Talk:Organic farming

Template:Vital article

everybody lobbies

yep, and everybody funds research.Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section edits

Hi Jytdog. Thank you for being bold and asking that I improve my sources. However, in your edit's comment you errantly say:

"we don't source scientific discussions based on popular media"

The guidelines do not say that (see below) and are far more nuanced than you imply. You then use your misinterpretation of the the Wikipedia guidelines to apparently justify a blanket erase of literally everything I added to the section without improving upon it, etc. Please explain your reasoning in greater detail and post links and quote directly from sections of reliable sources to back it up, in case I'm mistaken.

In the meantime, here's the actual section of reliable sources (emphasis mine):

" ... For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name. ..."

As you can see, your strict interpretation is incorrect.

And, finally, please explain your blaring inconsistency by not applying your own misinterpretation of the the Wikipedia guidelines to the rest of the section. You left the source of Borlaug, etc. within the same section intact and the first reference is to Salon Magazine which is most certainly popular media. Why didn't you delete all of that as well?

In the meantime, I will re-added my edit with a source that skips the news media and links directly to the study in order to hopefully meet you halfway despite my differences with your errant misinterpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. I good faith, please do not revert again unless you properly follow the Wikipedia guidelines in the process. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the edits by Jytdog; if there are more information that is inappropriately cited to the popular media, we should remove those too. I also believe we need to be citing secondary sources, not primary, and would endorse replacing any material cited to the primary lterature to more appropriate secondary sources. The way to improve the article is to use the best sourcing available, namely secondary sources in the scientific literature for scientific material. Yobol (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're going to need to start citing actual guidelines (like I did above) before you outright blanket delete my edits or I'm going to need to involve some disinterested third parties who do. In the meantime, I've removed the section (as you both did to my edits for the same reasons) while you work on providing superior sources for that part of the section you left behind. Cowicide (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Also in regards to where you said in your edit comment:

"Review goes to great lengths not to declare one as "healthier"; you will find no such conclusions in the article itself)"

Kind of wish you had asked me to edit it instead of simply deleting it. But I do agree it should have reflected uncertainies in their study and I now ask that you assist me in making the article better. This is how I would change it to better reflect the study overall. What do you think?

My proposed edit:

"A 2014 study found higher antioxidant activity and higher concentrations of a wide range of antioxidants/(poly)phenolics found in organic foods that may indicate a greater potential for nutritional benefits. However, the study pointed out that there is still a lack of knowledge of potential human health impacts of increasing antioxidant/(poly)phenolic intake levels and switching to organic food consumption."

Thank you for pointing out my error. Cowicide (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not see a discussion about the "superiority" of the organic agricultural methods in the cited source. Please point me to the part of the article that says the organic agricultural methods are "superior". Discussions about any health effects of organic foods do not belong in the criticism section, either and are already discussed in the food quality section. Yobol (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If discussions about any health effects of organic foods do not belong in the criticism section, I'll remove them all now and/or move them including the one that you aren't deleting for some strange reason from the paragraph above mine that mentions it. I'll change the wording of the other part to make it more comprehensive. I'm working on it now, please don't blanket delete my edits in the meantime unless your intention is to encumber my work. Thanks. Cowicide (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Cowicide -- every single policy calls us to use secondary sources. In my view, this is all the more important for anything scientific (I grant that I am heavily influenced by WP:MEDRS here, which makes that very strong statement in WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY, and in the general guideline [[WP:RS}}, even stronger) but nonetheless we should use WP:SECONDARY sources everywhere. If you do not understand why that is so, I would be happy to discuss on your Talk page or mine. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, thank you for finally engaging in dialog with me on this Talk Page and without rude expletives. However, in your haste to vandalize the page in an obvious act of anger and revenge, it's incredibly difficult for me to take you seriously at this point until you revert the vandalism. Deleting all my edits at once for the entire page at this point without discussion is blatantly against the guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons

From the Wikipedia guidelines: "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal."

