Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

Aircorns comments

Rules

I do think the large list of rules is a bit off putting. Many could be omitted or shortened. We are pretty much requiring every commenting editor to read these so brevity should be a goal. If this is to be successful we need to encourage new editors to comment. Personally, I would keep the following rules:

• Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, all editors are required to maintain a proper level of decorum. Unnecessary rudeness, hostility, casting aspersions, and battleground mentality will not be tolerated here, in the interest of arriving at a clear, fair-minded consensus. Inappropriate conduct may be met with warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in this RfC as the administrator deems necessary. To foster a collaborative atmosphere, editors are encouraged not to bring statements made here to Arbitration Enforcement, but rather to leave it to the patrolling admins.

The first sentence seem unnecessary. I would just start with the "All editors..."

I think I ripped this from an Arbitration remedy, but I'm fine with cutting the first sentence. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• The sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about a specific question concerning article content. It is not a venue for personal opinions about GMOs in general, nor a place to relitigate past disputes.

• Please do not make changes in proposals that have already been posted. Anyone is permitted to post additional proposals, below the existing proposals.

• Threaded discussion is prohibited on the RfC page. To comment in the RfC, you must create your own section within the Comments section, placing your username in the section header. Within your own section, you may present your opinions on the proposals, and briefly pose questions to other editors or respond to questions from other editors. Do not make any edits in any other editor's section. A section may be edited only by the editor to whom it corresponds, and by enforcing administrators. Editors are encouraged to discuss and collaborate with one another on the RfC Talk page, where threaded discussion is permitted and there are no word limits.

• In each comment section, each editor is strictly limited to 800 words. There will be no exceptions. Excessively long statements will be hatted until shortened.

• If we fail to achieve a consensus or at least move closer towards one, this topic area will likely end up at Arbcom again. Nobody wants that. The RfC will be closed by a panel of three uninvolved admins. Three shall be the number of administrators, and the number of the administrators shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Since I will be helping mediate here, I recuse myself from being a closing admin. This should probably be revised after we have the 3 people, to simply name them.

The introductory sentences are speculation and unnecessary. I am assuming everything after the bolded portion is a joke. If you are serious about including it, please reconsider.

Again, the beginning can go. The last part is indeed a joke, a reference to the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. Some levity might help, but I don't have strong feelings about this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand the intent. I just think it seems a bit out of place in a rules section and just provides more reading for participants. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• The consensus reached (if any) will be imposed as a Discretionary Sanction on the topic area, broadly construed. It may be overturned only by another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales.

I would take out Jimbo Wales, that will just annoy editors.

This wording was taken from my old General Sanctions work in the Climate Change area, but looking back the current Discretionary Sanctions policy does not mention Jimbo. He can go. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

My reasons for leaving out the other rules:

• All editors who participate in this RfC will receive a Discretionary Sanctions notice on their user talk page. This is purely procedural and not intended to indicate any wrongdoing; it is merely a notification that this topic area is subject to sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee.

Overkill. Just use an edit notice and header at the top of the rfc

I understand what you're saying, but the RFC is contingent on this staying in. If I am expected to moderate it under Arbcom DS, every participant needs to have a discretionary Sanctions notice. The policy is clear that sanctions cannot be issued to someone who has not been notified in that exact manner. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Close to 40 editors participated in the last one and hopefully we get similar numbers again. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nobody is required to participate in this RfC, and anybody may cease participation at any time for any reason. If you have received a notification about this RfC, it is because someone believes you may have something to contribute. However, it is in everyone's best interest that we solicit a wide range of opinions so that we may achieve a strong consensus.

Not sure what this is trying to achieve. It seems obvious that you can come and go as you please. Almost seems to be encouraging canvassing.

This was taken from my old Mediation work. Some form of it should stay, but I would be fine combining it with the following principle. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

One bit that raised my eyebrows was the "If you have received a notification about this RfC, it is because someone believes you may have something to contribute" sentence. I am sure it was not the intention, but it seemed to imply that it is okay for participants to notify selected editors about the RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

I would wait for this to be an issue. We are getting experienced editors to close it so I don't think an influx of new spa accounts will be too much of a problem anyway.

This is fairly standard wording for Canvassing. We could combine it with the statement above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC is strictly about article content, not about user conduct. WP:RFC/U was retired years ago. If it becomes about user conduct, Arbcom will likely get involved, and nobody wants that. If you believe that a user is violating policy or the rules set forth by Arbcom or by this page, and you cannot work it out between yourselves, please speak to an Enforcement admin. If you believe an admin is behaving inappropriately, their decisions may be appealed to WP:ANI, WP:AE or Arbcom directly.

We have already hammered this in with the first two rules. If we really need it I would add it to one of them. If we do use it I would leave out the history of rfc/u. If user conduct is an issue I would expect the moderators to decide the relevance.

This does seem unnecessary and could be folded into the first two rules. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• This RfC will run for the full 30 days, unless additional time is needed to judge consensus. Because this is such a contentious area, closing early as per WP:SNOW is highly discouraged.

Pre selected closer makes this moot.

I agree, but it still needs to be stated for the benefit of participating editors, to keep them informed of how it will work. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

How about just adding that the decision on when to close the rfc will be left up to the closers in the closers rule above? AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Finally, if you have issue with my own conduct or with these rules, I request that you please discuss with me on my own user talk page before escalating. I am always willing to listen to a reasonable argument.

Maybe this could be used, but it just came across a bit authoritarian to me. Of course editors should talk to you or any other editor they are in dispute with, but I am not sure this should be made a rule.

I'm sure we can move this into my opening statement. It isn't a requirement, but more a polite request. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that would work better. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I should have thanked you first off for being willing to take this on (laserbrain too). It is something many editors would not do. I am happy enough to just have my opinion heard here. Whatever rules you keep in the RFC I will participate and follow. I will make one more general statement though. I don't really know you, but from some of your replies here and elsewhere you seem to be heavily involved in mediation. Those skills will come in handy no doubt. However, one key difference that I see between the two is that in mediation all the parties are already heavily involved, whereas in a rfc we really want new people. A list of rules is more than appropriate in the first case, but my main fear here is that in a rfc this will drive away the new opinions we need. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think Aircorn makes a lot of good points, and I largely agree with where the discussion stands following The Wordsmith's replies.
  • I support cutting the first sentence, about editors sometimes making mistakes.
  • I would like the three closers to be identified before the RfC opens, and I think that entire paragraph should just be replaced by naming them and saying that they will determine the consensus. The later part about SNOW could just be folded into that.
  • I'm ambivalent about DS notices versus an edit notice. I agree with Aircorn that it can be a little intimidating, but I'm also sympathetic to what The Wordsmith said about needing to be able to enforce DS. There is a rule that DS sanctions can only come after the user is made aware of the DS. I added a link to the ArbCom edit notice (which emphasizes 1RR, which isn't really relevant to an RfC), but I'm not sure what is best.
  • I feel strongly that the rule about not-a-vote should stay. It's verbatim from the template that is often used on RfC pages. It's entirely possible that we will get new users showing up in response to external websites directing them here.
  • About the RfC/U part, I would cut the beginning, and start it at "If you believe that..."
  • I like the idea of The Wordsmith making an opening statement. In that case, the "Nobody is required" and the "Finally, if you have an issue with my" parts could be moved into that. There is a lot to be said for making the list of rules shorter and crisper, while also having a more personal statement from the supervising admin.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• I see that Aircorn just pointed out that the language about notifications about the RfC can be misunderstood as endorsing, in effect, canvassing, and I agree with Aircorn that this language needs to be changed or deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• In the interests in keeping things moving along, I just made an edit in which I tried to implement what I think we have agreed about here. Of course, it is still subject to further, um, wordsmithing, by The Wordsmith. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Advertising

This is one area that I don't feel has been well enough covered. I think we should all agree, or at least have a say, on where or how this rfc is advertised. It is important to not only avoid canvassing, but also to avoid any appearance of canvassing. I will mention a few options below. Some I would endorse, others I won't, while others I am ambivalent about. I think all need to at least be raised as a possibility though.

Obviously it will be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, but are there any other headings it should be under? Politics/law and society could be justified given the wording of some of the proposals. WP:CENT is an option, although I am not sure it has enough project wide important for that. WP:WikiProject Genetics is the obvious wikiproject to notify, others may be WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, WP:WikiProject Food and drink and WP:WikiProject Agriculture. Other possible locations could include Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).

If we do personal talk page invites I would suggest that we be very careful about who gets notified, as it is easy to be accused of canvassing when doing this. There could be a case made to notify every editor (minus the now topic banned ones) who commented at the previous RFC. There may also be a case to notify everyone that took part in the ARBCOM case, although that seems a bit too much.

One other option which I will include for completeness, but don't endorse, is watchlist notification. I think we have annoyed enough editors with ARB, ANI and AE filings without also spamming watchlists as well.

