Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Séralini affair

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. LFaraone 00:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Séralini affair[edit]

Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has clearly been placed here with the sole object of vilifying Prof Seralini, who had the temerity to publish a paper that showed that rats fed on Roundup and GMO maize were harmed. Those findings were not outrageous or radical -- they were perfectly predictable, given previous published work. They were also published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. But the findings clearly negatively impacted the commercial aspirations of Monsanto -- so its friends have tried to divert attention from the real issues by writing this heavily biased and defamatory article seeking to make "the scientific" furore into the main story, thereby diverting attention from the real issue -- relating to the fact that Roundup kills things and that GMOs may not be very good for you either. So this article is incapable of detailed editing -- almost every line needs to be rewritten in order to restore balance, and having tried a few edits it is clear that the supporters of this article will simply move in straight away and remove them. This sort of dafamation -- with a clear political and commercial imperative behind it -- should have no place on Wikipedia. In my humble opinion, the article must be permanently removed. Glacierman (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article as it stands kind of grew out of the Controversies article. There is a discussion of the Seralini affair in it here, which was edited down to try to make that article have more manageable length. Jinkinson created the Seralini Affair article for reasons I don't know, and I subsequently fleshed it out with material that had been edited out of the Controversies article.Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The present title is POV and inappropriate. At Google Scholar, "Séralini affair" only shows up 3 times, and in each instance, it is an ironic use, since all three articles criticize Monsanto, or European food authorities for efforts to silence criticism of genetically modified food. At Google News Archive, it only shows up as this Wikipedia article. As an "Affair" it inherently and improperly assumes wrongdoing by Séralini. Edison (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that the present title was taken from the similar Pusztai affair. AIRcorn (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see clear evidence of POV or being a WP:Attack page (though the article is rather messy, so I don't know), and there is no issue with notability. Nom is a SPA on a WP:SOAPBOX. Ansh666 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the Séralini affair is certainly notable, and there's no shortage of respectable independent sources which discuss the issue, so it shouldn't be hard to write a neutral article. However, "neutral" doesn't necessarily mean "only saying good stuff"; independent sources generally point out flaws in Séralini's "research" so we shouldn't shy away from that. Just look at Bogdanov Affair, Andrew Wakefield, Hwang Woo-suk &c - instead of deleting those pages, we write neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Because those pleading "libel" or "defamation" appear reluctant to actually show any evidence for those accusations. The other suggestion that editors on this article work for Monsanto as a reason to delete seems to go against assuming a neutral pov from edtors Roxy the dog (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is a mess, but it is fairly neutral and the article should be kept and edited/rewritten to clean it up. I also believe that the nomination is problematic with the nominator having an agenda. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is notable and nothing challenging that has been presented. The basis of the nomination appears to be that the article is neutral and doesn't reflect the Nom's skewed version of science. Well, that's just too bad, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I can't claim to have any expertise or great knowledge of the subject at hand, the tone of the article, particularly the lede, does not have the appearance of impartiality - it reads like the article has an axe to grind. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what does that have to do with an AfD? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; As a new article, it's far from perfect and is still a work in progress but it is a notable topic and should have an article. BlackHades (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The controversy has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. It is POV at point, favoring Monsanto and European food safety authorities, so some editing is needed. As I said above in a comment, the title is POV and inappropriate, and has not been used much in news or scientific publications. The actual death rates in the experimental and control groups would be useful information to add. Edison (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to work off the primary source picking what you think is significant is always going to be inherently problematic. Recall that we don't aim to balance different viewpoints as equal on wikipedia, but reflect where the due weight is. You say the article favours of the POV of the European food safety authorities. I don't see what you mean. From what I can gather the EFSA reflects the mainstream point of view on this issue and I'm not sure what is unduly favourable about the article content. This is a paper that was promoted via press conference (and film/book announcements) in rather strange circumstances, but which got a very bad scientific reception and appears to be nearly universally panned. The article should reflect that and not give the paper undue legitimacy or create some false balance, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this article, I think that, well, I would rather not see something I put a lot of work into go to waste, and also this has gotten a lot of media coverage, enough, I think to count as worthy of its own article, kind of like the MMR vaccine controversy. Jinkinson (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep This article is likely to be a time sink, but for a such poorly executed study it has received a lot of coverage in the media. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is well sourced and on a highly notable topic that has lasting and foundation laying importance of not just the topic of GMOs but trends in scientific publishing and related issues with proliferation of non-peer reviewed studies and allegations of junk science influencing public policy, the facts and tone can be managed within community standards and guidelines. CinagroErunam (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The paper and ensuing controversies have had the greatest and most far reaching impact on GM use around the world- and this impact continues to this day. It provides great examples for topics that range from effective science communication to ethics in science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waparrott (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per aforementioned reasons. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 18:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for reasons articulated by bobrayner above.Volunteer Marek 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is poorly written and needs a lot of work/reorganization, but it pretty clearly is sourced enough to not just be a page to "vilify" anyone, and it clearly satisfies WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and move – I agree with the original nominator that the entire concept of the "Séralini affair" was created to discredit work on the health risks associated with Roundup. However, I think there is a substantial amount of wiki-worthy material surrounding Séralini and his work. I recommend moving the page to a more neutral title, such as "Séralini GMO research". ("Séralini glyphosate research", "Séralini research", "Séralini GMO studies" -- reasonable various.) For more explanation, and sources related to the concoction of the "Séralini affair", please see my recent talk page comment. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is chiefly about the discredited work of Séralini and the criticism from the scientific community that occurred, and the surrounding issues. Renaming it would be moving it away from neutrality. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename The main article should have a neutral title, explaining all sides in the article. If the controversy is extensive, it could be treated in a separate article. Right now, the title gives no indication of the subject matter and is very confusing. petrarchan47tc 02:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I fail to see how somewhat controversially debated scientific publication constitutes an "affair", so already the name seems totally inappropriate to me. That could be seen as a violation of WP:OR and seems to be the manufacturing of an affair via Wikipedia. Aside from the questionable (unsourced name) name I don't quite see the encyclopedic notability in terms of its own article. That academic publications get criticized (sometimes heavily) is normal part of the academic/scientific process and as such not really notable. Now if an academic article create a longstanding controversy and the controversy as such becomes rather influential on future developments, then there might encyclopedic notability. Parts of the content can be moved to GMO related articles and the biography of Seralini (but adhering to WP:BIO and WP:UNDUE).--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I fail to see how somewhat controversially debated scientific publication constitutes an "affair"": Then check the sources. This source, for example, calls it the Séralini scandal: [1].There is enough sources and over a sufficient period to satisfy WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, if you view the scandal as an event and the reaction to it (the publication and science by press conference). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that I've skimmed and read beforehand do not use the word "affair" nor do they amount to one. I can't access the link you've sourced, so I can't comment on that one in particular.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The title "affair" vs. "scandal" (with affair being the more neutral but perhaps less accurate terms, given the numerous headlines and articles which characterize this as a "scandal" or "fiasco") is one of semantics and not an issue of noteworthiness for keeping the article. This "affair" involved not just scientific misconduct it represented a new manner in which purported scientific publishing was shared with the public and a heretofore unseen level of media manipulation tactics used to prevent actual review and scrutiny of the claims. This was both groundbreaking and influential as a result and continues to be cited in scientific and mainstream literature for the damage it caused and as a standard for regulatory bodies to consider when reviewing critical safety claims which fail to meet standard scientific rigor. If you want more examples in the published scientific and mainstream literature than those cited in the article which support the importance, high degree of interest and corresponding effects associated with this specific incident I refer you to the following:
Respectfully submitted, CinagroErunam (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully but the argument as given is borderline ridiculous. 7 of the 11 links above are not working, that is they link to no article about the study. One of the few working ones is linked twice (new scientist) and one is a blog. There is no doubt that the study caused short debate/controversy, but I personally still don't see how that amounts to encyclopedic notability goes beyond normal news nor how anyone should conclude that by the links/evidence provided above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check again, the editor made a simple mistake with the links, which I have now fixed. It is not normal for a study to be covered by so many peer reviewed opinions, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix, I don't quite see how they amount to an affair though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may help Kmhkmh to read the wiki on Scientific Method in order to understand the nature of the "affair". Having read the links supplied by our composting friend above, I am more and more inclined to suggest that "Scandal" should replace "affair".Roxy the dog (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. Is it too late to get a snow close? Arc de Ciel (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Séralini_affair&oldid=1188385064"