Talk:Regulation of genetically modified organisms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section Order[edit]

A editor wants the sections to be in alphabetical order. The three comments used in the edit summaries were "sorted the countries into a better order with ection nesting", "Having the sction in alpha order is better" and "It helps prevent systemic bias, and the dominance of the US is expalned in the History section. I did other changes to improve the article as well". The only reason given is that it prevents systemic bias. I don't follow that reasoning as enforcing an alphabetical order will encourage systemic bias as the order will always be the same for articles separated by continents. The previous order first mentioned the USA as they are the largest producer of GM crops, then Europe as they have the strictest regulations. This order seems logical to me and I have found no other policies that say sections need to be sorted into alphabetical order. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An alphabetic order ensures that, taking a world-wide view, countries are treated equally. Anybody reading the text can work out those things that are important. For you the important issues are clearly the quantities of GM crops grown and the level of regulation, but your view should not colour the structure of the article. Your response on my talk page was very redolent of ownership, an approach which is best avoided.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I was the editor that changed it to and alphabetical order. The original heading nesting by country and continent was quite illogical as Veletta pointed out in his/her ediit summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the African system is modeled on the US one. So it makes sense to explain that before the African one. How does alphabetizing it make all countries equal. It puts those starting with A consistently ahead of those starting with Z. It also forces an order that may not work for every article. Surely the best order is the one that is the most use to the reader. I spent hours researching and writing an article and then someone makes mass changes to it without even bothering to discuss it on the talk page and I am accused of ownership when I ask them to discuss it. Now Alan has just stripped it and not even bothered to come here. No wonder there is a growing gap between content contributors and everyone else around here. AIRcorn (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I would like to reiterate Veletta's point about ownership. This is a wiki and whatever we do here is always subject to scrutiny. If other editors do not agree with the edits that we make than we have to find a consensus position. Perhaps I should apologise for my lack of communication prior to making the recent, major edits. I did the edits boldly because I felt that it really was the right thing to do. Note that the information is not lost - it is simply transferred to what I think is a better place. By the way, I know quite well the amount of time needed to write article content.
Getting back to the issue of section contents and order, I made the changes for a number of reasons. Firstly, having them in alpha order avoids systemic bias, obviates the need to make possibly subjective decisions about which is the most important section and lastly I split them into sections based on legal jurisdiction. Prior to my changes Canada was lumped in with Central and South America, and New Zealand and Australia were listed in one section. Because we are talking about regulation I would like the article split into sections based on legal jurisdiction. At present there is too much stuff lumped at a continent level, which would be fine in a summary article (hmmm, maybe this should be a summary article...) but not for a decent treatment of the topic.
I made the bold split of the US regulation since there was too much detail here and the stubby Genetic engineering in the United States article was begging for more content. I even think there may actually be room for a Regulation of GMOs in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While being bold is necessary, so is discussion. This is because an edit that seems obvious to one person may not be to someone else. WP:BRD is an essay but it is good advice on how to handle situations like this.
No one has explained and I still fail to understand how alphabetical ordering prevents systemic bias. Doing this the order will always be Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania and South America, therefore we have introduced our own systemic bias. It does remove subjectivity, but I feel that is undesirable. We need to make subjective decisions when editing here all the time; deciding what information to include or exclude. It is an important part of writing an encyclopedia as it means we present the best information in the best way.
If we are going to split out sections Europe should be trimmed too. We also have to take into account WP:Undue. The New Zealand section is now the same length as the USA one. Also when splitting you might want to use a {{copied}} template to maintain attribution. AIRcorn (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having alphabetical order may give a perception that there is no bias. It is due entirely due to the demographics of WP editors and the inherent bias that we have. Enforcing alphabetical order when appropriate is tidier and easer for the reader to find a specific country (or continent). All to often I come across articles which list the US first for no good reason.
WP:UNDUE is more applicable to contentious subjects that have a small but vocal alternative POV, rather than being used for a list of facts about regulation such as this article. Having said that there should be at least some relationship between the size of the sections and the importance of the topic. If nothing else it will show that the research for the article has been done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about doing the summary style article you mentioned above. Keeping everything to continents with two to three paragraphs for each. Europe and North America will link to Genetic Engineering in USA/Europe pages, which will go into more country specific details and non-regulatory stuff. As Asia, Africa and the others expand we can split them into more specific pages too. More general sections could be added. A section detailing the politics/differing viewpoints between USA and Europe would be useful. One of the interesting things about regulation is that these two regions have such differing views on GMO's and how they should be regulated. I have read papers that explore why so there should be enough information to write a paragraph or two. There could be other non-country specific sections that could be added too. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

listing scientists' affiliation in the lede[edit]

hi there has been some action in the lede, with folks wanting to add a list of affiliation of "some scientists" who are not convinced that GMOs are safe enough. I reverted, and was re-reverted. Rather than go edit-war, let's discuss. Comment on reverting my reversion was "Omission renders a bias when the reference explicitly defines 'some scientists'. Your changes ultimately redefine the effect of this statement" Here are the problems I see with listing and with the justification for undeleting:
1) There are indeed a number of scientists who think that GMOs are not safe enough. They are at many different institutions. Why just list those 3?
2) It seems to me that the only reason to add the list of institutions, and those three, is that they sound mighty prestigious, and the goal of adding them is to try to give more weight to the "side" that says that GMOs are not safe enough. This is inherently argumentative. (adding them is argumentative -- they were not there, and they were added today. So my changes do not "redefine the effect of this statement" -- they kept the statement what it was, a simple statement. Not an argument on one side or other of the debate). There is an entire, very lengthy, article on controversy that gives lots of space to the arguments that GMOs are not safe enough. Why do you want to insert the controversy here?
3) it is also somewhat misleading, since it gives a fast reader the impression that these institutions all are anti-GMO. Which they are not. Some scientists are.
4) Most importantly, and really most importantly -- This article is not about the controversy - it is about regulation, which is a topic worthy of its own, clear discussion. The lede already makes it very clear that there is controversy and the immediate next sentence refers the reader to the controversy article to learn about it. The lede should be about the topic of the article, not about the topic of a different article.

