Talk:Monsanto modified wheat mystery

Some POV

Some strong claims (not all) are presented as authoritative but lack nearby attribution, making it seem like Wikipedia is saying these things. The addition of a bit of inline attribution like "According to ..." would allay my concerns. --Lexein (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Different page name?

I don't have a concrete proposal, but I'd like to start some brainstorming about a possible move of the page to a better title. I realize that the word "mystery" is used by sources, but I don't really see the sources using the entire phrase "Monsanto modified wheat mystery" in any iconic way. We might perhaps want to consider the words "incident" or "escape" instead, and perhaps identifying it by the year. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think something containing "2013 Monsanto wheat discovery in Oregon" would be more appropriate. Mystery is a terrible, terrible title. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that way too. Still thinking out loud: "2013 genetically modified wheat escape in Oregon" or "Genetically modified wheat escape of 2013"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For the silly way we got here, could we call it "Sorting The Wheat From The Chaff" ? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh-oh! A dog who quacks! Sure sounds like a GMO to me! (Says the fish with an added tryptophan.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Policy states we shouldn't use 2013 because there is no dab needed to another mystery. We also can't use Oregon for similar reasons. Escape is an OR term that very few, if any, of the sources use, the same goes for incident. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the title as it is now. It is a mystery and it was Monsanto modified wheat. Any re-name arguments are just Wikipedia:Bad faith, Wikipedia:POINTY, etc. Asking for a re-name before an AfD runs its course is also Wikipedia:Bad faith, Wikipedia:POINTY, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Canoe has low enthusiasm for a different page name. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Why is it bad faith to discuss a rename? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of mysteries, I doubt that you'll get a useful answer. And, speaking of mysteries, it would be nice to return now to a discussion of possible renaming. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Although "mystery" encapsulates the fact that an event occurred which was unexpected and was not understood, I'm pretty sure there's another word for that which is better. I feel "mystery" is mildly unencyclopedic in this particular case only because it's not a well known or long term mystery. Including Monsanto in the title at this moment seems a little POV, because it could have happened to any GMO producer; when it does, then we can start disambiguating by producer name. While researching a better title, I notice that government officials and academics don't use "mystery", instead preferring the cumbersome "event of unknown origin" or "event of unknown cause", or "unknown etiology". That last is too uncommon, so it's out. How about

1. Modified wheat crop mixing event
2. Crop/GMO seed mixing event
3. Crop/GMO seeding event
4. Wheat crop/GMO seed mixing event
5. GMO seeding, unknown source
6. Modified wheat seeding, unknown source
7. Modified wheat detection event
8. Modified wheat seeding event

Of course, "GMO" itself might be too hot-potato and acronymic for an article title. I feel using "event" or "occurence" clarifies that this article isn't about the general topic of "Crops which have had unwanted GMO seeding". Maybe List of unexpected GMO seed detections or List of unexpected modified seed detections should be an article containing this class of news items. --Lexein (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

