removal of "apparent": The other word i considered using was "perceived". It is clear that the article makes the point that it is the perceived independence of the scientists being recruited that makes them valuable. The article also strongly suggests that once they're involved to this degree with Monsanto, they are no longer actually independent. I wrote this content with care to be accurate to the source, and these are issues that i have with the edits. SageRad (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The NYT article makes it very clear that there are several actors within a common industry here. In the article it's referred to as the "food industry", but I don't know how that is necessarily distinct from the "agriculture industry", which I decided to use because it seems more clear. In the NYT article a significant section is devoted to Benbrook, as being someone who was recruited by the organic food industry. The accompanying documents are in supplement to the article as a whole and are a primary source, while the NYT article is a secondary source evaluating these documents in context. It would be better to base these statements on a secondary source than to go cherry-picking through primary sources. When summarizing what the article says in a general sense, rather than a specific point the article made, it's not appropriate to exclude a significant portion of the article.

My reasoning for "appeared favorable to the industry" is to give attribution to the "favorable to the industry" to the industry, as we cannot state whether some action is "favorable to industry X" in wikivoice.

To your last point, the word "independent" is never used outside of quotes in the article. The reason I changed this to being in quotes is because the author is not having any opinion or view about the independence of the scientists. It's not an opinion piece. Adding "perceived" isn't clear who is perceiving what, and could be seen as Wikipedia supporting the POV that they are not independent scientists. Adrian^[232] (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Perceived" makes it clear that the intention of using scientists like Folta to message to the public and to government is to use people with "white hats" (their phrase) who have the perceived image of being independent scientists. That is supported by the sources, and it reflects the intentions of the PR effort by Monsanto and Ketchum and the like, as evidence by the sources. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources Supporting FOIA request

Ralph Nader is not the only voice of support besides USRTK for these FOIA requests, although our article would have you believe otherwise. This is non neutral. For the sake of NPOV and accuracy, I suggest adding the following:

• Here is an Op-ed in the LATimes where scientists defend transparency:

Besides, sometimes the bullies have a point. A few months back, the Union of Concerned Scientists called out a small nonprofit funded by organic food growers for sending FOIA requests to several dozen pro-GMO scientists; it claimed that the requests were inappropriate and implied that they constituted harassment. But these emails revealed that at least one of the scientists, Kevin Folta, had some of his expenses picked up by Monsanto, despite claiming that he had "nothing to do" with the company.

And this, in PLOS:

Last week, Nature reported that the University of Florida had provided them with emails that U.S. Right to Know had FOIA’d on one of their researchers. Written by the same journalist who had reported on the FOIA request previously for Science, the story noted that the researcher has received money from Monsanto to fund expenses incurred while giving educational talks on GMOs. The article also noted that the PR Firm Ketchum had provided the scientist with canned answers to respond to GMO critics, although it is unclear if he used them.

The article does not report that the scientist has repeatedly denied having a financial relationship with Monsanto. The article also does not report on an email titled “CONFIDENTIAL: Coalition Update” from the researcher to Monsanto in which the scientist advised Monsanto on ways to defeat a political campaign in California to require labeling of GMO products. petrarchan47คุก 07:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The LA Times op-ed was written by journalists, not scientists in any sense of the word. The PLOS blog was retracted by the editor, and for very good reason. Adrian^[232] 07:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

He apparently was caught in a fabrication, and it really doesn't matter whether journalists or scientists point out that fact. Maybe we can make this a moot point and delete this article altogether; he's only known for this one incident. My own brother received more coverage for his research just this week than Folta has. And I would never consider making a WP page for him. Folta was famous for a second, not for his science, but for getting caught. He said he had no association with Monsanto, but he did. That's a fact, but it doesn't mean that we should have a WP page for him. petrarchan47คุก 10:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"But they're just journalists"

Paul D. Thacker is a journalist and consultant, and a former staffer in the United States Senate where he worked on scientific integrity, including passage of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. He is a Board Member of the James Madison Project, which provides advice and litigation support on Freedom of Information Act requests.

Charles Seife is a journalist and professor of journalism at New York University. He often uses the Freedom of Information Act as a means of investigating issues related to research misconduct and good clinical practice, and is currently suing the Food and Drug Administration for the release of documents related to the scientific integrity of clinical trials.* petrarchan47คุก 23:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD? PROD?

I just spent some time looking at the history of this page and checking cites and sources. It is true that this guy's notability is derived from the email controversy and not for his research or academia. In the section about his research, it is largely self sourced to Folta's blog and primary sources authored by Folta. There are a couple of sources that completely fail WP:V and WP:RS (e.g. Decoded science), with some OR/SYNTH thrown in.

The only notable and reliably sourced content is about the FOIA request and the email revelations. Yet the article's lede does not even mention it, and the body of the article presents the material mostly as an apologetic of Folta and biotech -again sourced to blogs and Folta's self published response (which I don't have a problem with). The issue is really more about Monsanto than it is about Folta.

As for requiring sources about the controversy be excluded unless they are authored by scientists, that's patent nonsense. It doesn't take a chemistry degree to understand PR.

I am considering prodding the article unless editors can come up with reliable sources for the content which appears to be non-notable. I suggest the COI content be merged into one of the broader Monsanto articles - as the issue of independence and academics' relations with Monsanta involves scientists other than Folta. Plus, the content can be written much better and in a way that makes clear that Folta's views are actually his own, and Monsanto capitalized on those views because they liked what he was saying. Minor4th 14:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

About PROD, given the complication of the dispute resolution that is going on, and the accompanying strong opinions among editors, I'm pretty sure that a PROD would be rapidly contested, and therefore would not accomplish much. On the other hand, there is certainly a case to be made for an AfD discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of those claims don't hold up when you look at the actual sources (either Folta's notability as an academic or the email controversy centered around him). I've seen less notable academics have AfD's fail, and pushing the content over to Monsanto would result in a WP:COATRACK. I wouldn't see harm in a nomination to establish notability, but it's probably best to let the dust settle from ArbCom first with the resolution on that coming up relatively soon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the most important consideration right now is that it is best to take things slowly, rather than to make any hasty decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I meant AfD, not PROD. And yes, KoA, the claims do hold up if you actually look at the sources I mentioned and all of the sources cited. I was not thinking of doing anything immediately or even soon - but if editors want to keep the article or keep the content about Folta's research then they need to come up with some better sources. Minor4th 21:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that only scientists be used for expert opinions here. As you see, we currently have Nader who is well-noted as an environmental policy expert. I only meant that petrarchan calling them "scientists" is incorrect. Those two are journalists who frequently work together, and who also authored the retracted PLOS blog post I might add. Whether they are experts on the subject and their opinion here is WP:DUE is still up for debate. Adrian^[232] 23:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "COI content [should be] be merged into one of the broader Monsanto articles"

Minor, you have my full support.

This article became a collection of criticisms regarding transparency and FOIA requests. Perhaps a new article should be created from this content (if we could perhaps mention both sides) on the controversy surrounding "sunshine" and science. petrarchan47คุก 23:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)