Those are the reasons why I think the list of institutions doesn't belong in this article. Please, be reasonable and let's not fight the controversy on every page that touches on GE. I look forward to hearing from you!Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions Jytdog. I agree that the controversy should be well defined in the appropriate article and less so here. The concern did not stem from specific institutions (WHO, AMA, NAS), but rather the absence of entities. The statement gave an impression, an unfair comparison when "broad scientific consensus" was merely compared to "some scientists". I believe your resolution is fairly weighted. Grshpr09 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Glad we came to agreement!Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genetically modified organisms-related articles[edit]

The articles this discussion should concern:

The concept of genetically modifying organisms (especially crops/food) is a fairly controversial topic, so I would imagine that the articles get a fair amount of visitors. That said, I want to point out some issues to the articles that could be fixed. I've assigned numbers to each suggestion/issue, so that they can be discussed in separate sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs)

Quick comment. I have been checking page hits
First as a reality check
the Katy Perry article avg is about 17,000 hits per day http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/katy%20perry
More seriously the article on China has about 20,000 hits a day http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/china
Of the articles you mention....
GM foods is highest ballpark avg 2200 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20food
GM organisms avg is about 2000 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20organism
genetic engineering is about 2000 as well http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetic%20engineering
GM food controversies has been big of late but still avg only about 1000 hits (recent increase may be Seralini press release, California referendum.. I'd like to think it is because I have concentrated information there
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20food%20controversies
GM crops is pretty small, maybe 500 average. As I note below, I don't think people actually care about agriculture.
They care about food and the contoversies. Right?
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20crops
Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms is the smallest, maybe 70. I think the title of this article is terrible but have not tackled renaming it.
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Regulation%20of%20the%20release%20of%20genetic%20modified%20organisms
The title name is fine. There are regulations that govern approval to work with GM organisms and regulations that set the protocols and restrictions while they are being developed and tested. This article is about the regulations governing the release of these organism into the environment. I was working on a parent article and will release it (unfinished most likely) to mainspace soon. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So.. not sure if that meets your idea of "fair number of visitors". :) Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly my dear... If an article gets 10 hits a day on average IMO it earns its place in WP. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid rag. Not every word in a dictionary gets looked up every single day, and some of the most valuable entries are exactly the entries that one has difficulty finding anywhere else, sometimes because nowhere else bothers to publish them. Let's not fall into the trap of "I wish people would stop pestering us for X; we don't stock X; there is no demand for it!" As long as we can produce articles with intrinsic substance and significance and with a decent presentation of information and relevance, our only reaction to a low hit count should be to check whether it could be better presented to strike the eye of potential readers. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sarcasm my dear! I think you misunderstood my point. I have spent hours working on these pages - I want them to accurate because I believe wikipedia should always be excellent, regardless of whether the topic is "popular". You got more to my point with your last remark - and that is, how used are these pages? Relative to "popular" topics, and relevant to each other? Why is the regulation article - the one I would hope people read and learn about a lot, so rarely consulted? And my comment about "not sure if that meets you definition of fair number" - I really meant that - I have no idea what Yutsi had in mind when he said that. I like data and hard numbers so I put them out there.Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crossed wires my dear, I suspect. The nearest I came to deliberate acerbity was in rejecting any idea that a low hit rate was a priori a basis for questioning the justification for an article's existence. Sure, if large numbers of people read important topics, that looks good and we should aim for it, but for a lot of really vital technical topics it is fashionable to raise Cain chanting meaningless slogans in the streets, but God forbid that anyone should actually take time learning what it really is all about. (GMO-hatred is not the only such topic, mind you!)



Issue 1[edit]

hi read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purebuzzin (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. I just read the WP:SELFREF and I don't agree that anything here violates it. It is 100% OK to say "this article refers to X" What is not OK, is to write, "This Wikipedia article refers to X". That does not occur. The policy also teaches away from self-references that would not work in other media, for instance, in print. None of the instances do that either. So I disagree that anything violates WP:SELFREF. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for raising these issues. I have done a lot of work on this suite of articles over the past few months. When I came upon them, they were a real mess. By "mess" I mean things like:
(i) the same matter was discussed across all these pages. At great length, sometimes verbatim but often one stretching out randomly in X direction and another in Y direction. Most of the overlapping material concerned the controversy - namely, people emphasizing studies, especially from the Seralini group, that endeavored to show that GM food is very risky and regulators as not being strict enough.
(ii) the same study would be cited three or more times in a given article, described differently and with the reference formatted differently, making it appear that there were many more studies than there actually were.
(iii) there was not a lot of actual content. For instance there was really nothing about how farmers use GM crops or why they matter to farmers. But farmers are the ones actually buying the GM seed and using them. And the GM food article, remarkably, said almost nothing about what food you find in the store is GM. Again, remarkable.
I think that the articles were messy for three reasons:
a) fact: there is a set of people, anti-GM people, who are emotional about these issues. They are worried and angry and want other people to be motivated to help change the current system. (I still don't know much about the demographics or size of that group. Something on my "to-research" list)
b) fact: There are a few "segments" of material, each of which is fairly complex in and of itself, that read on each other, again in complex ways. The 'segments' can be divided up as the articles are -- the underlying science (genetic engineering article); broad examples of application of genetic enginering (GMO article); agriculture (GM Crops); what you actually might eat (GM Food), regulation of GMOs and food (regulation), and the whole controversy (which touches on all those and more).
c) judgement by me: a lot of the people (not all!) who are the most emotional, and most motivated to edit wikipedia, especially in what I call 'drive by" editing (don't have a logon but edit from an IP address, one or two times maybe) are also (gulp) ignorant about a lot of the complex matter. I don't mean "ignorant" pejoratively, just that they don't know stuff and I don't think they care to know. (see iii above) There is also a lot of half truth "information" about these matters that is passed around in that community. For example, much online discussion of Monsanto vs Schmeiser is wrong - and was wrong in several places in Wikipedia.
Therefore, when I cleaned these articles up by separating matter, getting NPOV sources, editing POV text to make it NPOV, etc, I tried to also signal very very explicitly to readers and editors what they could expect to find in a given article. This is to try to help prevent readers from expecting to find -- or wanting to add -- something about environmental damage from GM Crops in the article on GM Foods. The way things are configured now, nothing about environmental pros or cons of GM crops belongs in the GM food article, because that article is about actual GM food - the stuff you eat. What is GM food, exactly? That is what you should have learned after reading the GM article. And you should know that there are articles on other, complicated matters, that you need to read as well if you want to understand the whole picture.
I realize that this explicit guiding language is not normal wiki style. But because of the above, I think is essential to retain these explicit guideposts. Otherwise the articles will moosh back together again.
Two regular wiki editors, arc de ciel, and aircorn, have also raised concerns about this as well -- see User_talk:Jytdog#CommentJytdog (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated at Jytdogs talk page, I would prefer hatnotes to refer to different articles on similar topics. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another user, Semitransgenic has objected to this paragraph - deleting it and noting "remove editorial remarks, use dablinks at the top of the page to tell readers of other relevant content". Happy to see a proposed example!Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support this kind of in-article editorialising, dablinks (hatnotes), or an infobox would be a better method, the tone of the lead in general needs addressing. Semitransgenic talk. 15:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not editorializing in the sense of giving an opinion. If you want to provide sample hatnotes I would be very interested to see them! What do you mean by "tone"?Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
starting a paragraph with words like "nonetheless" etc. veers towards MOS:OPED. Lead prose should ideally be pragmatic, just provide an accurate summary of the key/notable content found in the main body of text. Semitransgenic talk. 16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else could we get an answer to this issue. The paragraphs that this concerns are these ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK with how this was handled at Genetically modified food controversies if you want to implement, aircornJytdog (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It is not looking like this is going to be closed soon. AIRcorn (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 2[edit]