None of those titles match sources that our policy expects. I don't see anything POV about including Monsanto in the title because it was their wheat. We don't go with what science calls it but what sources do. I still don't see any arguments about what is wrong with the title. Just more pointy BS rhetoric about changing it for the sake of change.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." The existing title matches this to a T without being POV. The OP states 'better title' but I don't see any arguments as to what is wrong with this one. That is why it is Wikipedia:Bad faith, Wikipedia:POINTY, etc. Change for the sake of change just seems like total BS to me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:Canoe1967, though your first 2 sentences are fine and I see those points, that last bit is just way too argumentative and redundant for this simple discussion. Come on, relax a bit. I get that you might feel embattled, but it's gonna be okay, really. --Lexein (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Also note that "prefers" does not equal "requires." Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the discussion about possibly finding a better name for this page... One issue that occurs to me about the list of suggestions from Lexein is that, at this time, we are pretty much dealing with a single event. I agree with Lexein that it may be misleading to feature "Monsanto" in the title, and that "mystery" sounds bizarre, but I'm not too bothered with "GMO" in the title if we end up going that way. But the fact that it's a single event seems to me to point away from using a page name that implies that there have been multiple events. Maybe a year from now the page will change in that way, but until then, WP:Crystal. So, of the list, number one, "Modified wheat crop mixing event" seems the best to me. Maybe better would be "2013 modified wheat crop mixing incident". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Policy states titles should be succinct, specific, and follow sources. Not vague and against sources as you suggest. It was Monsanto's wheat and it is a mystery still. Both terms are used in almost all the sources. I don't see why you can consider the term mystery as being 'bizarre'. Bizarre would be a bizarre word in the title but not mystery.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I'm interested in hearing from other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you hoping to get enough of them to go against policy and agree with the lame OP? "I don't have a concrete proposal, but......about a possible move of the page to a better title." You and others have still not shown anything wrong with the existing title. It is neutral, concise, follows sources, conforms to policy, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, you're just complaining and whining, and not discussing, or even appearing to read others' comments. You're not respecting other editors' good faith concerns. Because you've elected above not to respect indentation, and repeatedly tried to interrupt discussion by posting at an less indented level here and here, your assertion that nobody has explained the problems with the title looks a bit benighted, and certainly out of order. That's on you. If there are any articles on Wikipedia with "mystery" in the title which describe an event, I haven't found them, even among those articles in Category:Mysteries. That makes this article's name an anomaly, one styled atypically for this encyclopedia, regardless of your demand that sourcing lead the design of the title. I'll repeat: "I feel "mystery" is mildly unencyclopedic in this particular case only because it's not a well known or long term mystery.". And I'll repeat "Including Monsanto in the title at this moment seems a little POV, because it could have happened to any GMO producer; when it does, then we can start disambiguating by producer name", and further, the title "Monsanto modified wheat mystery" implies that Monsanto owned the modified seed contemporaneously with the event, while in sources, Monsanto asserts they destroyed all their stock. So what is Wikipedia doing implying that Monsanto still owned any in 2013? We shouldn't. The mystery has two steps: whose pesticide-resistant seed is this? Oh, Monsanto - a fact discovered later. Then, who put it here? That's the sustaining part of the mystery. Monsanto says it wasn't them, and goes further to claim sabotage. So what are we doing putting them in the frame in the title? I think the title is WP:UNDUE, and it's not neutral enough. I know you want to hang it on Monsanto, but it's WP:Coatracking to do so. So your assertion that "You and others have still not shown anything wrong with the existing title" is answered. Twice, now. Next: only one of the RS (New Scientist) ever called it literally "Monsanto modified wheat mystery", and this search of news shows none, and this search of news archives shows one, so your claim that more than one source literally called it that exact phrase is unsupported. The mystery has at its core, less to do with Monsanto and more to do with the fact that either somebody kept an unknown amount of modified wheat in cool, dry storage for nearly a decade, then seeded some hapless farmer's field with it, or that that modification spontaneously replicated in the wild somehow. I know the word "Monsanto" appeared in news articles; I still think it's WP:UNDUE in this Wikipedia article title. Look, if a bunch of editors like the current title, well, that's fine and I'll go along with a consensus involving several editors. But at the moment it's just you sitting pat, repeating your complaints in every comment and twice disrupting indented discussion. --Lexein (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to our world. AIRcorn (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Clears throat. Meanwhile, back at this talk page, I like the alternative idea below, but, pending that discussion, I'd still like to hear from other editors about possible renames. At this point, I am leaning towards "2013 modified wheat crop mixing incident". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative idea