A final related consideration is where the rfc will be hosted. At one of the affected articles talk pages or at a dedicated sub-page. A link to the discussion should be made from all known affected articles. If we are to chose an article I would suggest Talk:Genetically modified crops (as that is where most of the proposals were formulated) or Talk:Genetically modified food controversies (as that is where the previous RFCs took place). AIRcorn (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should pin this down ahead of time. I am strongly in favor of using CENT. I also think that a watchlist notice would be a good idea, because this rises to the level of satisfying that amount of importance. Maybe there could be some notices at the Village Pump?? And there could be a notice put on the article talk page of each page that has the language that is affected. All the editors who have been active on the article talk page have already gotten notices from David T, and I'm ambivalent about whether The Wordsmith needs to renotify them/us when the RfC opens. But I don't like the idea of any further personal notifications, because there will be appearances of favoritism. I oppose notifications of WikiProjects or Noticeboards, because it will be very difficult to avoid bias. We want a representative editor population (which is why I'm OK with a watchlist notice). As for the page location, I think that it must be a dedicated RfC page, with its own talk page, and not be the talk page of any article. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

CENT is good, not sure about the watchlist. I agree that notifying Wikiprojects may lead to bias, but a notice on AN and Village Pump would be appropriate. As to its final location, I was planning on moving it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine with most of that. I still don't like the idea of the watchlist notification though. I can see that annoying many editors. We would have to request it at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details and a quick scan of the archives would suggest a low chance of it being granted (it seems like they use project wide significance as a rough bar). The only relevant village pump is Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), which coincidentally has started a discussion about RFC notifications. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Aircorn, the way that I see it, we would not have the notice go on for very long. And the fact that this particular RfC is going to result in something that will be subject to strict discretionary sanctions places it in a special situation, where reaching out to the community as a whole becomes particularly important. If memory serves, there was a watchlist notice for the Jerusalem RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If the Jerusalem one had a watchlist notification then there may be precedent. It is not a canvassing issue so I don't have strong objections. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that it would probably be enough to run the notice for approximately 3 or 4 days at the beginning of the RfC, not longer. I don't think that that would be spammy or annoying. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

After thinking further, I've changed my mind a bit, and I now believe that the watchlist notice ought to run for something more like approximately 7 days. What got me thinking that way is the concern expressed in the talk thread below, about whether to scrap the RfC, that there is a danger that the RfC could be dominated by editors who are already involved and that we might not get enough "fresh eyes". The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it is desirable that we get as many participating editors as possible, and that consideration greatly outweighs any sensitivity about "spamming". Also, the watchlist notice about the page mover proposal has been running for quite some time, and I don't think it has been at all disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are going the watchlist route then seven days makes more sense than 3 or 4. There is no point excluding the once a week editors. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The only other Wikiproject I can think of worth mentioning would be WP:MED. It may be redundant to a degree with WP:MEDRS notification there, but I have the feeling some people may watchlist the Wikiproject and not MEDRS. Not a big deal if it isn't included as I agree MEDRS is the core page that should get a notification of the two. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Above, Aircorn suggested Maths, science, and technology as an RfC area for listing, and I agree that it should be the primary listing. But I also think that a dual listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law would be appropriate and helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Background

I would like to turn the Previous attempts at resolution section into a background section with prose. A type of introduction to the problem and why we are having a third rfc on the topic. It will link back to all the same discussions as that section does already, but will hopefully be easier for new editors to this area to understand what has been going on. I will have a go tonight (in about five or so hours) and leave a draft below unless there are any strong objections. AIRcorn (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay a first draft trying to catelog the history. Lots of links for interested parties to follow, but hopefully participants can get the gist without having to. As always comment, suggestions and the like welcome.

The sentence "There is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops on the market are safe to eat..." was first added to the lead of Genetically modified food controversies in December 2010. The first discussion on the wording of the sentence occurred in October 2012. That discussion lead to the use of "There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional food". Since May 2013 the statement was debated repeatable through the talk page here, here, here and here until the first RFC was started in July. The RFC was closed with "Statement is reasonable".

Various discussions on the makeup, sourcing and validity of the sentence continued (1 2 3,4 5 6 7 8 9) till eventually a second RFC was initiated in May 2015. That RFC closed as "No consensus". After the RFC some of the sentences were changed from "scientific consensus" to "scientific agreement". Behavioral issues resulted in an Arbitration case opening two months after the RFC closed leading to editors being topic banned and discretionary sanctions being applied to related articles. The debate regarding the scientific consensus restarted in January 2016 and various proposals to improve the sentence were developed. Following a request for an arbcom sanctioned RFC it was decided to run this mediated and supervised RFC to determine what phrasing to use for the scientific opinion on the safety of GMO food currently on the market.

I was virtually absent from the topic area for ~2 years, missing the ANIs, 2nd RFC and most of the Arb case, so I have little personal experience with that era. I may have missed some key links or developments, I am more confident of my recollection of the early stages of this phrases history, but if anyone wants a second opinion on those events then I would suggest pinging User:ImperfectlyInformed as they are still around, used to be active in this area and predate my involvement. AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the "previous attempts at resolution" sounds like it came out of the mediation process. I don't have a problem with simply having the list of links as it is now. I feel like there would be two problems with replacing it with narrative text. The first problem would be tl;dr. The second, and more difficult, problem would be concerns about getting the POV of the text to be acceptable to everyone involved. When you look at how involved editors talk about the discussions that came just after the previous RfC, you will see that there is so much jockeying to frame it in particular ways that I think it would prove insoluble. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to view this RFC from the point of view of new editors to the topic. I know when I respond to ones I am unfamiliar with it is good to have some sort of background as to how the dispute came about. The list of links currently in the article have no context, don't show the timescale, are not intuitively labeled, are missing some important ones (RFC number 1 for example) and require new editors to actually follow and decipher them to even get the basic understanding of the dispute. I have confidence that we can write a concise, neutral account as long as we avoid any interpretation of the links. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What about a compromise. Keep the list, but make it more informative and presentable. Example:

• Addition of broad consensus sentence (December 2010)
• First talk page discussion on sentence wording (October 2012)
• First RFC (July 2013)
• Second RFC (May 2015)
• Arbcom case (September 2015) decision (December 2015)
• Discussion and formation of proposals (February 2016)
• Request for third RFC (May 2016)

You can add or remove as you see fit. AIRcorn (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the draft page pretty much along these lines, but I kept the list short by not adding any more links to it, which I think is consistent with discussion here about making the RfC more approachable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

I don't want to drag this out any longer than necessary so will just make these last few comments.

• The Policies, guidelines and essays seems a bit long. Not sure how BLP applies, why we highlight NPOV as well as a couple of subsections under NPOV or whether we need to mention discretionary sanctions again (with the header, potential edit notice and personal notices).
• Can we clarify that the 800 word limit includes replies. My reading is that is does, but it might be good to say so specifically.
• I agree with the current setup that requires editors to keep all their comments in their own section is a good idea and will make it easier for the closers.

AIRcorn (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed we had a switch from two user subsections with 500 and 250 words (initial comment and responses to other editor's points) to just a single section with 800 words. I kind of like this new idea of just having 800 words total and just leaving it at that for simplicity's sake as it discourages formal replying.

Editors will have to budget how much they stick to presenting their own case versus responding to points from other editors. That can limit the bludgeon issues we had last time, but it can also make it difficult to respond to multiple editors introducing different ideas after someone initially makes their post. Debunking a point often takes more text than the original point itself afterall. I think that's just the "happy" medium we'll have to work with though and stick to having strong initial statements that outline the content at hand. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

About the word limits, I would prefer that there be a single limit of 800 that includes replies and everything, and that was my intent. However, there is nothing magical about the number 800, so I would be receptive to replacing it with a larger number. But whatever number it is, it needs to be firm. As for needing more space for replies, there will also be an RfC talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

800 words

As a follow-up of my own, I'd like to check with other editors: is 800 the best number of words for the word count limit? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Substantially the same as Proposal 1, but with a better causal connection to my reading:

Currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, and GM food is tested on a case-by-case basis before its introduction. Nonetheless, in spite of this scientific consensus on safety, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe. The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.

Citations

jps (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and put it on the RfC page. By the way, let me say to everyone here that The Wordsmith has said that it's OK for editors to make edits to the draft RfC page while it is still in the draft stage. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 6 is unacceptable. The language that GMO's are tested on a case-by-case basis is not supported by *any* of the three sources. In fact, in places like the U.S. case-by-case testing is not required: See [2]. Regarding the three footnotes:

• The WHO says that GM foods should be tested on a case-by-case basis.
• The Haslberger(2003) article mentions changes to the Codex_Alimentarius, but the Codex is optional. (See [3]).
• The BMA like the WHO said that GMO foods should be tested on a case-by-case basis.