  • To the extent that these sections remain, I agree that they could be sorted that way - it would be better. In general I have tried to eliminate these sections, slowly, making sure that the matter is incorporated into the suite of articles. I understand that this is best under the MOS.Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links sections should be trimmed to just websites that contain an overview of the whole topic (i.e a website about GM mice should be on the GM mouse page, but is not needed on the GM organism one) but are not suitable for inclusion in the page itself (i.e a large list of GM crops like here. The less the better in my opinion and would be more than happy to see them trimmed. I however do not think that they should be separated based on their alignment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 3[edit]

  • I don't really understand this point. Perhaps you could explain better. My POV: People's concerns about GM food are what drove the mess and what drives a lot of the ongoing editing. I have done my best to carefully sort things out. In my mind, GM food per se (what is it?) should be handled in the GM food article, and controversy around it (and many other surrounding issues), in the controversy article. Regulation of it and GMOs that produce it, in the regulation article. Crops that produce it (and other things) in the GM crops article. GMOs in general, and genetic engineering in general, in those articles. These topics are inter-related, for sure. They need to mention and reference each other. But the topics are separable. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some overlap is inevitable, but it should be reduced as much as is practicably possible. I don't particularly like controversy sections in articles and would rather see the issues mentioned in the appropriate section. Although I concede that this might be hard to maintain in these articles. What should happen if we have a controversy article is that the GM food should have a controversies section linked with a main template to the controversies article. It should include a couple of paragraphs outlining or summarising the main points associated with food. The GM crops should have the same except its paragraphs should focus more on crops and so on. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hard thing about your proposal, aircorn, is that opponents of GM food very rarely have a single focus and it is very hard to sort out the "heart" of many objections. Many seem to care most about industrial agriculture (many angles on this... so-called "corporate control of the food supply", messing with "nature", chemical use, etc. Others really seem to care about riskiness of the food they eat. Others seem more focused on corruption of regulatory agencies. And all those issues very much overlap and feed into each other. And there are problems that touch on everything. The key issue can be broadly captured under the rubric of gene flow/contamination. People worry about gene flow from GM crops to other crops and to weeds (environmental concerns and food-safety concerns, especially with pharming crops, and economic concerns for organic farmers); people worry about harvested crops being mixed (a la starlink); people worry about litigation from gene flow or contamination (mostly based on misunderstandings of Monsanto v Schmeiser). So I ended up with one big honking controversies article. Happy to hear thoughts about how to rationally separate!!13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Answered below AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 4[edit]

  • No objection! Except that no article exists on genetically modified animals. Your link above points to an external links section in the GMO article.. strange. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not move that article, if any should be move it is Genetically modified mammals with fish, insects, etc added as sub sections. AIRcorn (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this points, to me, to one article one main article on GMOs with subarticles to the various ... biological kingdoms maybe?? Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 5[edit]