We could expand this article to include all GMO escapes and title the page accordingly. There is this one and the Starlink corn recall. It could also possibly include expansion from Genetically modified food controversies#Gene flow and cases like Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser. AIRcorn (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I, too, like it very much! Thanks for suggesting it! The real encyclopedic topic is about GMO escapes as a whole, and it makes good sense to have a dedicated page about it, separate from the controversies page. On the other hand, it's rather unnecessary to have separate pages about each individual incident. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as this tries to avoid controversies, as noted above I support the notion of such a list, maybe like List of unexpected GMO seed detection incidents or List of unexpected modified seed detections or the like. Maybe not "escapes" because in this farm case, the eight year lag from alleged seed destruction to detection in a farm doesn't seem like an escape. One definite plus to such a list is that I'll bet there are even multiple RS over time which list several such escapes or unexpected detections, justifying the list article itself as a notable topic. --Lexein (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not so favoring of a list-y article.. don't much care for lists ( which I think is what WIkipedia is WP:NOT). But rather, I would prefer an article with a description of what happened in each case, with detail. For Lexein, in case you haven't followed - the only reason that the present article exists, is because the current editors working on the GM Controversies article agreed (with the exception of Canoe) to shorten the content about the most recent escape to give it appropriate weight in the GM controversies article, and Canoe objected, saying that all the content was of value and should be preserved. So Canoe copy/pasted the whole pre-shortened content from there to here. A similar thing had happened in the past, resulting in the Starlink corn recall article. So, these two articles could be combined, and the brief sections on the other two known escapes (the early GM wheat escape, and the much more economically important Libertylink escape), could be copy-pasted into the article and then fleshed out. That would be an interesting article, I think. The LibertyLink escape is not covered anywhere adequately that I know of. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't disagree here. My meaning was not pure list, but rather an expanded content list, like List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. I'm not devoted to using the word "list" in the title, but calling it a list clearly indicates to readers that the article contains disjoint but related items in a class, each covered by multiple independent reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I would support this idea. Seems like the best idea so far. BlackHades (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I like this idea, but what sources are there that treat this as a whole? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think IRWolfie asks a valid question, and I don't know the answer myself, but I hope that we can answer it, because I think that it's emerging that this approach is likely to be a good one. About "list", I would prefer to keep the word "list" out of the page title, and to write the page in regular paragraphs, with sections for each of the incidents. (Unlike the animals with fraudulent diplomas, which left me wondering about animals with legitimate diplomas.....) Calling them "incidents" instead of "escapes" is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there wasn't some books or sources that do so, but it's not synthesis to combine different ideas into an omnibus article. We do it all the time in summary style. I think an article such as Genetically modified organism incidents might work, for example. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GMOs In The Wild (Incidents of Genetically Modified Organisms growing outside controlled conditions.) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Or "GMOs Gone Wild". (Just kidding.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That Roxy is a dog indeed - perfect set up. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sweet. I have not really cultivated this idea, but like where it is heading. I was envisaging this being a better split from the controversies article (so hopefully that alleviates some concern about synthesis). My original thinking was that as well the escapes of whole GMO crops (as mentioned by Jytdog above) this could also expand on environmental escapes of the introduced transgene itself. I was under the impression that this was a much larger concern from most groups anyway. I guess the title chosen will determine the scope. What about something along the lines of an article about Genetically modified organism containment about how the GMOs are contained, with a dedicated section on occasions when the containment fails? AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of making it about "containment" very much! I definitely think that's the best idea so far for the approach that we should take. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it as well, but the title as it is suggests it's an article about how to store genetically modified organisms. Something closer to Issues surrounding genetically modified organism containment, perhaps, might deal with the "escapes" and "mysteries." Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about: Genetically modified organism containment and escape? (And I hope never to deal with "mysteries" any more!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I kinda meant it to sound like an article about how they are stored. To me that is the encyclopaedic topic here, the escapes are part of the containment story (the more exciting part). I see an article similar to Regulation of genetic engineering, an admittedly rather poor article that was dying a slow death in my userspace. GMOs must be contained in the laboratory when used for research, they must be contained during field trials and there are issues of containment when exporting to countries that do not allow them. A rather long dedicated section to the escapes could be part of this easily. Even if we do go with a focus on the escapes a bit of background about containment would improve the quality. This does not even need to be confined to food, plenty of GMOs are used for other purposes. <rant>One of my pet bugbears with this suite of articles (one I have not done much about to be fair) is that it focuses a lot on the food aspect, while glossing over the research aspect. Genetically modified tobacco really should exist.<rant/> Actually after writing all that I tend to think that the escape section would be long enough to warrant inclusion in the title. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I lean towards accidental non-containment, but I see the value in the academic and industrial coverage of only burping the tupperware without spilling any. ;) --Lexein (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We can maybe merge Biological containment into this too. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Didn't even know that existed. Seems the perfect target for merge and potential rename. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How about we work with this article Co-existence of genetically modified and conventional crops and derived food and feed, and add a section on escapes as discussed above? I think that article could use a rename as well.. today I merged Biological containment into the co-existence article as they cover the same thing.Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a section to the Co-existence article, pulling the escape/gene flow incidents that I am aware of, from other articles into one section. I did not do any merging of this article or the Starlink recall article into that... just wanted to see what a consolidated section would look like. Happy to have this moved elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of a merge in some form, and I think we are all looking at an end result that will contain all of this material. So it really comes down to what the page name would end up being. It seems to me that Co-existence of genetically modified and conventional crops and derived food and feed suffers, as a page name, from being way too wordy, so I would prefer calling the target page Genetically modified organism containment and escape instead, even thought it's not exactly brief either. Of course, a page about "containment and escape" can still cover "co-existence". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"GMO Crop Isolation" or "GMO Crop Isolation And Containment Breaches" - just brainstorming. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That brainstorming made me think of a question: Should we say "Genetically modified organism" or just "GMO" in the title? Clarity versus brevity: I'm not sure which is better, but I'm leaning towards clarity. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified organism. I don't know if there's any rule against abbreviations in article titles, but it doesn't need it. I'm in favor of the "containment and escape," especially knowing that we can always move it again if we need to. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I like "GMO containment and escape" better than "Genetically modified organism containment and escape" but to me those are the ideas so far. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As above I favour "Genetically modified organism containment and escape" as the best title at this point. Would expand GMO to keep it consistent with other similar titles in this series. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