The AMA says the same thing [4] [5]. The real question is why our articles are not honest about this and any attempt to fix it is thwarted? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

David Tornheim, the RFC itself is when you state what proposal you favor. This talk page is for hammering out the rules and how the RFC will be run. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggest discussing the possibility of scrapping the entire GMO Rfc

I just skimmed this portentous document of an Rfc. My first impression is one of deep revulsion. I strongly suggest we first have a wide discussion regarding scrapping this entire approach, which, again at first look, appears to be designed to be so intimidating as to preclude participation by all but the most dogmatic of Wikipedians, and arguably give a result favorable to the pro GMO editors, whose motives are easily discernible from their lengthy edit histories in this topic. Jusdafax 01:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This plan for an RfC came about following my request to ArbCom for some sort of RfC. As was discussed there, the alternative to an RfC would be to request a full GMO-2 case at ArbCom. If there are any concerns about the RfC design, it would be very helpful to state them specifically, and to see if we can address them. It would be helpful if The Wordsmith and Laser brain, as the supervising administrators, would indicate how they would like to proceed on this, before editors become too bogged down in arguing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this RFC was mandated by AE as an alternative to another full-blown Arb case as Tryptofish noted. It would be helpful to get your feedback on what you don't like about it. It seems reasonable to me, and the rule-set is there to give it teeth and make sure we're not circling around to the same issue 10 days after it closes. --Laser brain (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I can understand the sentiment, but would humbly suggest that you write a WP:TLDR summary to include that would encourage people to participate. Basically, the question is, do any of the proposals rise to the standards necessary to replace the current text? If you'd like, you could even write a little blurb explaining the likely motivation for each of the phrasings. You could even create a voting guide, if you like. jps (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the references back to ArbCom, here in this section, and in the proposed RfC instructions. What would an ArbCom GMO-2 case be about? --Tsavage (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is here. As for your second question, the answer isn't definitively settled, but presumably they would be asked to look again at those involved editors who were not topic banned previously, with regard to how there is not yet a consensus about the question that this RfC asks. I think that it's obviously better for everybody to have this RfC instead, but if hypothetically some editors refused to go along with the RfC process without working constructively to help fix anything that needs to be fixed, either ArbCom or Arbitration Enforcement would end up having to deal with those (hypothetical) editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

List of affected pages

As was briefly discussed previously at User talk:The Wordsmith, the original list of pages that include the affected language, listed in the "Locus of the dispute" section of the draft RfC, was not complete. I think it may be important not to leave any pages out, in the event that discretionary sanctions may be applied to all affected pages. I've just added all the other pages that I could find. I ask that please would other editors look around and check whether there are any further pages that need to be added to the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments

1. The Rules have been edited quite a bit from the version I read a little over a week ago, they appear clearer and more concise, however, these instructions in my opinion still overshadow the actual content of the RfC, and beg the question from potential participants, "What am I getting myself into?" It is also unclear as to where the authority for mandating these very specific requirements originates (looking at it from a participant's POV). A well-formed RfC question, and diligent and unbiased monitoring of the proceedings, which are under Discretionary Sanctions, should be sufficient assurance of smooth running (it's excellent that we have volunteers, in Wordsmith and Laser-brain, for this monitoring task).

If editors agree that a substantial preamble is necessary, I suggest something simpler and more inclusive, along the lines of:

PLEASE NOTE: Articles and discussion in the GMO subject area are currently under Discretionary Sanctions (WP:ACDS), under which individual Administrators can use reasonable judgement to act directly against disruptive activity (see the DS notice at the top of this page). For this RfC, to avoid disruption through back-and-forth debates and long discourses ("walls of text"), and to make the overall discussion easy to follow in full by everyone, participants are asked to observe a couple of basic guidelines:

1. Editors are encouraged to post comments in their own subsections, and to post a maximum of 800 words overall - this will be maintained as necessary by moving comments to the authors' sections, and collapsing ("hatting") the portion of comments that exceed the word limit.

2. The RfC will run for the full standard period of 30 days, and may be extended if that appears necessary, and will be finally evaluated for consensus ("closed") by a pre-selected group of three volunteering editors who have been previously uninvolved in editing and discussing GM content on Wikipedia (i.e. presumed to be reasonably independent of the preceding GM content debates).

This seems a case where judicious monitoring action during the RfC will speak louder than preliminary warning words.

2. The RfC question - This is a Request for Comment concerning how to indicate the scientific views on the safety of genetically modified crops for human consumption. - seems incredibly broad for an RfC. Editors are being asked to look at an entire subject area that has been severely condensed into single paragraphs of summary language, while no corresponding fully expanded coverage exists in any of the articles where this statement is to appear. From what I've observed, the long-standing contentious issue is simply determining whether what we can describe in Wikipedia's voice as a scientific consensus (WP:RS/AC) exists for any aspects of GM food safety, and if so, for which exactly - it's about choice of a particular descriptive phrase, scientific consensus, NOT a debate over whether or not GM food is safe to eat according to reliable sources. As it stands, with the statements and citations in each proposal, we are asking participants to make themselves familiar with the entire GM food consumption safety subject, which seems unreasonable and unlikely. One proposal (#5) even includes non-food safety considerations. A much tighter RfC focus would lead to more productive editor input.

A well-formed, well-run (monitored), well-closed RfC should lead to unambiguous results - we just need to make sure going in that the question is clear. --Tsavage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree on point one and like your wording. I said similar things above about the long list of rules and the potential that they will scare away new voices. The discretionary sanction notice is non-negotiable though so we should probably explain this somewhere so editors are not surprised when they get it. I like that your wording highlights the important differences between this and a "normal" rfc. I think this plus an intro from the moderators would suffice as an intro to this rfc. However, ultimately what wording to use should be decided by The Wordsmith and Laserbrain as they are the ones willing to take on the monitoring. AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have an issue with the current wording of the RFC question. Saying there is scientific consensus is one way to indicate the scientific view. The proposals that don't use that phrasing indicate it in other ways. While I agree that some of them go into other non-scientific and even non-safety areas, I see this more as a way to frame the scientific view. It puts the scientific view in perspective. FWIW, I was one of those that suggested the public view should be presented alongside the scientific one. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Point 2 is an issue with scope. The question is reasonable in the unlikely event that every participant has a good understanding of the subject basics, otherwise, the work required to get up to speed is entirely unrealistic, and comments will largely be votes: "Well, I like the sound of this better than that."

We're looking for reliable, independent sourcing for a statement of scientific consensus, as in WP:RS/AC, because such a statement is usually subjective and editorially emphasizes its conclusion. The subject is the scientific opinion in the GM field, on the safety of those GM foods that have been approved by regulatory agencies (i.e. currently available) for human consumption, a reference that requires unpacking to be fully understood, and when worded broadly, may be misinterpreted by the general reader as a blanket scientific endorsement of GM food and technology.

Asking participants to decide on an article's worth of subject matter at one shot is unrealistic, and seems an inappropriate use of an RfC to mandate content. Prop #5 includes arguments for other benefits - if Prop #5 "wins," do those statements, in addition to safety, gain some sort of a protected content status as well?

The last scientific consensus RfC was extremely poorly formed. We shouldn't make the same mistake again. A more straightforward proposition may be:

• Per WP:RS/AC, is there sufficient reliable sourcing to say in Wikipedia's voice that a scientific consensus exists for the safety for human consumption of GM food that has been approved and is available to consumers?

...or perhaps the broader...

• Per WP:RS/AC, is there sufficient reliable sourcing to say in Wikipedia's voice that a scientific consensus exists for the safety of GM food for human consumption?

This followed by the proposals. That really gets to the heart of the contention that has been plaguing multiple GM food articles for years. It is also directly based on core content policy: easy verifiability, neutral wording, and no synthesis - if it says it in the text, it should clearly say the same in the source, plain for anyone to see.

Aircorn: I generally agree with all of your comments on this page. The sticky point seems to be on the view that scientific consensus is essentially promotional language that requires solid, independent sourcing, and seeking alternative wording is NOT an attempt to water down or obscure safety facts or evidence, but to use objective, neutral language to present them. --Tsavage (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternative wording actually is a problem with WP:PSCI policy in mind as it says we cannot obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community when it is saying there is a consensus (especially when source after source explicitly uses the term scientific consensus or uses language agreeing with those consensus statements). I for one am not going to try to litigate actual content on this talk as others have done (that's for the RfC), but what I described is mostly why we included the policies, guidelines, etc. section to make sure people are familiar with these very relevant policies. Even though this is an Arb-Com mediated RfC, we cannot supersede the authority of relevant polices, so we need to make sure respondents are familiar with them.

I do agree though that we need to give editors some direction and something easier for the closers to assess on what we're actually looking for. The first question is the crux of the whole thing. Is there a scientific consensus on the subject. There are other policies to cite besides just RS/AC, so it's better just to say relevant policies and guidelines related to scientific consensus. The second is which of the proposals is the best content choice to answer that question. Short and to the point is best here, so I've added what should be something everyone can agree on as a bare bones set of directions in this edit. Basically a yes or no on the consensus question, followed by at least one favored proposal with justification afterwards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The above edit I made overall stuck since being proposed, but underwent a major change that appears to be out of line with what we've overall moved towards in this discussion. It appears comments on that were not posted to this page, but on an admin talk page instead just for reference of anyone watchlisting this page. Summarizing that discussion on my part, this previous version doesn't appear to have any supposed neutrality issues that would warrant not mentioning the locus of this dispute. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about the revert. (I'll also note that I made some revisions to your original posting of the two question, albeit not substantive, and that your diff above does include the changes that I made.) I think that the question about scientific consensus is helpful in identifying what the RfC is about, for editors coming to the RfC. On the other hand, I do not object to making some changes, such that the status quo wording (as in a proposal of "no change") is offered as an option. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't consider your changes substantially different from mine, so I consider that something we agreed on. I'm not so sure about including a no change proposal this late in the RfC formulation, but I also don't think it's absolutely needed. If there's no consensus on question two, we can talk about status quo or going back to the drawing board. For now though, we want to focus on breaking the back of the dispute with how respondents answer question 1. Once that's done, follow up issues will be easier to handle. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good point: that whatever the community decides regarding whether there is or is not a scientific consensus should point to the direction about the status quo, and to some extent is redundant with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Choice of Closing Admins

COI concerns: It is hard to ascertain whether anyone involved in GMO articles edits with a financial motivation. As we saw with WifiOne ([6][7]), anonymous paid editors can be very crafty in avoiding scrutiny and gaining positions of power at Wikipedia.