  • I disagree very strongly. People care about what they eat -- what goes into their bodies. GM Foods needs its own article. GM Crops are agriculture -- most of the information you need to know in order to understand them, has nothing to do with food. Much of the material now in the GM crops article was originally in the GM foods article and I pulled it out and put into the GM crops article, and then expanded it. It still needs more expansion in some sections as noted in the article. Farmers don't buy GM seed, thinking about food. They buy them because they make sense to farmers as businessmen. The companies don't make GM seed, thinking about food. They make them so that their customers --farmers -- will buy them. It's agribusiness. It's not about food. (I am not saying that is a good or bad thing -- no moral judgement - it is just the way the world is). It is absolutely true that the companies have to satisfy regulators in order to do business, because some (but not even most) of the product directly becomes food and so it must be safe enough to eat. Most of the product goes to feed livestock and poultry (which then become food). Much of the product is used industrially and never becomes food (cotton, corn for biofuel, potatoes for starch used industrially. etc). It is true that some GM crops used directly as food have failed because farmers' customers didn't want to buy it as food (the New Leaf potato failed because farmers' target customer, McDonald's, didn't want GM potatoes for french fries, even though they satisfied Americans' desire for perfect-looking, unblemished food). But GM crops is its own topic. Look how long that article is already! And the GM foods article also requires expansion itself.. not even close to describing all the food you find in the store that is GM.Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them separate. Not all crops are food (cotton is one of the most common GM crops and it is a stretch to label it food, plus you have Amflora and biofuels that are being developed) and with the development of the GM salmon soon not all food are not going to be crops. It still needs some work separating the two, but the crop/food split is a good one at my mind. I would bring back the GM plant article at some stage too, and make it a parent one of the crop one for much the same reasons, there are some important GM plants used in research that are not and never will be grown as crops. AIRcorn (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no quarrel with most of your points and the proposed separations of topics seem reasonable to me, but I am mildly puzzled as to why you exclude cotton from food plants as a topic. I don't eat much fabric or cotton wool myself, any more than I can help anyway, but I have eaten a lot of foods prepared or canned in cottonseed oil and have probably eaten more products of cottonseed cake than I know about directly, and a good deal more meat from animals that have eaten large quantities of cottonseed cake. Once you remove the gossypol, either artificially, or genetically, cotton is quite an important food plant. And beware what you say about hemp and poppies too! Just an obiter dictum... JonRichfield (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not too familiar with cottonseed oil, although I knew it existed. I mostly think of cotton as the fibre. Cotton would probably have to be mentioned in both articles, along with maize and the other food crops. Am working on organising a kind of heirachy now, so hopefully we can get the split better organised. There needs to be a Genetically modified cotton article created, plus one for tobacco, Arabidopsis and other important plants. AIRcorn (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That is the sort of thing I had in mind in my comment below when I spoke of "adjusting or even radically changing the suite of articles in the light of matters emerging..." JonRichfield (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John! I am very aware that cotton is used to make cottonseed oil -- in fact I have been trying to get the Andrew Weil website to change its stupid page on cottonseed oil which is not accurate. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400361/Is-Cottonseed-Oil-Okay.html See the Cottonseed_oil#Concerns_about_fats_and_toxicity that I edited to make accurate. And I do list cottonseed oil in the Genetically modified food article. In my comments above, I was not trying to exclude the use of cottonseed oil as food; I was just making the point that the cotton from GM cotton plants -- along with many other products of GM crops -- are not used for food. Sorry to have created a misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. All such misunderstandings should only be so easily fixable ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To forestall almost inevitable accusations of POV, if not actual corruption by evil multinationals, I have no material, contractual, or commercial interest in any form of GM that I know about. Idealistically and intellectually I am deeply interested in the matter and deeply alarmed and disgusted at such examples as I have seen so far of, for example, large scale plantings of crops with genes for defensive production of single substances for pest control; such abuses rank with the early days of misapplication of antibiotics, both in human medicine and in agricultural and veterinary practice.
Interesting comment! I like the comparison with antibiotics. GM seed with stacked traits are now 25% of the market and growing steadily (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp), so things are snapping into a line of intelligent use quickly....Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was not aware of that trend. It is encouraging, though of course it is just a hint at the depth of responsibility that we bear when tinkering with such powerful tools. If we are not careful we shall simply turn a vital biotechnological opportunity into an exercise in the fostering of super-pests. JonRichfield (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said however, I regard GM as a field on a par with computing, the control of fire, printing, and the development of modern science in terms of historical importance for the future. There is no way that we could rationally justify ignoring or sidelining it. The question of how to present it, including how to split the topics into manageable articles is what matters, as already indicated in several of the contributions to this RFC. I have no particular quarrel with the proposed titles as presented, as long as each is coherently written and adequately cross-linked to the others. Questions such as what readers care about putting into their bodies are far less important than questions concerning the clarity and perspective of each article. Since the articles are in inevitably not independent, there must necessarily be some overlap, but this is hardly a new problem and requires no new techniques in dealing with it. Concise cross-reference plus clear reference to the main article for each topic is naturally important, but hardly challenging.
As I said, I have no quarrel with the proposed split, but I also would have no problems with adjusting or even radically changing the suite of articles in the light of matters emerging during their authorship and editing. JonRichfield (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principles in using subarticles[edit]

Hi

IMO, any time we have subarticles, there should be a standard, brief paragraph in the "head" article (ideally taken from the lede of the subarticle and edited for concision if necessary) and a link to "main", and then keep an eye on those standard paragraphs for changes so that they stay short and plain. Ideally, no statistics would be in those standard paragraphs, otherwise when new data emerges we have to go back and update the data in many places which will inevitably lead to missing things and the overall suite falling out of sync within itself and with reality. I feel that we should try hard to avoid having long sections in different articles that cover the same matter. This was the state in which I found articles within this suite several months ago and most of my work has been consolidating overlapping material into clear, NPOV, well sourced discussions. Having a suite of articles covering various aspects of complex matter is indeed common in WIkipedia, but it is also commonly handed badly IMO. For instance in the suite of evolution articles, the main evolution article has a history section that is very long (7 paragraphs that fill my screen)... and there is an entire much longer subarticle on the history (about 10x longer). I glanced over the two texts and they don't tell the same story or even use the same refs.... this is not a happy thing for an encyclopedia and we should avoid doing this. This is for me a very important principle and I hope we can discuss it. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation and consistency is the bane of Wikipedia. This seems reasonable though. AIRcorn (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry you have thrown me off.. do you mean lack of organization and consistency are the bane (i.e. a source of harm) or do you mean that pursuing them is a bad thing? sorry, i don't know you that well and this was confusing...Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was meant slightly tongue-in-cheek. Due to its nature Wikipedia tends toward inconsistent disorganisation (anyone can edit after all). It is amazing that it works as well as it does. Providing order is an admirable thing, and I will help out as much as possible, but at the end of the day you are going against the natural inertia of the project and no matter what you do, if you want to keep it organised it is going to take constant watching. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally hear you on that. :) I intend to watch for a long time. But I also want to structure things as much as possible, with explicit markers "This goes here, that goes there" - to help keep things in line.Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see you getting consensus for the self references (issue 1 here). I would suggest using the hidden text function. Simply type<!-- Add appropriate comment here -->. It will only be seen by editors when the click the edit button. See this for how it might work. AIRcorn (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(starting tabs over) Hi Aircorn... so far nobody has gone to the mat on the the self references. With respect to the objection raised in Issue 1, I wrote above, that if you read Wiki's self-reference policy, it is clear that these texts do not violate that policy. Nobody has responded to that so I assume nobody disagrees. My sense is that you and arc de ciel have objected on more stylistic grounds... but neither of you has gone to the mat on this. Is this indeed important to you?