These idea are good, and I favour brevity btw. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it sounds to me like consensus is heading towards this kind of page title, except that we are pretty much evenly split about "GMO" versus spelling it out. Personally, I remain somewhat ambivalent, although I'm leaning slightly towards spelling it out. I've looked for guidelines that might help to make this decision, and I think the applicable guides are WP:ACRONYMTITLE, and, to a lesser extent, WP:TITLEFORMAT. I don't think that "GMO" is commonly used to refer to anything else, but, on the other hand, I'm unsure how confident we should be that all readers would be familiar with the abbreviation before reading the page. Please look at those two guideline links, everyone, and comment on how you would apply them here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

GMO gets more overall Google hits, "genetically modified organism" significantly more scholarly hits. That doesn't seem to settle the matter. My instinct tells me that if someone was coming to this article, they know what a GMO is, so you wouldn't run into the ambiguity issue. Personally, I don't think abbreviations should be used in article titles at all, as that's why we have redirects, but if it's a stalemate on the issue, I don't care that much about it to keep things in flux much further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

i am fine with non-acronym title - points about parallelism and formality are reasonable to me Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Title without acronym, with redirect(s) with acronym(s), is quite a usual order of titling articles, until common usage and consensus later flips the order. No worries, though, both title and redirect(s) will be found handily by WP search and Google. --Lexein (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good point, and you are quite right. So, I'm thinking that we are looking at merging a bunch of pages into Genetically modified organism containment and escape, with GMO containment and escape as one of the many redirects to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

merge+historymerge instead?

1. Does anyone think the moved content should have been historymerged to the target page instead, to preserve edit history?
2. Does anyone agree with me that this discussion should be historymerged to the target Talk page to preserve edit history?

This is not a huge heartbreaker, but I do like to preserve edit history wherever possible, for all the editor's sakes. --Lexein (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

have at it! I don't think anybody would object Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I put Template:Merged from on the target talk page. Beyond that, it's fine with me to do those things also, and not something that I feel strongly about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)