With billions [8] at stake, the GM industry spent ~$100 Million fighting U.S. GMO labeling laws ([9][10][11]).

The industry could easily afford to hire a team of full-time anonymous Pro-GM editors like WiFiOne to make sure the articles reflect their views in each article lede, in the same way that BP was able to write 44% of its article, including the Deepwater horizon oil spill [12].

Wikipedia's policies of anonymity combined with WP:AGF and ArbCom's GMO ruling protect editors from criticisms for similar behavior.

In this high stakes RfC, I suggest that the three closing admins make a declaration that they have no direct or indirect financial or fiduciary conflict of interest (COI) by participating in this RfC. Such COI might include, for example, employment or contracting for a GM company, holding a GM patent, doing GM research, or working at a PR firm. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No. This is a specious argument. We will not have uninvolved Wikipedia administrators swearing loyalty oaths. If they meet the criteria of WP:INVOLVED, there's no need to question their offwiki lives. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI. Also posted here --David Tornheim (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith or Laser Brain, there's already been quite a bit of testing of the water in terms of casting aspersions about editors above already even though we had an ArbCom principle explicitly stating not to do things like this. David now saying in the above edit they link, "industry could easily afford to hire a team of full-time anonymous Pro-GM editors" is a direct violation of that principle beyond just testing the boundaries. Back when we were crafting the principle wording with arbs, it was meant to make it clear that going as far as David just did in aspersions was not acceptable without actual evidence of a COI (even just vaguely referring to a group of editors), and that action to prevent further disruption would be warranted against editors who insist on alluding to shills and these general boogeyman tactics.

I mentioned it before that I'm going to leave it up to you guys to pursue action rather than me trying to push anything (mostly just trying to ignore this behavior), but can we get a bit more strict on enforcing the aspersion principle here and at the RfC? Considering people have already gotten away with more than they should have at this page in terms of what the principle was intended for, things will probably get worse when the RfC starts. This is one of the main behavior reasons we requested admin supervision for this RfC so we could focus on the content and not these kinds of distractions certain editors like to inject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your point is taken, Kingofaces43, and I assure you that while it's thin ice here on the talk page (and I do mean very thin ice, David Tornheim), any such aspersions will be removed from the RFC and participants sanctioned if they persist. As for David's request, we will use the guideline at WP:UNINVOLVED as we do everywhere else. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm inclined to let this one instance slide, but I want to make it clear that further aspersions and Shill Gambits will not be tolerated under any circumstances. They will be summarily removed, and if the editors persist then they will be removed as well. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New source

As noted by other editors ([13], [14]), the National Academy of Sciences has come out with a major new source on this subject. I've just added it to Proposal 1 (citation 9). @RAMRashan: @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I also took the liberty of adding it to Proposal 5 (citation 8) and Proposal 6 (citation 5). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@RAMRashan: @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Kingofaces told me at my user talk about another new source: [15]. It is certainly, um, (GM) food for thought. I've added it (in the public perceptions passage) to Proposals 1, 5, and 6. I think I'm also going to cite it at Denialism, and perhaps jps might want to use it at the conspiracies page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@RAMRashan: @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I became concerned about WP:OVERCITE after adding that second source, so I deleted another source from that same group of cites (about public perceptions). I think that the new source covers very similar material, and is more recent and more to-the-point. This way, there was no net change in the number of citations. You may want to check my edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Problem with this RfC idea

Each source, new and old, should go through the normal process of addition to the body of the article(s) in question. Each source needs to go through a discussion first, most likely, and perhaps some or most will require their own RfC. There will be discussion over validity, weight, potential bias, and wording, as with any contentious material.

This RfC concept is asking us to consider an almost incomprehensible amount of information, and instead of making content creation a group effort, we are forced into "voting" for what has to be less than neutral presentation. It is highly likely the material will be biased if written by one editor, or those who always work together. If written by the entire group in a more common-sense fashion, taking each source at a time, the presentation will be the most encyclopedic.

The concept of hosting a safety consensus statement without actually elaborating on the content in the body came from Jytdog in 2012. It turned out not to be a good idea, the giant RfC found that there were inaccuracies in the reinterpretation given by WP. The WHO, for instance, was misquoted, and there was not sufficient support for the wording. I think it's a bad idea to try and recreate what has been shown to be mistake.

Does anyone have feedback as to why we don't - instead of this RfC - set about adding material to the encyclopedia, and developing a 'statement' from that, when completed? petrarchan47คุก 03:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, thank you, thank you for this fine posting, which brilliantly articulates what my concerns are. I have half remembered the history that the previous Rfc was a Jytdog concept that was, to word it charitibly, found flawed by the community. I don't recall participating in that Rfc but might be wrong, and need to look up the Rfc for reference. The ominous language used against David here ("thin ice," "filibuster" etc.) has left me with a bad taste, and I have hesitated to press my proposal to junk the Rfc. But I second your statement most emphatically. As you note, the concept of the proposed Rfc is deeply broken. Jusdafax 04:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: You're describing a normal process of encyclopedia-building, I grant you. However, if you've been around GMO-related articles at all, you must know that the normal processes have broken down repeatedly and the community of editors have proven unable to self-moderate. That's why GMO has ended up at ANI, arbitration, and AE. This RFC is crafted out of necessity and through an AE mandate to avoid sanctioning editors and prolonging the dispute into yet another arb case. So, not having the RFC isn't an option. @Jusdafax: Another part of the AE mandate is that user behavior is closely monitored and the results of the RFC enforced. David was told he's on thin ice for casting unsupported aspersions at other editors, a position other neutral administrators have supported. The behavior outlined as problematic in the last arb case simply won't be tolerated. --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I will just note briefly that Proposal 3 was written by Petrarchan47, and no one has tried to make it difficult for her proposal to be included. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not submitted any serious proposal for this RfC and disagree with the concept entirely.

If we cared about encyclopedic content, energy would be focussed on vetting sources and getting information onto the pages. Instead, we are stuck here arguing about an ill conceived RfC.

In 2012, the GMO articles looked much like other articles on this site. As Tsavage has previously noted in detail, the articles prior to the arrival and subsequent takeover of the GMO suite by Jytdog were far preferable to today. They also did not suffer the drama and turmoil. In the summer of 2012, Jytdog (along with Aircorn and others) swept through the suite, and in place of content, Jytdog left a summary (the goal of the present RfC). Since 2012, the GMO articles have been kept very trimmed, with a strange penchant by the editors to have less, not more, information (again: summary).

The reason there has been such turmoil at the GMO suite is that these articles were locked down by Jytdog and a small team including King. Other editors were not allowed to repair the articles or make additions, for the most part, unless approved by this team. If anyone pushed a little too hard they found themselves "on thin ice" and the subject of ANIs. The frequency with which GMO related issues wind up at noticeboards is not because the suite attracts problematic editors more than other topics, but because those protecting the wording in the articles use noticeboards to keep undesirable facts/editors out.

The boiling point was a year ago, when multiple editors pointed out to Jytdog and King that their use of the WHO in the long list of refs supporting "GMOs are safe" was completely off base. There were double the number of editors pointing out the obvious, compared to those defending Jytdog's wording, and instead of allowing us to properly quote the WHO, or remove it from the refs (the most popular suggestion), Jytdog abruptly left the WHO conversation and launched the infamous RfC about the statement. In that RfC we were asked not only to review the WHO and his reinterpretation of it, but also over 18 other refs being used. It was monumentally labor intensive, but very revealing. The result was that if there IS support for a scientific consensus, we didn't have it yet. As you know, WP has strong rules for claiming SC, and a strong source or two should be easily provided if in fact such a consensus exists. That fact remains.

I am a huge fan of RfCs, and I suggest again that we go about adding this content in the normal fashion. Build the body, the summary will reveal itself. Every source that has been suggested in the present RfC proposals should be discussed, one at a time. If there are problems with one source, as it stands, the entire proposal would have to be voted down. If we consider each source individually and problems arise, we can then launch a simple RfC; everyone knows simple RfCs are the way to success. Another consideration is that I have found King intentionally misrepresnting science in a very serious way. I have no reason to have any faith that he will seek to present the most accurate and neutral presentation based on the few years I have seen him around. He still defends Jytdog's misuse of the WHO. The culture here sees David as the problem, and misses the forest, no matter what facts are brought forth. If I had tried to misrepresent science on GMOs my ass would be banned in an instant. I would argue that the good ole boys club atmosphere at WP is harming the encyclopedia, and the GMO suite and subsequent joke of an ArbCom hearing are prime examples of that.