As far as secondary sources go, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I already used them previously and you proceeded to break from Wikipedia guidelines (as I showed you, but you ignored) and told me to not use "popular media" even though the article repeatedly uses said media as the guidelines allow (again, as I showed you). Now after I removed some of those sources simply to appease you and work with you, you then call for secondary sources that I had there in the first place after deleting every edit I've made. I see the games you're trying to play and I'm ending this game now. Vandalism isn't constructive. I'll give you time to cool down and put my edits back. You do that, I can work with you. If that's not done, it's beyond time for me to involve admins here and get you to cool your heels and start following Wikipedia guidelines I've shown you above. Cowicide (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section now uses the Baranski source with a "However", to contradict the criticism that it will lead lower agricultural yield. However, the Baranski source and the cited text do not address the issue of agricultural yield at all. This is classic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and needs to be removed. The addition of the second paragraph to the Food quality section is WP:UNDUE as Baranski is already used as a source in that section, so that material needs to be removed as well. I am also concerned that Cowicide is turning WP:BRD on its head. The correct sequence is for Cowicide to get consensus before putting in contested material. Yobol (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This has now all been outright deleted in a hostile act of vandalism by a poster here who is brigading with you against me. It's becoming increasingly more obvious that you and this vandal have an agenda to whitewash this article and push your own POV. There is no "consensus" that I'm using contested material. You alone are not consensus. And your vandal who just literally deleted all my edits in an act of revenge isn't consensus. The Criticism section now contains content and sources that you have claimed don't belong there. But, I suppose they are fine as long as they are agreeable to your agenda? That's not how Wikipedia works as you and the vandal are about to find out. Cowicide (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Cowicide I can see that editors are having a difficult time working with you here because your comments are in large part directed at editors instead of content--you're assuming quite a lot of bad faith ("hostile act of vandalism", etc.). Please keep comments focused on content. Also, the usual editing pattern is WP:BRD--if you make a change to the article and it's challenged, it stays out of the article until consensus develops for it.

  Regarding the content, I do not see that the concerns regarding questionable use of primary source and possible WP:SYNTH issues have been resolved. Zad68 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

edit warring

I reverted the article back to before cowicide started editing. the edit warring by cowicide is disgraceful. Jytdog (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop being uncivil next to your edit comments and now on my Talk Page. If you had bothered to read the article's Talk Page, you would have seen where I made many concessions and changes to my edits even in the case while you were wrong about the guidelines and made blanket deletions of my work without discussing it on the Talk Page first. You didn't bother to simply even try to work with me before repeatedly blanket deleting edits. I reached out to you to talk on the Talk Page during that time, now you rejected all that and have wiped out the entire page in anger and revenge. Now you're very obviously trying to wiggle your way back out of it.

You are being incredibly disingenuous by saying that you reverted literally every edit I made "so we could talk". You very obviously did it as an act of vandalism and revenge and you already admitted it within your comment next to your edit (containing an expletive). Now you apparently want to backtrack and finally "talk", but you've already broken enough guidelines, shown bad faith edits, ignored my pleas to utilize the article's Talke Page and used plenty of hostile editing tactics.

If you revert back your vandalism and restore my edits you wiped out and then finally utilize the Talk Page about the edits you disagree with, I'm all for it. I'll work with you on this Talk Page as I've been asking you to do from literally the very beginning. It may at least show some good faith on your part for a fresh start. But, unless you do that right now, you've crossed a line by literally deleting every one of my edits without discussion and we've reached an impasse that regrettably only some admins can resolve at this point. Cowicide (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

here is what i wrote before about why I reverted back to a pre-dispute version - please read it: I reverted to a version before all the nonsense started - including my own edits - so we could all discuss things on talk. This is a tactic I have used in the past to try to avoid going to drama boards. I suggest we try to work things out on Talk.

So, here is my perspective at this point. I have told you several times that a) you edit warred all night tonight; b) I was at work and unable to participate in the discussion and c) I reset the board to before you and me (and i made many edits independent of you) and Yobol made changes, so that all of us, and anybody who cares to join, can discuss and reach consensus while the article remains stable. I did what I think is a reasonable thing (with an admittedly harsh note about behavior - nothing about revenge, but about edit warring behavior! ). if you demand that the article reflect your last version, that is a very poor reflection on you. If you want to bring this to admins, that is great, but it will be mutually assured destruction. you will face a block as you have edit warred all night long.

Your edits, and mine, and Yobol's, have not been wasted. They are all there in the history, and ones that we discuss and agree on, we can implement. There is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Restore my edits now. Final warning. Cowicide (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing - POV tag discussion.

Outright deleting edits you don't personally agree with is against Wikipedia guidelines. I have made edits that after revisions had a NPOV, yet they were simply deleted en masse and much of it was done without previous discussion and/or were reverts done against Wikipedia guidelines as mentioned earlier in this Talk Page and I'll repeat below again so it hopefully sinks in this time. It's time to resolve this and work together instead of resorting to vandalism and hostile blanket deletions that result in a anti-organic POV agenda being pushed along with being disruptive and creating an environment that's hostile towards collaboration.

The contributors (and that's what you're supposed to be, contributors, not content deletion artists) need to work this out and we can start by restoring a better NPOV to the article. I made edits and where I was reasoned with by Yobol (instead of simply deleting without comment on the Talk Page), I made changes to address POV. That showed good faith on my part and it's time for that good faith is returned and knock off the blanket deletions in anger/revenge and POV pushing. It's also time to stop demanding sources that meet an artificially created, personal guidelines while ignoring the quality (or lack thereof) of sources for other parts of the article you may or may not be ideologically agreed to.

Since most of Jytdog edits were against these Wikipedia guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons

Specifically from the Wikipedia guidelines (emphasis mine): "There are various reasons for removing content from an article. Regardless of the reason, it should be described in the edit summary. If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal."