But let's go back to the subject matter of this section. I have been trying to lay down a principle that sections for which we have big subarticles should just be very brief stubs - 1 paragraph taken from the lede of the subarticle, so that we don't end up with long, weedy descriptions of a given issue in different articles that extensively overlap with each other and with the main subarticle... which leads to inconsistencies and disorganization that you have described as a bane of wikipedia (and I heartily agree!). I thought we had kind of agreed on this... but you just recently expanded one of these stub sections with a bunch of material copied from a subarticle. So what gives? How shall we do this? I have been tempted to go into some of the articles you have created and apply this "stub principle" (for instance you have a section on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms" in your "regulation of genetic engineering" article that is my mind is waaaay too long and should be just a stub, as we have a whole article on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms") but i have held back from stubifying that section until (and only if) we reach consensus here.Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one needs to got to the mat. We have consensus so far (me, Arc and Yutsi against you so far) not to use them. Is it important to me? No other things are more important at the moment, but one day I would like to get the articles up to Good standard and that is not going to happen with those instruction paragraphs in the lead.
I think we slightly misunderstood each other above. I agree that there should only be short summaries in the head articles, but we have a disagreement over what is short. I think that there needs to be enough information in the parent article that the reader will get a good overview of each topic, they should not be obliged to go to another article to find this. They should only have to go there if they want to find more details. Basically each article should stand on its own and stubby sections are not going to allow that. Three to four paragraphs covering the regulation and controversies should be enough, but anything less and the article is going to be incomplete. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for talking! OK, on the guide paragraphs.. both Yutsi and Arc based their objection on their understanding of wiki policy, and as mentioned, I don't see how these run afoul of the self-reference policy. You seem to be basing your objection on that too, when you say that an article with these paragraphs, will never be Good. But what is the basis for that? Please explain...
Thank for zeroing in on the "stub" issue. I really appreciate it. So to you the key principle is that the article should stand on its own with respect to providing a good overview and that a compact stub is not enough. I had thought that the stub does provide an overview, but what I am hearing is that this is too high level for you -- it is not a "good" overview. So you want more of the story in all the articles. Whew that is all a tall order for complex matter like this. It helps me understand why you want longer "stubs." OK I need to think about this a bit! I will write again in a couple of days, this requires thinking and if I come into alignmnent with you, some major resetting for me. Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Good articles have a set of simple criteria that they have to meet in order to gain that status. IMO they are a great base that every article should aspire to. One of those criteria is compliance with WP:Lead, which I don't think the navigational paragraphs meet. Another one is broadness, which is why I think we need more than one paragraph stubs in important sections. AIRcorn (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really watching the articles right now, but I just wanted to confirm that the objections I raised were indeed answered. It doesn't "feel good" from my own style perspective, but I don't know of any style guideline that rules it out. Also, I think that the general organization Jytdog has put in place is a good one; as he said, my concerns were only about the way they were disambiguated. It seems that people adding the same citations repeatedly is common in this group of articles, and this organization would probably help a lot. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall structure[edit]

Let's have a focused discussion on overall structure. This is part of the topic mentioned above but only part. Let's map it out. It would be really great to do this with some kind of software that allowed us to draw things, but I am ignorant of how to do that. So I will take a shot at this using words alone.

Here is my perspective

  • genetic engineering (head article; should describe history and techniques and a high level overview of uses)´
  • GMOs - this should work be organized by the biological taxonomy of the kinds of organisms that have been modified and briefly state the purpose of the modification --> subarticles on various GMOs
  • GM crops - describes the agriculture and agribusiness of GM crops. Not about food, about crops. --> subarticles on various crops (many will be same subarticles of GMOs above)
  • GM foods - describes what foods we eat are GM. Not about agriculture, about food. This is by far the most trafficked article in the suite (fact), because people care about what they eat (opinion).
  • regulation - should be a brief, standard, subsection of each of the articles above, and describe the general principles of regulation, and provide an overview of each countries' current regs (right now lacks international agreements like Cartagena Protocol - needs to be added) --> subarticles on each country's history of regulations and international agreements
  • controversy - should be a brief, standard subsection of each of the articles above, and describe all the aspects of controversies around GM crops and GM food --> subarticles? I struggle with this. Part of my goal here is to give the full controversy full voice in one place, so that it is not inserted into every article on every genetic engineering topic, and gets clear, NPOV discussion someplace where everybody can find it.

All this done with the principle of subarticles mentioned above...Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with pretty much everything here. Although I would think you would have to cross reference food in the crops article and crops in the food one. As far as the controversies go I would have a section solely on the health concerns in GM food and one solely on the environmental concerns in the crops one. Then I would have a section over-viewing the other concerns. I think the length of the controversy section should depend on the article. GE, food, crops, plants, animal, organisms should probably get their own section with a good overview of the issues relevant to each topic and a {{main}} to the controversies article. The sub-sub articles can probably just get away with a link provided in an appropriate section (e.g. in Bt brinjal it says in the first sentence of controversies "There are many controversies surrounding the development and release of genetically modified foods, ranging from human safety and environmental impacts to ethical concerns such as corporate control of the food supply and intellectual property rights" in the lead of the controversies section). The rest of the section just details the issues with the titles topic and does not dwell on the overall controversies. For the controversies article itself I would keep the public perception as the first header, then have health concerns, environmental concerns, regulatory concerns (including labeling), religious concerns and Intellectual Property concerns (including corporate control). Most should fit into one of these broad categories. It may become necessary to split health and environment to separate articles to reduce the size. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You would have a pretty long section on controversies in (for example) the food article - in that one, focused on health. Then, again in the main controversies article, you would have another fairly long section on health (which is all about food)?Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what you mean by pretty/fairly long. I was thinking two to three, possibly four paragraphs (maybe a bit more in the controversies article). The health section in the GM controversies is well beyond fairly long already, especially if you add in Pusztai and Serilini. For example the GM food could be presented like:
  • History
    • [main to GM History]
  • Process
    • [main to GM Techniques]
  • Plant based
    • [main to GM Crops][see also to GM crops]
  • Animal based
    • [see also to GM animals]
  • Regulation
    • [main to GM Regulation]
  • Detection
  • Health concerns
    • [main to GM health concerns (if split from controversies)]
  • Other concerns
    • [main to GM controversies]