I have brought up the facts above to many noticeboards, talk pages, and the ArbCom, and will provide diffs again upon request, though I assume folks have been following along and have read the ArbCom and RfC archives. petrarchan47คุก 21:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from the admins about those comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious as well. Especially considering that Petrarchan has now said they were not serious when submitting proposal 3, one could question why it's even in the list. I'm personally leaving that proposal be, but it is concerning when someone is posting to the talk page so much while outright saying they aren't participating seriously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about wording of questions

I'm starting a conversation here because David Tornheim expressed concern about the wording of the RFC questions (not the proposals) here and I want to try to keep discussion in one place. Please review that section for background. Copying my remark from there: The more I read the two key questions the more I'm wondering why we even need two questions. If both "sides" accept the posit that the current wording is unworkable, can't we just say something like, "Which of the following proposals should replace the current wording?" I'm not sure why we need to roll more language than that into the questions. The admins who close the RFC can certainly ascertain from participant comments whether they have considered sources and normal encyclopedic guidelines. I'm in favor of simplifying language of the RFC wherever possible so participants aren't confounded before they even get to the proposals. --Laser brain (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree the discussion should be here. Feel free to copy my comments here. The reason I made my comments at The_Wordsmith's talk page was because they were in response to this post. I would be comfortable if the entire conversation User_talk:The_Wordsmith#Moving_Forward were to be copied or moved here. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning for the questions isn't particularly to benefit the "sides" in this dispute, but respondents. Any decent RfC has questions that outline what the dispute has been that needs to be addressed instead of a vague should this be changed type question. I typically don't have much patience for RfCs that don't succinctly tell me what the problem has been wat me or what I'm really being asked to break a log jam on. If we removed the questions and say, "Here's a bunch of proposals, what do you like best?" people aren't going to have a sense of direction towards what we're needing answers to. The two tired questions helps give them focus, and also potentially clearer answers if say there is no consensus on question 2 (which proposal to use) even while there is a consensus on question one. Without those two, we open up a scenario where people are broadly talking about various aspects of the content at the RfC without directly addressing the heart of the issue (do the sources indicate a scientific consensus or not).

We also need to break the back of the content dispute without dancing around it. ArbCom itself cannot do that since it's very difficult for them to deal with behavior issues mired in content. That's why we need to be very pointed on what the dispute has been about the content at this RfC to get a decent shot at closing the book on part of this at least. We've had ambiguity in past RfCs were people were going into the weeds on various semi-related topics that partly resulted in the consensus no decision of the last RfC. That ambiguity also lead to some editors trying to claim no consensus meant the original wording that was the status quo had to be removed, while others stuck with the idea that there needed to be a consensus to remove the language. We don’t want that ambiguity again.

We’re also putting a lot of time and effort in finally setting up this RfC. I see no disadvantage in the questions as currently posed, and nothing but potential benefits in plopping people down in front and saying, “Address these specific issues.” That's how a well structured RfC looks. After addressing those questions, then they can go off in other directions if they really want, but we’ll likely end up with another derailed RfC if we don’t give people direction from that start. Part of the reason for this mediated RfC was to craft a structured RfC that would keep respondents focused, so I’m not seeing a particular reason why the questions should be removed. We’re more likely to get a clearer answer (and easier assessment for closers) without any particular drawback. The questions also arose out of talk page discussion above due to concerns from editors on both "sides" that enjoyed both support and no opposition for quite awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (I wrote this response while Tryptofish was posting below): I agree that RfC#2 question was confusing, so much so that the question was revised midway. I agree that we should not make that mistake again. However, despite this ambiguity, a greater wiki-consensus and buy-in was found with this discussion and this 8/26/15 edit.

The current wording of Question 1 (found here) in my opinion will generate similar confusion as with the previous RfC. In the last RfC readers were deeply divided about whether the RS supported claiming a "scientific consensus". If we ask the question again like this, we should expect similar responses. Q1 is not precise, because it does not say what consensus is being claimed or what sources support it or what sources disagree with it. That might lead readers to answer the question based on their personal knowledge rather than consulting the RS. Yes, that puts a burden on the readers, but they probably should not be answering if they are not willing to look at the appropriate RS.

The huge advantage of Tryptofish's approach over the past two RfC's is that readers can choose from a variety of kinds of language as to what language they feel is best supported by the RS and NPOV, rather be restricted to a binary YES/NO on Q1. They might, for example, believe there is a scientific consensus, but that to be NPOV, voice must be given to scientists who disagree with that consensus. Or they may agree some scientific consensus exists, but that for NPOV other aspects of food safety must be included, such as lack of long term studies, concerns as to whether the regulation process is stringent enough or anything else they feel should be included that tempers a "scientific consensus" statement. Any response to Q1 may be incompatible with their choice of answer to Q2.

Tryptofish's method gives readers a discrete set of choices with plenty of opportunity for editors to offer their best proposal. The closers can review and see which proposals have the most support and if any change to the language of any of the proposals would gain even more support for it. Q1 does not seem to help in that regard, and only confuses us as to which proposals are or are not compatible with it. The beauty of Tryptofish's method is that if there is language that has a greater consensus, then that language has a way to gets its day in court and replace the current language to create greater wiki-consensus. Q1 detracts from that. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

David, I think that what may be at the center of your concerns is that, in the previous RfC, editors lacked clear guidance about whether to respond in terms of cited sources, or in terms of their own personal opinions. I won't bother digging up the diff, but I made an edit to the first draft of Q1, in which I added the words "do the preponderance of reliable sources indicate" for exactly that reason. I think that it makes it clear that we are asking about what the sources say, not about personal opinions, and I think that this is a good reason to retain Q1. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, "in the previous RfC, editors lacked clear guidance about whether to respond in terms of cited sources, or in terms of their own personal opinions." I strongly disagree. The question in RfC#2 was: "Do the sources support the content?". I have no idea why you think that suggested that respondents were asked to give their personal opinion about whether there was a "scientific consensus". That RfC language is actually clearer than the current Q1 because it provides the content -and- the sources. One problem with RfC#2 was that it changed after it was launched. A second problem was that the neither the language of the RfC question nor even the notion that an RfC might be launched was discussed in advance of the launch--fortunately, we do not have that issue. Another major problem with RfC#2 was what to do when there was no consensus, articulated here: [16]. That problem is resolved in this RfC by giving specific new wordings and sourcing for each new wording. If the new wording does not have more support than the existing wording, then the status quo ante should reign, correct? The current Q1 muddles things for the reasons I gave above. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I based my suggestion on what I had (mis)understood you to have said just above. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm receptive to a couple of different ways that we can do this. First, I want to thank David for saying at the other talk page that he appreciates my willingness to compromise where possible. However, I would oppose a rewording of the two questions in the way that David had suggested, because I think that question 1 really is NPOV and simply reflects Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But I am open to simply deleting them, per Laser brain. What that would mean is that User:The Wordsmith/GMORFC#Purpose of this RfC would end at: "and is intended to determine community consensus about that." Doing so would eliminate some of the concerns, and I think that it would still be pretty clear what editors are being asked. On the other hand, the reasons that Kingofaces43 set out do indeed argue for using the two questions to make it easier for responding editors to get a handle on what is being asked. The questions came about from the section that Tsavage started, just above, and the approach was also just endorsed by an uninvolved editor at The Wordsmith's talk page. So I think that there is some consensus that the questions are a net positive. In the end, I'm pretty neutral about keeping the two questions as is, or deleting them.

But I think another aspect of what David and some other editors are concerned about is that the RfC draft currently assumes that there is consensus to change the existing language to something, and perhaps we should not presuppose that. In lieu of asking whether the language should be changed, we could present "no change" as an option, along with the various new proposals. That way, we would be asking whether the status quo does or does not reflect the proper answer to question 1. There is some page-to-page variation as to what, exactly, the status quo is. But I think it would be reasonable to take it from the current lead at Genetically modified crops, where it is:

"There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis.^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]}"

On the RfC page, we could have a subsection named "No change" at the top of the proposals section, just before Proposal 1 (maybe with a permalink to the source page), and it could be presented there on an equal basis with the various proposals. I've got ambivalent feelings about that (see my discussion with Kingofaces a few sections above), but I could go along with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Initial thoughts on this:

(1) I disagree that the other editor who commented (Ryk72) supported the current form of the two questions. I believe the editor preferred Q1 as phrased here. Please see Ryk72's comment here.

(2) I am fine deleting the two questions.

(3) I am fine including a status quo -- it probably should be first, but where it is placed is not important since the current order has been fixed for a while.

(4) (a) I do agree that the current language varies slightly between articles--mostly regarding sources. I think it would be better at this late stage of the game to make a status quo option to be that the language at each articles stays as it is. I would rather not try to determine which of the slight variations is best. However, I am willing to look into that and see what is different, and whether we could agree that one version is superior to the others.

(b) We could of course include each one of the unique variations as a separate proposal--I can't say I am all that fond of doing that, but it might work.

(c) Also, we could have a single Proposal titled "status quo", stating, "vote here if you prefer the status quo to any of the other proposals." Followed by: "Please select which of the following options you consider to be the best status quo language to be applied to all of the articles." And include "keep language in the articles as is rather than standardize" as an option. Rather than spell out each unique version in the RfC, we could just link to the articles that have them.