I'm reverting my posts from the blanket deletions that's resulted in clear POV pushing and bad faith on Jytdog's part. This will restore the article back to the point were another contributor, Yobol, and myself reached some consensus and were still discussing edits and making some progress. Jytdog's blanket removal of all of the edits that Yobol and myself were working on is disruptive and needs to stop. Jytdog, if you have issues with my edits, please finally discuss them with me here and I'll make changes if you can quote valid Wikipedia guidelines and show a NPOV that benefits this article for everyone. If you're going to continue to break the rules, don't bother, and let's take this up with admins. Cowicide (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Content removal is a user essay, not a guideline. Edit-warring is however against policy and can attract a ban. Cowicide, your proposed edits have failed to get consensus - I'd advise use of this Talk page to talk through any improvements that can be made to the article, and steering clear of further edit warring. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well this is a guideline. And, I'll be back later to help apply it to better this article under those very guidelines. The article in its current form is a pathetic assemblage of industry talking points that throughly pushes an anti-organic POV that's non-encyclopedic and an industry public relations piece in too many areas. You may not see it, but this POV pushing will be seen by many others and it will not stand up to wider scrutiny and true consensus of the greater Wikipedia community. Cowicide (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If you start a discussion at a noticeboard please be sure to drop a notification here. Zad68 16:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Fresh start

Good morning everybody! I'd like to reboot the discussion. I'd like to open by discussing sources, which are the foundation for all the work we do here. We all are working here in good faith, and we all want this article to be as high quality and NPOV as we can make it. Here are some proposals about sources:

1) any content that is health-related (which includes claims about nutrition and if X is "better for you") is sourced according to WP:MEDRS, which means we use the most recent review articles published in the scientific literature that we can find, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies (WP:SECONDARY sources) (this shouldn't be controversial)
2) for all other content, we also search for the most recent and best WP:SECONDARY sources we can find on the subject. For anything science-based (e.g. studies of yield) this means the most recent review articles published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that we can find, or statements by major scientific bodies
3) for content that is historical or economic (e.g. what percent of the food market is organic), we can use sources from popular media, but ones known for high quality journalism (NY Times, LA Times, WSJ, that sort of thing)
4) we avoid low quality sources. If anybody wants to use such a source, they get consensus for the content they want to base on it, and the source, on Talk before implementing. Low quality sources include a) WP:PRIMARY sources published in the scientific literature or elsewhere; b) sources produced by advocacy organizations that are known to be "for" or "against" organic farming.
Can everybody agree to that? Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the ideal we should be striving for. Yobol (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

restore point

Last night, I chose a "restore point" from just before the burst of editing/edit warring that went on yesterday, which included edits by me, cowicide, and Yobol. This dif shows the restore point I chose - the revision made on 01:19, 23 November 2014 by Wbm1058. cowicide expressed displeasure with my selection of restore points. Cowicide (and anybody else who disagrees with what I did), what do you think is a more reasonable pre-dispute restore point? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

this version, for example, might be better. It is the one where cowicide deleted the criticism section, which is just before the serious edit warring began. I would accept that restore point. while we talk.... Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

i went ahead and did that. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this diff adds back information that I don't think anyone had a problem with; the sources all appear to be either governmental sources or peer reviewed secondary sources. (Note I don't read Danish so was going by the previous work already in place). Yobol (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

apology

and everybody, I apologize for the use of "motherfucking" in my edit note last night. profoundly unhelpful of me. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology and I apologize for losing my temper as well. - Cowicide (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected this article for 3 days in response to ongoing edit-warring. I'm hopeful that this time can be used for discussion aimed at generating consensus. If the edit-warring resumes after the page protection expires, I'm fairly certain that blocks for individual editors will follow. Please be sure to follow the letter and spirit of the edit-warring policy and, in particular, the three-revert rule going forward. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks very much MastCell. We had a very bad day here yesterday with a very passionate new editor arriving on the scene and i at least didn't act very well in response; more experienced eyes would be a boon. I'll avoid the mistakes i made when the article re-opens. I am hopeful we can make some progress in establishing common ground while the article is locked. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank you as well, MastCell. And, Jytdog, this is from my Talk Page, but it's so cluttered with other stuff, I figured I'd basically copy most of it here.

Jytdog, thank you for at least bringing the article to a more balanced state of NPOV. However, I think removing the criticism section entirely is pretty drastic. I'm not here to push an all positive POV of organic farming and that's why I worked with the other contributor and made concessions/edits to my contributions that reflected that ethos. I'm here to help this article be encyclopedic and informative with a NPOV that attempts to show the pros and cons of organic farming and enables the reader to decide for themselves what they think of all of it. Unfortunately, the holidays are starting and I can't participate until next week. Anyway, thanks again for taking the action of making a legit concession, and I will consider this a fresh start and will assume good faith on your part from here on out despite our past differences. If you celebrate it, I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving. - Cowicide (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)