I like the smallification of text!! didn't know one could do that. Funny that you have "animal based" - there is no GM food from animals (yet). but in theory i see what you mean. But i disagree really really strongly that "GM crops" is main for plant-based GM food. GM crops is about agriculture. its not about food. why do you think gm crops is about food? more to say but that stopped me - one thing at a time!Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been see also like the animal one. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me acceptable.Fox1942 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Sentence on “broad scientific consensus” of GMO food safety fails to achieve consensus: It is time to improve it.[edit]

The Request for Comment (RfC) here created by Jytdog for the purpose of reaffirming the findings of this previous RfC on the language and sourcing of the sentence of a “broad scientific consensus” of the safety of GMO food (found in numerous articles) has closed here . There is no longer a consensus supporting the sentence. The closer stated:

Should the sentence be removed? Or maybe modified (and if so, to what)? There is no clear consensus on any particular action....Some of the opposes in this discussion appear to agree with the substance of this section but feel that the wording of the one sentence is overly broad; they might support more nuanced statements. I recommend that someone propose an alternative wording

I would also like to note that the closer of the earlier RfC made a similar recommendation:

... it may be helpful to refer to to some of the literature reviews to represent alternative views on the matter with respect to due weight.

With these recommendations in mind, I have provided a new sentence in the article and for discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food that I believe is more WP:NPOV than the original that failed to achieve consensus at the recent RfC. Because the sentence occurs at numerous articles:

I suggest we continue to consolidate talk at Talk:Genetically modified food. David Tornheim (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"add Scotland and Germany ban GMO crops"[edit]

about this added with edit note "add Scotland and Germany ban GMO crops":

In August 2015 Germany and Scotland announced to ban genetically modified crops.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Reuters (2015). "Germany starts move to ban GMO crops: ministry letter". {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ The Guardian (2015). "Scotland to issue formal ban on genetically modified crops".

Both sources talk about an intention to ban GMO cultivation per the new EU law. Neither is actually banning it. We don't know at this point if they will ban or not. If/when they do, that is definitely something to add. Right now we have two WP:CRYSTALBALL statements that are just news, and not encyclopdic content. See WP:FART. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is widely covered in mainstream media, if you don't like the current sources we can replace them, see for instance this article by Bloomberg, which reads "The German government is clear in that it seeks a nationwide cultivation ban". Also the notion that an announcement is not worthy to include here is not in line with current article content, which cites many announcements. It is also not a trivial addition as the editor implies above.prokaryotes (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to remove the content before Jytdog removed it the second time. If they actually do go through with a ban (which would be officially declared in about a month according to the source), that would be the time to add it to the article once it's official. Otherwise WP:CRYSTALBALL applies pretty relevantly here. We'll reach encyclopedic quality information at that time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom, requests for cases[edit]

A request for an Arbcom [3] case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions [4] have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An arbcom case which covers this article was closed on Dec. 12 2015. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms. Dialectric (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Ban GMOs[edit]

The Philippines bans all GMOs recently overturning existing Department of Agriculture regulations.

A petition filed on May 17, 2013 by environmental group Greenpeace Southeast Asia and farmer-scientist coalition Masipag (Magsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad ng Agrikultura) asked the appellate court to stop the planting of Bt eggplant in test fields, saying the impacts of such an undertaking to the environment, native crops and human health are still unknown. The Court of Appeals granted the petition, citing the precautionary principle stating "when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish the threat."

Reference Philippines Court of Appeals: http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/cardis/SP00013.pdf</ref>

Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration in June 2013 and on September 20, 2013 the Court of Appeals chose to uphold their May decision saying the bt talong field trials violate the people’s constitutional right to a "balanced and healthful ecology."

http://edigest.elaw.org/sites/default/files/ph.greenpeacese.pdf

http://edigest.elaw.org/sites/default/files/ph.eggplantsept2014.pdf

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 8, 2015 permanently stopped the field testing for Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) talong (eggplant), upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals which stopped the field trials for the genetically modified eggplant and also took the unprecedented step and invalidated the Department of Agriculture administrative order allowing the field testing, propagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs.

"The SC invalidates DA Administrative Order 08-2002, permanently stops field trials for BT eggplant, and temporarily halts applications for field testing, progagation and commercialization, and importation of GMOs until a new AO can be promulgated in accordance with law. (GR Nos. 209271, 209276, 209301, 209430)."

Reference official twitter account of the Philippines Supreme Court: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1so0g8g

As it is noted in the previous thread regarding Scotland but relevant here, jytdog states that "We don't know at this point if they will ban or not. If/when they do, that is definitely something to add" - here is a case where it is fact banned without question. I don't know how it could be made clearer and more fact based.

00:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

@Vergilden: The editor you reference above has been banned from the GMO articles per this recently closed ArbCom decision. Hopefully you will be able to add NPOV and RS material without the same kind of obstruction experienced from the past.
Please note that if there is any opposition to your changes, do not edit war; there is a 1RR restriction and Discretionary Sanctions on this article per this this ArbCom decision. I suggest you skim the lengthy case if you have time. The entire case is here -David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The lede does not reflect what is in the article. Specifically it does not say that regulation varies widely by country. I intend to correct it to reflect what is actually in the article. -David Tornheim (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It used to [5]. I wouldn't say widely as there is basically the USA and Europe and then everyone follows one of those two. I would suggest something closer to the original that mentions USA and Europe by name. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is that simple. Can you provide RS that backs up your claim? Also, I question the need for this edit which I will discuss separately. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is well known that the largest gulf in regulations occurs between the USA and Europe. This is probably the most interesting thing about regulation and should get a prominent mention at the start of the article. Hopefully you realise why I had to make this edit. AIRcorn (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the differences between the U.S. and Europe are the ones you see most often discussed, as in this article, but as I described in the lede, a number of countries permit no GMO's at all to be cultivated, so clearly that is not the same as the case-by-case method of the E.U. or the U.S.'s method. A number of the countries like Russia and China appear to have their own way of addressing GMO's, and then there is Lebanon, that "appears to have not yet adopted any policies or legislation, either restrictive or permissive, on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)". So basically saying each country follows one or the other model is misleading.
I do appreciate that you caught my typo of case-by-cause. Thank you.
Regarding this edit, I do disagree. It is true that this and other Wikipedia articles say that substantial equivalence is "the starting point" for assessing GM food safety, as if this is the beginning of a special process for GM food, when clearly it is not: "The United States does not have any federal legislation that is specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs)." [6]. So adding the phrase "starting point" is misleading. GM food is the same as all other "novel food". So, the lede and every other place that mentions "substantial equivalence" needs to be corrected. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has to summarise the article. So if it says it is the starting point then so must the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1st sentence of lede and Title of article[edit]

I question the need for this revision. The recent overall changes to the lede are discussed above. I have not looked extensively to see if regulation of GM research varies between countries, but it is clear that even in countries that are very restrictive of import and/or cultivation (or that ban either or both), often research is permissible. I am not sure that research should be in the first sentence, and I prefer it at the end of the paragraph. But, I do not have strong feelings on that.

A second aspect of that edit brings up an even more important question for me: Why is the title of the article not simply "Regulation of genetically modified organisms", but instead includes the words "of the release" as your edit also does? The article appears to me to be about ALL regulation of GMO's, and that a specific article about "the release" of GMO's is confusing and unnecessary (however, a separate article on labeling might be valuable). I have not looked into the history of how that title came into being. Maybe it was created at a time when there were very few GMO's and the "release" was more prominent in RS than other aspects of regulations (or lack thereof) such as labeling. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there are three parts to regulating Genetic Engineering. You first need to get permission to do the work. You are then governed by procedures when you are conducting the work. And finally you have the regulations you need to pass in order to get the product out into the world. I quickly realised when I wrote this article it was going to be dominated by the last part. So I moved it to this title and created Regulation of genetic engineering as a parent article. As far as I can tell labeling is part of the regulation (it even has its own section here). AIRcorn (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I did not even know of the existence of the article Regulation of genetic engineering. I always thought it was covered exclusively by this article. I think we really need to do the work Tsavage has spoken about to better organize these articles, because if experienced editors like myself who have spent a lot of time on the GMO articles do not know how they are organized, no way is a new reader going to understand it. I mistakenly assumed all the major articles were covered in the list provided in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Genetics/GMO_articles. Perhaps the author who listed them was not aware of some of the related articles either... I have some ideas on how to address this kind of confusion... --David Tornheim (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think of Genetic Engineering as an overview article for all the GMO/GE articles. You can even go back further and call genetic engineering a sub (or "Daughter") article of Genetics, which is a daughter article of Biology, which is a daughter article of Science and so forth. Just about every section in Genetic Engineering links to another article that expands on that section. You can see under Regulation that it contains a main link to both this article and the Regulation of genetic engineering article mentioned one above. This article itself links to country specific regulations through mains as well. It is all part of a hierarchy system all topics use so readers are not overwhelmed with information at any given article, but can also find more information easily if interested. I think it works rather well. If you want an extensive list of all GMO related articles see Category:Genetic engineering or for a easier to navigate version Template:Genetic engineering. Note that not every article will be linked there either as it still relies on editors to add them to the template or category. AIRcorn (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Discussion: proposal to change "scientific agreement" to "scientific consensus" on GMO food safety in all GMO articles[edit]

A fresh discussion has started with a proposal for revision to this sentence:

There is general scientific agreement that food from genetically modified crops is not inherently riskier to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis. [citations omitted]

to:

There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.[citations omitted]

The discussion is taking place here at at the talk page of Genetically modified crops. Please comment there. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Discussion of Rules for RfC on GMO food safety[edit]

A discussion is taking place here about a proposed RfC on GMO food safety language based on the five proposals at GM crops here. This RfC will affect language in paragraph 3 of the lede of this article. The WordsmithTalk to me and Laser brain (talk) have graciously volunteered to oversee the RfC. In addition to discussing the rules, The Wordsmith has created a proposed RfC here. This is not notice that the RfC has begun. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms[edit]

This is a notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms is open for public comment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of material not subject to RfC[edit]