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

In short, I'm probably OK with including a "no change" option as I described, and it should appear before Proposal 1 on the RfC page. But I oppose anything other than a specific version of "no change", and I oppose any kind of separate !voting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, however, I think the version of GM crops is not the best because it has the problem of WP:RS/AC and WP:CITEOVERKILL, repeatedly raised by Tsavage at RfC#2: [17], [18], [19], [20]. I'll see if I can find a better one. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to opine on more content dispute talking points as you should be well aware of by now. Editors have indeed been switching between violating RS/AC by claiming there is no consensus while ignoring sources when there are plenty of sources saying there is a consensus per RS/AC, and then switching to saying it's citation overkill to have so many sources documenting the consensus (even though that's what happens when you have scientific consensus). This isn't the place to deal with those content or behavior issues though. If someone really wants to pull that maneuver again, they can save it for the RfC. No change is simply that in this case. There is no picking and choosing your personal preferred version on that one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I do not want to argue content and sourcing here either, which is why I am resistant to having us try to choose one of the many versions of the language currently in the articles as the one and only status quo ante version, which is exactly what Tryptofish did above. I looked at about 5-10 of them and they all have their own special problems. Tryptofish chose the version at GM crops. The versions at Biotechnology#Agriculture, GM food controversies, GM food#Health_and_safety, GMO#Controversy, Denialism#Genetically_modified_foods, GM maize#Controversy and GM soybean--controversy are different.

Do you agree that the no change/status quo ante option is, therefore, the version at each of the articles as they are now? Or are you supporting Tryptofish's approach of choosing one of these many versions as the one and only status quo ante version? Please clarify. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

David, it is very hard for me to figure out what to do with your list of "no change" pages. I get it that you would like to choose a version with fewer citations, and that is OK with me. And, given that Kingofaces only disagreed with you about the two questions, but not about offering a "no change" option, I think that we may have a semi-consensus to offer an example of "no change" at the top of the proposals section. But we really need to select one, with the understanding that, if it ends up as the consensus, it will be that exact way at every page. Otherwise, the RfC becomes pointless. Or, you could pick more than one, and offer them instead as multiple numbered proposals. But, with the list you just offered, "no change" is a meaningless proposition. Do you realize that some of the links you just gave say "scientific consensus" instead of "scientific agreement"?! Many of them cite Pamela Ronald. What, exactly do you propose as "no change"? If you cannot answer that question in a way that gets consensus, then I do not see a way to offer "no change" as an option. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point, have we actually determined a concrete reason why the questions should be removed or even changed after having overall support for awhile now? I haven't seen anything yet aside from mention by Laser Brain that the piece on policies, guidelines, etc. might be a bit superfluous in question 1. We could just simplify the question to something along the line of "Do sources demonstrate a scientific consensus . . ." to address that without deleting everything. We at least need that core part of question 1 though. Continuing my theme from above, there's no harm in reminding people we have specific policies on concepts like academic consensus, and there's potential gain of people initially being laser focused on the core of the dispute.

Question 2 isn't limiting what people can say either. If they have tweaks to suggest, nothing is stopping them from saying they like prefer proposal X with a slight modification. I imagine this happens at other similar ArbCom RfCs. We're just leading respondents likely to be unfamiliar with the topic at all to water, directly pointing them to certain areas, and letting them go from there as Ryk72 alluded to here. We made it clear from the start that we'd want to err on the side of giving plenty of structure and direction in this RfC, plus we have just one shot at this. Especially when we can't find a clear problem to weigh against the benefits, I'm really not sure what there is to discuss in terms of significant change to the questions. With Laser Brain's comments related to zero-hour disputes on RfC structure that had been worked out by initial consensus and available for comment for quite some time already, I think we'd need to find a major issue first to warrant significant changes to the questions at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Q1 is confusing the way it is worded and should either be eliminated entirely or should be changed to "Should the language in the articles be changed?" as I have explained above. Laser Brain also commented that it is confusing. Ryk72 suggested that Q1 should be whether to change the status quo or not. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having thought about it overnight (and having read everything that other editors said here), I have come to the conclusion that my preference is for keeping Q1 and Q2 in their present forms. For me, the biggest reason not to modify them is the value in spelling out that editors should try to base their responses on sources and not on personal opinions. But in the end, this is up to The Wordsmith and Laser brain. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that editors should not be using their personal opinions to make their decision, but base it on the WP:PAG and WP:RS. I have made a change that I believe incorporates those concerns and The Wordsmith's suggestion of offering editors an opportunity to provide their own proposal here. (I mistakenly put Laser brain in the edit summary, when I meant The WordSmith. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• And having taken another night to sleep on it, I have come to the conclusion that offering a "no change" option is unworkable, because there is no single version that exists in the status quo. Some pages say "scientific agreement" whereas others say "scientific consensus". As I now see it, the draft RfC page has the format and rules pretty much right, and any further arguments about changing the format or rules increasingly look like filibustering. Editors who would like to adopt the existing wording from any of the pages should, instead, select the exact wording from one page, or make a modification of it, and present it as an additional proposal(s), numbered after the proposals we already have. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. You are advocating that the language *must* be changed to be made uniform in all the articles. As King said above, the status quo is the status quo. I do not see why the status quo is "unworkable"--it is the default if there is no consensus at the end of the RfC. There is an advantage to having the language different in each article: It makes editors and readers who see the different wording aware that there is disagreement and in particular that the sources do not use the same wording. They may actually look at the sources rather that trust our version is NPOV and learn something about GMOs and safety testing issues. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

David, I've really tried to go the extra mile with you in this discussion, and I know that you disagree with me. Please feel free to present new proposals that are based on language that already exists on pages. If you want, you can even select those pages that currently say "scientific consensus" and cite Pamela Ronald. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

David just made an edit changing the two questions, which I then modified: combined diff. The effect is to change Q1 to ask whether the existing language should be changed. I can support either the questions prior to the changes permalink, or the changed version permalink about equally, but I oppose further changes away from the questions as they are. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

After more thought, I actually like the new version of the two questions more than I did originally, and I prefer this current version over what we had previously. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I can live with this version, which says:

1. Based upon the policies, guidelines, and concepts related to scientific consensus, listed below, do the preponderance of reliable sources about the safety of genetically modified food with respect to human health indicate that the existing language should be changed?

I do think it is a bit bulky but it fixes the main problem I had with the old Q1. These are some of the things I would delete to simplify.

1. Based upon the policies and guidelines and concepts related to scientific consensus, especially those listed below, do the preponderance of do the reliable sources about the safety of genetically modified food with respect to human health indicate that the existing language should be changed?

I did not think we could reach agreement, but it appears we may have. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Good, thanks. However, I oppose the second version, because what it deletes are important parts of how the opening sections of the RfC page have been constructed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Back from the holiday, otherwise I would have posted here sooner. I generally like the prose Trypto ended at here. However, I made a few tweaks that still satisfy the concerns that have stuck such as the no change option. Question 2 has always been about what to change, so I moved the language about existing language there instead. This avoids the potential change in meaning to Q1 as the dispute covers not only the language at hand, but editors consistently trying to claim there isn't a scientific consensus when we're working on other content (followed by comments seen further above that we can't use the consensus language in this disputed section because it's not fleshed out in other areas). The core dispute has always been whether there is an academic consensus and not just the narrower scope of this particular language about it. Even though some editors have been trying to remove the term academic consensus from content, it seems odd to not want to pose the actual question here.

Given the history of this topic, ambiguous language in talk closes causes problems. Making Q1 more narrow about only the existing language can create the opportunity for others to say, "The RfC was only on this specific language", while disputing whether there is a scientific consensus when applying WP:WEIGHT to other content. Ideally that wouldn't happen, or maybe the respondents and closers provide comments explicit enough to prevent that on their own. Best to guide people to that on the front end though. That's why we need a clear delineation between asking what the weight of sources says (Q1) and what to do about content in that regard (Q2). It should help the respondents, but also create less ambiguity in the future too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I made a few corrections, and it's OK with me. At this point, we have passed the point of diminishing returns with respect to tweaking the draft, and I personally am eager to move on to the next steps: where the admins identify the three closers and finalize the RfC page, and then start the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me (missed the double shoulds). I don't think there's really anything more we can do at this point, so it's definitely time to get closers lined up and move forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment here.

I disagree with this edit, because of reasons I previously expressed:

All along, I believed the proposals would be presented on an equal footing. Adding the preliminary question "do the preponderance of reliable sources indicate that there is scientific consensus?" changes the RfC away from the question of how to improve the language at the article to be more representative of the RS, and into a binary issue about whether there is a "scientific consensus". That question has already been asked in two previous RfC's, and there was no wiki-consensus for it at the last RfC, so why ask it again? Why not seek wider wiki-consensus, as I thought was the goal of the RfC?

An additional problem with asking the question is that if the editors believe there is a consensus, we do not know what consensus they believe exists. Which version are they claiming exists?

• Pamela Ronald's "genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat"
• The E.U. report's language: "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."
• Or Nicolia's version "we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops."

