User talk:Guy Macon

A Wikipedia Content Dispute.

Welcome to Guy Macon's Wikipedia talk page. Please Click here to start a new topic. Please post your new comments at the bottom of the comment you are replying to. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to. I delete or collapse most messages after I have read them. The history tab will show you a complete list of all past comments. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Guy_Macon.

"Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem." --WP:TIGER

Only 993080591 articles left until our billionth article!

We are only 993080591 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article --Guy Macon

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App.

--Guy Macon

Calvin discovers Wikipedia

• "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes. --Guy Macon

Another chart

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days
Detailed traffic statistics

Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a Request for Arbitration concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request archived

Hi Guy Macon. The Conduct at Reference Desks arbitration case request, submitted 30 October 2017, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"GMO conspiracy theories" deletion discussion

Hello Mr. Macon, I hope you're doing well. I enjoyed your essay in the Signpost earlier this year and I am writing to you specifically because I respect your opinion. I was a little surprised by your comment in the deletion discussion about "GMO conspiracy theories" and I wanted to ask for clarification. In my view the GMO conspiracy theories article is a "POV fork" (most immediately of genetically engineered food controversies) which, by using a loaded term in its title, unfairly associates significant criticism of genetic engineering with spurious memes. You wrote that I need to deal with this issue at the article talk page, rather than delete the whole thing. Probably that would have been a better place to start. But can you see my point about the title and concept of the page itself?

I wrote again on the deletion discussion to highlight a recent edit which exemplifies how all criticism of genetic engineering is being shoehorned under the label of conspiracy theory. Now, someone might say this is just one person adding to the page. But I don't see anyone jumping in to change it either. Whereas in my experience lots of people jump in immediately if anything is written which seems to reflect badly on the industry.

I don' relish these antagonistic situations which always seem to accompany forays into biotechnology editing, but at the same time I have a desire to see neutral coverage of these issues. I would appreciate your sharing your viewpoint on this matter, and any advice you would care to give. Thank you very much, groupuscule (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You ignored my advice by posting another argument on the deletion discussion page.[1] Please read the following sentence three time out loud. Even if all criticism of genetic engineering is being shoehorned under the label of conspiracy theory, that is not a valid reason for deletion. You are wasting our time posting your arguments in the wrong place.

So, is it a POV fork? I don't see it. They appear to be two separate topics. Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. GMO conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are are conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food (also referred to as genetically modified organisms or "GMOs"). These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I don't see any POV fork here, just two separate articles on two separate topics. In fact, mixing the conspiracy theories into the article about reasoned opposition to GMOs would tend to imply that most GMO opponents are conspiracy theorists, when they clearly are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there is quite a big challenge to make it neutral. For example, the definition says that conspiracy theories include claims that businesses have co-opted government agencies. At the same time, there are serious articles making just that claim ([2], [3]). So I think the definition itself needs to change. But I will do as you say and move my concerns to the article and its talk page. groupuscule (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)