@107.77.212.117: With this revert, you deleted material that I restored was not the subject of the RfC. It is further explained in this discussion. I would appreciate it if you self-reverted. I do not agree with your edit that effectively deletes material that has been in the article for many months. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, I don't think the notification/ping thing works for IP accounts (although I might be wrong). In any case, everybody, nothing here is an emergency unless editors start edit warring with one another, so please let me suggest that everyone slow down until the issues discussed at User talk:Coffee get figured out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I was never sure if the ping worked or not. Is there a proper way to Ping an IP editor other than to go to their talk page? I went ahead and put a note on the IP's talk page. Also there is discussion of the IP at my talk page: User_talk:David_Tornheim#Your_post_at_Talk:Coffee --David Tornheim (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Yes, I saw those discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Regulation of genetically modified organisms as unopposed page move. (non-admin closure) -- Yashovardhan (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms → Regulation of genetically modified organisms – Is there a reason not to prefer this more WP:CONCISE title? Or would it be better established as a redirect to Genetically modified organism#Regulation? --BDD (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure, and open to persuasion. I guess it depends on whether or not it is important to distinguish this kind of regulation from regulation of laboratories creating such organisms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement, but I'm curious how things like GM mosquitoes would throw a wrench in that. Right now I keep going back to Regulation of genetically modified organisms with the bulk of that being crops and livestock with the odd mention of things like insulin producing bacteria, pest control-based organisms, research regulation if any, etc. for minor sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we go that route we may as well merge Regulation of genetic engineering into this as regulation of genetic engineering and regulation of GMOs are essentially the same. I am not sure this is a good idea for reasons mentioned above. I know it was a bit backwards, but maybe it would be better to think of the Regulation of genetic engineering article as the main article and this one as a WP:split from that. AIRcorn (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why it didn't click before, but that framework makes perfect sense now. If we were going to do a merge, I think I'd actually rather see this article merged into Regulation of genetic engineering instead, but I think I'd be content without a merge for now. This article looks like it would need to be focused though since things like labeling don't apply to release. I'll take a gander at that at a later date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Half the trouble is that editors seem to find this one before the other and assume this is the main article. Another option could be to get rid of this article altogether. We can merge some back into the regulation one, some into Substantial equivalence and create a Labeling of genetically modified organisms article. Not sure how to handle the by continent section, but there are Genetic engineering in Hawaii, Genetic engineering in the United States, Genetic engineering in New Zealand, Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Switzerland, Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union, Genetically modified food controversies in Ghana, Biotechnology and genetic engineering in Bangladesh and maybe more. Some were splits from this article, some existed before this one, most should probably be merged and consolidated. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that readers find this page before the other one tells us something about what most readers are looking for: and it's about crops and livestock, in other words sources of foods, rather than regulation of genetic engineering broadly defined. Remember also that regulation of genetic engineering should also include regulation of potential engineering of humans. So I think it makes sense to continue to have a page about sources of foods, and there would be no problem with leaving the mosquitoes out of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not looking to remove any information, just to move it around a bit. If anything it should help readers find what they want. This was not a terribly interesting topic to write about when I started and the one editor that was most interested in this aspect of Genetic Engineering can no longer edit this area. So unless anyone else is willing to do some legwork I think our best approach would be to do a bit of rearranging and organising of what we have got and then fill in the gaps as needed. Everyone agrees that this title is not ideal and as no rename really works it might be best just to subdivide it into logical places (We could do Genetic engineering in Europe, Genetic engineering in Africa and so on to deal with the different countries). We can always start a Regulation of genetically modified food later. AIRcorn (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you about it not being worth a lot of effort at this time. Perhaps, instead of any moving around of content, it would be simpler and quicker to just rename the page for now. If no new title is perfect, we could still go with the best of a mixed lot, with the understanding that things will be polished up later. WP:There is no deadline. I think any of a couple of proposed names would be reasonably acceptable, and something of an improvement on the status quo. I think Regulation of genetically modified food would be just fine, and I also continue to like Regulation of genetically modified crops and livestock or Regulation of genetically modified crops. Let's not let the proverbial perfect be the enemy of the good-enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • I would like to ask if other editors are satisfied that this close correctly determined a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yashovardhan Dhanania: I guess no one specifically opposed the move, although I thought the discussion was leading towards other alternatives. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aircorn: I can't deny that other alternatives were also being discussed but at the time of closure, it felt that this was the most supported title. If there's a problem, I'll revert back my move or move it to the alternative proposal? Yashovardhan (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yashovardhan Dhanania: I agree with Aircorn's description. I guess the close was slightly premature, in that the discussion had been moving in the direction of other alternatives, but had not yet settled upon one alternative. But that's not the same thing as a consensus for the rename that you enacted. I don't think it's necessary for you to revert the page move, and it's not that big a deal. But what I do think needs to happen is for you to agree to a reopening of the discussion, in spite of your close. In that spirit, I'm going to start a follow-up discussion right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I have no problem with re opening of the discussion. Rather, I'll be more happy than not to perform another move if a new consensus is reached! Just ping me when there's some consensus! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-boot[edit]

It seems to me that the discussion indicated interest in, at least, the following possible renames:

  1. Regulation of genetically modified organisms
  2. Regulation of genetic engineering
  3. Regulation of genetically modified food
  4. Regulation of genetically modified crops
  5. Regulation of genetically modified crops and livestock
  6. Other?

I do not object to any of these, and I would rank my top, second, and third choices as 4, 5, 3, respectively. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2, 3, 4, 5, 1 I was working on the Overview article (comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Genetic engineering/archive1 would be welcome) and it is hard to find information about the non-food/crop commercialisation stuff. Even my reference I used at Regulation of genetic engineering is dead and I stupidly left it as a bare link. I may have erred in separating them all those years ago and feel we could merge them back and create a logical, easy to find and decent article on regulation. Saying that I am happy with the other options provided in the order I have numbered them above. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 or 1 for me. I'm just catching up on the events here. I'm more in favor of keeping the article title where this is handled as broad as possible, get content built up and in a good framework, then split off daughter articles such as crops that are going to take up the bulk of the content. I'm not entirely opposed to 3 either, but that can be a follow-up step once it's solidified how to address various types of regulation in general within whatever article title is chosen. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be my preference as well. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it sounds like everyone except me is leaning towards 2. I won't stand in the way of that, but I would like to repeat my earlier concern that such a title makes it sound like the page is about regulation of laboratory procedures, which it is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing this as a merge not a straight rename, so the lab stuff and approval will still be there. In fact there is bugger all to move (substantial equivalence, labeling, plus any pertinent points from the by continent section). I made a table in Genetic Engineering#Regulation which could be copied across to better explain all the different regulatory agencies in different countries. Then every thing else, all the information relevant to individual countries that makes up the bulk of this article, will eventualy be moved to the appropriate Genetic engineering in [name of region] article. I am willing to do most of the work myself and I think it will make a much more natural flow for readers. AIRcorn (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, that sounds great. You just have to definitely perform that initial merge within a reasonable amount of time after the rename, in order for the rename to make sense. If that's the case, it's beginning to sound like we have a consensus for Regulation of genetic engineering. I'll wait one more day, in case there are any other issues, and if not, I'll re-ping the closer. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms&oldid=1098579553"