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

David: if the change had removed the question of whether the existing language at the pages should be changed, I would be opposing it. But it preserves it. It preserves the essential matter of the concerns you raised earlier. And it states the nature of the differences among the various proposals fairly and neutrally. As for your questions about "which version?", the revised language does not take sides on that, and leaves it up to the community. The community will answer the question of Ronald or the EU or Nicolia or whatever, by selecting a proposal that reflects the community's analysis of the sources. And I am very troubled by your bringing that question up, because I just got through posing that question to you in this talk, with respect to what page we should use if we had selected "no change" as an option among the proposals. You declined to select an existing page for that, and yet you now argue for slowing the opening of the RfC over the same issue that you had set aside just days ago. If you want the community to endorse Ronald or the EU or whatever, just go ahead and post a new proposal. Nobody is stopping you. But the time has come to stop delaying. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If respondents do decide there isn't a scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC, they will chose from the available proposals (or no change) we've had ample time to develop. I find it odd that someone would claim the proposals aren't presented on equal footing. It's also concerning that editors who have persistently tried to claim there isn't a scientific consensus are trying to remove that question from this RfC. It does indeed seem time to move ahead after David had already been warned about filbustering. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Simple is best

There is no delaying. This remains a poorly formed RfC, going ahead with it in this state, introduced by a weighty set of instructions, followed by a complicated structure of multiple questions leading to multiple proposals with varying editorial scope, will only generate more problems in the implementation. The driving claim suggesting that the GMO subject area is so plagued by raging dispute that speedy, extraordinary action is required to avoid a GMO-2 arbitration case, is not supported by the editing history in the articles. That said, if we're committed to a multiple proposal approach, MAKE IT SIMPLE, as in, straightforward and unambiguously policy-based (for example, asking editors to look at statements and corresponding sources is policy-based; asking editors what conclusion they believe sources add up to, such as, a scientific consensus, is counter to core editorial policy). The RfC must be well-formed to be of any real value. For framing, I suggest plain wording that does not confuse or steer, like:

Question: Based on the cited sources, which Proposal best describes the current safety facts regarding human consumption of GM foods? (You can also add your own alternative proposal.)

Instructions: Editor comments should be posted in their own sections, to a maximum of 800 words (excess word count will be hidden as an expandable section and may be ignored during the closing evaluation). Due to a history of editorial disputes, GMO articles and this RfC are under Discretionary Sanctions - admins Wordsmith and Laser brain have volunteered to ensure orderly participation. After 30 days, three volunteer admins, uninvolved in the GMO subject area, will evaluate for consensus. Thank you.

The proposals that follow should then focus exclusively on safety (unlike Proposal 5, that extends to benefits to farmers, and the consequences of hindering biotech development).

Keeping comments in sections and somewhat limited in word count seems reasonable, so the closers can determine the quality of each argument from an organized transcript. The monitors can be asked questions if anything is unclear - problems should be handled as they arise. We should keep it simple and open, remember that, by policy, anyone should be able to participate without prerequisites, let the comments come in freely, and go from there. --Tsavage (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how policy supports the idea of voting on a summary of content that isn't entered into the encyclopedia. The first question our random responders will ask is, where is this information printed? Nowhere? Why not? If it isn't important enough to expand upon in the body, why are you concerned with a summary? Isn't the whole idea of an encyclopedia, especially an ever expandable one on the web, to give information?

Why would we continue on without answering this basic question here?

The only way to this elusive summary statement is to do the work of considering each source worthy of inclusion one by one. We can't drop this kind of homework into the laps of the community and expect a good result. petrarchan47คุก 09:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Wordsmith and Laser brain: I agree with Jusdafax, Petrarchan47, Tsavage and others who have expressed concern about the form of this RfC. If the RfC isn't well-formed, it will lead to an unclear consensus.

The only precedent for this is Jerusalem, but the situation there was very different. It was a relatively simple question, the issue was not in flux, the sources were not difficult to understand, and there was no multi-billion-dollar industry at stake. Here, new sources are more likely to appear, the issues are highly complex, a great deal of money is involved, and it isn't clear to what extent the differences between the versions matter. Also, there doesn't seem to be much activity at the affected articles and their talk pages, so is there a need for an RfC?

The disputed sentence says: "There is general scientific agreement that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but should be tested on a case-by-case basis."

This is grammatically incorrect, and it's unclear what the second part means. It should be fixed before starting an RfC; otherwise one of the options is something that no one should choose.

The RfC should also include an option that says something like: "The issue should be decided by the usual editing and dispute-resolution processes and not by an RfC that seeks to lock one version in place." That should be offered as an option that people can agree to without affecting their other choices. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Given your extensive history, I value your input. The purpose of this RFC is twofold: 1) to come up with a consensus on how things should be worded, given that it needs to be mentioned on a large number of pages. Wider community input is helpful. 2) It has been the subject of extensive edit warring and an Arbcom case, followed by more warring. It was brought up at ARCA and the Committee agreed that a moderated RFC was the only viable alternative to a second Case. Regarding the grammar, I'm open to your input on rewording the sentence. I don't think we should have a "nullify this RfC" option, because as previously said it would end up at Arbcom again. Given the ineptness of many current Arbs, I'm pretty sure nobody wants them even attempting to make content decisions (assuming they don't reject it out of hand for being a content decision). Both proponents of GMOs and skeptics have been seen trying to manipulate things at the outer articles that don't get much attention. The core of the issue is that there is one fact that needs to be on many related pages, and the community needs to have a unified way of presenting that fact. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, I could suggest a grammar fix, but I don't know what the sentence means. I assume it means "new foods coming onto the market should be tested," but what does "on a case-by-case basis" mean? Some are tested and some not; they are tested randomly? And tested for what? There is no "this GMO food is as safe as its non-GMO equivalent" test.

I'm writing this without having read the sources; perhaps reading them would make everything clear, but the sentence should do that for me.

I think you really do need a "let's not have this RfC" option; otherwise people are forced into choosing between several not-good options. The pages are quiet. There's nothing there to suggest that ArbCom is needed, and if it is, that's a behavioral issue, not a content one. Realistically, I think most people's choice will be pretty random, because to make an informed choice would take many hours or even days of reading the sources. And are they the best sources to use? It's hard to see how that could be judged by someone not familiar with the issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for your input. Regarding what the phrase "should be tested on a case-by-case basis" is about, this discussion should help explain it: Talk:Genetically_modified_crops/Archive_4#Sentence_regarding_case-by-case_testing_in_different_countries. I am curious what you think it should say instead. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of your comment I will have to think about and consult others before responding, but as to the meaning of the sentence in question, it generally means that the process of genetic modification itself poses no greater risk (for example, modified corn is as safe as unmodified corn), but individual modifications should be tested before going to market (i.e. corn modified to be resistant to disease should be tested before being mass produced). At least, that's my interpretation of it as a non-scientist. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Wordsmith, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. That is the conclusionary statement sources put out there for the general public, so if some still have more questions on what it means, it's up to them to read the more technical details in the sources on their own or wait for new sources that explain their question better. If someone digs into the technical details of consensus statements, two ideas get covered that are looking at the present and future, respectively:

1. Currently marketed GM crops are tested and have been found to be as safe as non-GM counterparts.
2. The GM process itself does not introduce significantly new or increased safety risks relative to conventional breeding.

There are nuances between those two, so that outlines the importance of the tiered questions 1 and 2 where we can get a decent partial resolution to the dispute with Q1 even if we get hung up in Q2. That's because even though we don't cover both aspects perfectly (we focused on 1 for now for a one thing at a time approach), they are a good starting point that we need to break the logjam. After the RfC, we could theoretically start fleshing out the second point more and how those two points I mentioned are linked by risk assessment, but we just aren't capable of handling that level of detail in the current editing environment. I think the RfC as written puts us in a position to resolve the dispute regardless of the actual outcome at this point.

Not to sound like a broken record joining in on lengthy opining (mostly just trying to remind the larger audience), but part of the reason we have this ArbCom mandated RfC (it’s too late for people to say we shouldn’t have one) is because we need to break the back of the dispute rather than beat around the bush. The concerns brought up in this subsection are a bit disingenuous because we already have more details than just the summary level consensus statement. In writing lower level content, there is always the persistent claim that there is no consensus on safety from certain editors that stalls content in that area, and then we get arguments there isn’t enough lower level content when discussing the summary level content like this. It’s similar to moving the goalposts fallacy except certain editors basically demand we go to the opposite goalpost once we start addressing the other goalpost. The most logical thing to do is act like we are starting any new article by covering main ideas first and then fleshing details out within instead of the opposite. If someone comes in opining that there are no tests for determining relative safety of two food items or other personal followup questions they have while explicitly saying they didn't even read the sources, that isn't our onus. That's actually a huge problem I hope we can avoid with RfC respondents opining personal opinions. We’re going about this the most efficient way we can given the environment, and most of the complaints above belong back at the ArbCom decision to hold the RfC in the first place, not here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, I agree re: "individual modifications" needing to be safety tested. But that's not what the sentence says. A clearer version of that sentence could be one of the options. The "case by case" language comes from the World Health Organization:

Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. [21]

If someone has not already written one, the RfC could offer an option that simply summarizes the WHO's position, with in-text attribution, because it's an independent source we normally rely on for contentious issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can make an additional proposal. Please feel free to make one, yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this as another proposal. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

{ec}Additionally, one should be sure to read the current proposals and sources before making a new proposal. Multiple sources citing the scientific consensus already cite the WHO as part of the consensus in their supporting language. I believe quite a few proposals already cover the WHO both directly and with sources that cite it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with this to feel confident about suggesting an option, but perhaps others could consider it. Given how contentious this is, if I were writing the lead for one of these articles, I would simply quote or closely paraphrase the WHO. They're authoritative, independent and respected; their words are carefully considered; and using them avoids cherry-picking. If and when the WHO updates their position, I would update the article accordingly. So something like:

According to the World Health Organization, "[d]ifferent GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." The WHO adds that no effects on human health have been demonstrated as a result of eating GM foods, and that GM foods currently on the market "have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health."

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather than trying to litigate content before the RfC, I'm posting this considering you might be able to improve a potential proposal as you've said you aren't familiar with the sources. Only selecting one source (and one that happens to not explicitly say consensus) is cherrypicking considering that multiple organizations of similar stature do claim there is consensus if you read through the proposals. Quite a few even mention the WHO as agreeing with that consensus. Give proposal 1's citations a read for this background. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith and @Laser brain: We have not even opened the RfC, and you are in serious danger of this thing spinning out of control. After all, The Wordsmith said very clearly last week that the RfC process was going to move forward this week. This sub-thread started with what is actually a rather reasonable set of comments by Tsavage, and then started expanding into some stuff that is not entirely what it seems.

As for what Tsavage said, I'm still receptive to a significant simplification of the "Purpose of this RfC" section. But I think that two features are essential, and need to be retained. The first is the question of whether existing language should be changed at all – because, with that, we really do cover the option of editors deciding that the existing language should not be changed, and we do it without saying "negate the RfC". I think that the discussions in this talk leading to including that aspect have been very beneficial. The second feature that needs to be retained in some form is what the current language of "Based upon the policies, guidelines, and concepts related to scientific consensus, listed below, do the preponderance of reliable sources indicate..." serves for – because that really does set the process in terms of Wikipedia's policies instead of personal opinions, and you can bet that the POV-pushers do not like it one bit. As for simplifying the Rules, the bottom line is what The Wordsmith and Laser brain feel you can enforce.

As for Petrarchan47, she said just a little way up on this talk that her submission of Proposal 3 was made in a not-serious manner, so I have to wonder about anyone else agreeing with her comments. (Still no admin reaction to that?)

Please hear me on this: SlimVirgin is WP:INVOLVED with anything that involves me. There is a history here. And an awful lot of what SlimVirgin said just above needs to be unpacked. First of all: "a great deal of money is involved". The last thing we need here is administrators who are unfamiliar with how Principle 5 of the ArbCom case, and its reference to "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations", applies in a specific way in the GMO case scope. Also, when she says that there currently is not much activity at the pages, that obviously does not reflect anything prior to a few months ago, when my filing at ARCA led to the start of this RfC process. Without the pending RfC we would indeed be having more and more of the AE filings of earlier this year. And finally, SlimVirgin is right that the existing language needs a big rewrite, and that ought to be obvious. But we will not rewrite it on this draft RfC talk page. We need a community consensus to fix it. And that example of the status quo language is just that: an example. The exact language varies from page to page, so there really is no status quo that exists, and no track record of involved editors being able to resolve how to fix it, so it cannot be fixed before the RfC. And if anyone thinks that the proposals so far are not good, propose something else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are personalizing and misinterpreting, and you're "involved" when it comes to several people on this page. I can't see what difference that makes. When I said there is a lot of money at stake, I meant that we are dealing with a commercial issue worth many billions of dollars. We have never locked words in place in the interests of an industry before. The Jerusalem issue was a long-standing political dispute, one not likely to change. The GMO issue could change at any time, even if only in nuanced ways, as more research or position papers become available. If new sources appear, this situation means that editors won't be able to add them until they've organized a 30-day RfC. The editing of these pages needs to be normalized, not made even more peculiar. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"in the interests of an industry": How about in the interests of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines? That's a rhetorical question, so you don't need to answer it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why it's rhetorical or where this hostility is coming from. You have very strong views about this issue. I don't. I couldn't care less about it. But it's clear that the conservatism suits the corporate position. And maybe the corporate position is correct. But usually these things are sorted out by editing. If new editors come along with new views or with expertise, they're going to be locked out of changing these words because of an RfC written by the people with the strongest views, and voted on by people who will not be able to tell what's what, because it takes time to learn about the issues. That makes no sense to me. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not hostile, just being realistic. I have strong views, but they have nothing to do with conservatism nor corporatism. And you do seem to have an interest in "scientific consensus". And, The Wordsmith and Laser brain: you can see here how threaded discussion works out when editors discuss GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think if you want to hold an RfC on this, one that locks in words for a certain period, you should do it in two tiers. First, allow anyone who wants to offer an option to do so. Allow that to continue for a set period. Second, choose a small group of good editors and ask them to choose a shortlist of the clearest options (I would say no more than three), a shortlist that they may edit to make sure the writing and sourcing are good. They might even merge some of the options. Then offer that shortlist to the community. It will still be hard for the community to choose, but the filter will make sure that the choices offered are good ones. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And my take: First, allow anyone who wants to offer an option to do so. Second: let the community decide, but not in a chaotic manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

And I forgot to add: if any self-appointed "good editor" feels something should be rewritten or merged or whatever, let them add that as another proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thinking further about this idea of "first, and second", it occurs to me that the current draft explicitly allows the closers to decide to extend the discussion beyond 30 days, if needed to arrive at a proper consensus. There is no reason why they could not decide to have a part 2 of the RfC, with a refined list of proposal choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear for The Wordsmith after seeing their comments, I will also point out SlimVirgin is very WP:INVOLVED in matters involving me in this general topic as well. It's rather concerning that they have all of a sudden jumped into this topic after starting to interact with me again in a few other venues rather out of the blue. After reporting another user for aspersions in a pesticide topic, SlimVirgin resorted to very similar witch-hunt tactics towards me at that ANI.[22] Their actions are actually part of the basis for the currently accepted WP:ASPERSIONS principle I drafted at the GMO case. SV had repeatedly been warned at that ANI and their talk page [23] along with other antagonistic behavior towards me to the point I've been close to requesting an interaction ban a few times. Still trying to ignore it when it pops up rather than pursue action, but it should be clear that SlimVirgin is far from uninvolved here for the purpose of this RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• No RFC is perfect, and not everyone is going to agree on the perfect RFC anyway. Editors have spent months making proposals with the intention of taking this to RFC, something all the editors who have commented here were well aware of. Everyone who wants to has now had enough time to voice their opinions. Lets just let the moderators decide on the best presentation and format so we can actually run the thing. AIRcorn (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That is all so true! Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources in questions

There was some concern above that editors wouldn't know what sources they are supposed to evaluate, so I added a link to the proposals to make that original intention clear. I'm posting this considering that my language isn't meant to explicitly preclude other sources people might bring in during the RfC, but we'd also expect that sources people intend to use would have been included by now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Time to proceed

I think we've gotten things about as good as we're going to get. We've had quite enough Eleventh Hour Objections, and I've been very accommodating to them. However, this needs to be dealt with before the issue gets stale. Tomorrow morning I am going to fullprotect both the RfC page and Talk, archive the thread on my User Talk page, and post to AN requesting closers to volunteer. Once we have three qualified uninvolved admins, the RfC will be updated, moved to Project-space, and published at all the appropriate noticeboards. We need to start this because frankly, I'm tired of hearing about GMOs and getting lots of Orange Bars notifying me of talk page updates. I already regret volunteering for this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of giving you one more comment to read, I want to say a very sincere "thank you" for this. And I am sorry that you are regretting it, so please know that you are doing a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith, if someone wants to add the World Health Organization option, is there time to do that? If yes, until when exactly? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be protecting it tomorrow, let's say 12pm EDT. If you can find a concise wording in the same style of the other proposals, I don't have any objection. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think there would be no problem with adding proposals shortly after the RfC opens. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not super picky on when new proposals will no longer be accepted either. The main thing right now is to lock down the process for the RfC itself so we can move forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone should be able to add a new proposal at any time. Period. If something comes in late but seems to be getting traction, the closers have the discretion to extend the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I was thinking more about when we have a temporary halt to begin the actual RfC. If adding RfC proposals is independent of the actual start time, things should be fine. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Wordsmith—I was coming in to advise this action. --Laser brain (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you agree. This debate has passed its expiration date, and it is time to invoke cloture on this endless filibustering. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"Let's just get this over with" is the worst response I can imagine. It seems more appropriate to ask for new admins with a fresh supply of patience, than to go forward with this atttitude. Further, you have one editor, King, who should not be taking part in this discussion or any GMO related issue based on his intentional misrepresentation of the GMO safety science. I am flabbergasted that no one has found this fact compelling. Since no one has offered to help look into whether his activity is problematic, I plan to take this to a noticeboard (not my strong suit) for further investigation. This isn't about filibustering, it's about getting the facts straight for readers, and making sure no involved editors are actively seeking to distort the science. This isn't about making things easy for admins, either. You signed up for a tough job, not to have fewer orange notices. petrarchan47คุก 22:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I came here today to make suggestions about the format of the RfC after seeing Tsavage's comment. I have no involvement in this area, despite attempts to paint me that way. I can think of two GM-related articles that I've briefly edited, one only because it was poorly written, and I soon took it off my watchlist because it was impossible to work on. As I've said, I couldn't care less about the topic.

I've said nothing aggressive or inappropriate here that I'm aware of. Neverthless, I've been personally attacked by Tryptofish and Kingofaces. Kingofaces post, in particular, is astonishing, and I'd appreciate some admin action. This is the toxicity that people encounter when they comment in this area if they disagree with Tryptofish, Kingofaces and previously Jytdog. It has nothing to do with defending science, but of seeing everyone who doesn't agree with you as an enemy. An innocent remark that billions of dollars are at stake is immediately interpreted as an allegation of paid editing.

This should not be happening. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)