User talk:ImperfectlyInformed/Archive 4

Please comment on Talk:Optical Express

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Optical Express. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

About a gripe/criticism section; did not comment. II | (t - c) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Broad or narrow application of WP:FRINGE; no consensus; I did not comment. II | (t - c) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Public Relations Society of America

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Public Relations Society of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about the use of a "controversy" section; I was much too late to comment. II | (t - c) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jaguar Cars

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jaguar Cars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bleh, tediuos. Looks like they're working it out. II | (t - c) 05:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for writing to me with advice. It is rather stressful editing CAM topics and any suggestions in that minefield are always appreciated. I'm rather surprised at the amount of controversy it generates at WP; there is so much good research now on certain CAM interventions it would be hard to "sway" it one way or another. But, I will add there seem a bit of reluctance to add favourable reviews or when the evidence is inconclusive, loosely paraphrasing and stating "poor evidence". It comes off as overly critical and I object to straying too far from the language cited in the source. I learned about DN tonight (which would have saved me a few gray hairs and a round of hair dye) and do appreciate your help. I won't be shy to ask questions :) Cheers, DVMt (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't know what DN is? II | (t - c) 08:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's for dispute content noticeboard. It was brought to my attention yesterday when matters get to a stalemate regarding inserting new content. DVMt (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:DRN, usually referred to as WP:DR/N. WP:DN goes nowhere. II | (t - c) 18:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for last night. Too much coffee and editing for too long are a bad mix for my health. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment you've been waiting for...

Research status on manual and manipulative therapy! I know your professional interest is in herbs and vitamins, mine is in manipulative therapy and acupuncture. There is a proposal to update the current section here [1] and your critical and balanced eye would be appreciated if you could find the time. Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, my interest in herbs and vitamins is personal, not professional. II | (t - c) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional marriage

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Poorly-presented RfC closed. II | (t - c) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

Thank you for your welcome message and comments on the article talk page. I plan to start actually editing soon. I think I understand ref and cite well enough to make them work. --EllenCT (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Voting results

Thank you for requesting the ArbCom voting results for Will Bebacks unblock appeal. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Someone should have done it sooner. Exhaustion of remedies and so on. II | (t - c) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome; Forgive me if I should have replied on my talk page

Sorry, will be more careful about edit summaries from now on. I realize the article is getting pretty long (which is why I was tidied up some sections early as 111.69.155.164 before I remember I had this from ages ago - I don't suppose there's a way to add edits from an IP to one's account?). I try to be concise but for the legislative history people just hadn't been clear on why certain things were reconciliation and others weren't but I try and think 'does this bit add something that isn't already in.' It could probably be more concise, at the same time it was a complex process and I'm trying to elaborate enough to be clear (e.g. the House previously was all disjointed and unrelated whereas actually Rahm's suggestion, the abortion executive order, etc. were all related to reconciliation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb101 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll take a look at the filibuster stuff when I have time to see if I can help (no guarantees though =P) User: Sb101 Apologies for the multiple edits/messages; I also wanted to say nice to see another TNR reader (I think) - based on one of your reference earlier re: Pollack/experts endorsing bill =) Sb101 —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Alas, not a regular TNR reader, just pulled that up during my Googling research. My politics newsfeed consists of my subscription to Bloomberg Businessweek plus RSS for federal actions (bills, exec orders, Federal Register, a couple committees, Secrecy News, Sunlight Foundation, etc). I added the Federal Regulations Advisor to my feed a couple days ago. I may look into TNR though, now that you mention it. II | (t - c) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, well. The only person I read as much as TNR for political/policy analysis is Jonathan Chait (the rest of Nymag is not worth your time but this guy and TNR would be the places I strongly recommend). Just glanced at FAS - reminds of Scientific American (which certainly isn't a bad thing).

Also, I had a thought re: PPACA length: one could move 'Provisions by effective date' to a new page and put a link under the 'Provisions' subsection (in the overview area) - similar to Regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. I don't know how to create a page so I won't be doing that. Besides, I'm preoccupied with a few related things (merging PPACA 4.2.4 + 4.2.5; and tidying 'Health insurance mandate' 1.3 + 'Contraceptive mandate (United States)' 1.1/1.2 ). One question I do have though, if you can help, is how much is it alright to delete? For example: PPACA 4.2.2 - I figure it makes sense to remove the party lines; I mean, one's right and one's wrong but we look to third party sources to verify which and those are the ones you'd quote in WP, right? Sb101 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the PPACA talkpage, we're fast approaching the point where it makes more sense to not list the provisions by date but rather summarize by significance. As far as "who is right" and "who is wrong", we try to stay neutral as much as reasonable. Certainly, we have to use editorial judgment and filter out things that are just flat out wrong or misleading (or qualify them with a rebuttal) and we use our background knowledge and third-party sources to determine that, but if it is experts making legitimate arguments, we put both. It's often impossible to determine who is right or wrong without significant original research. Which sources to include is a contentious source of protracted dispute around here. I also think telegraphing where an argument comes from politically can be helpful to readers, but I imagine there's some stylistic reasons to disagree in certain cases. II | (t - c) 19:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly think it's a good idea to preserve the timeline of implementation, with all its details, and hence it's better just to move and link that section. We've already got a summary of significant provisions in the overview section. And I understand and agree about the neutrality bit (which I've tried to make sure my edits have been); I meant for working out credible sources for those trying to work out what's right and wrong. I ultimately left the bits about the parties (in that section) there, cause I agree about telegraphing. Also, I hope to go over the filibuster stuff at the end of the week (I've got two essays I'm working on so bit strapped for time) =) Sb101 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten is about to trip over a garden hose and get a splinter stuck in its nose, causing unfathomable physical and emotional pain and suffering along with incalculable lost cuddle time. But thanks to your amazing work on Tort over the past weeks, including more than 14,000 bytes of expansion, it will know far more about the relief to which it is entitled! (If it could read.) Thank you! (Thanks also for your good advice on the IPO talk page :)

EllenCT (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're the first person to comment on it. I'm keeping track of the hard work you're doing around here! I noticed that you disclose an interest in taxation - it took me a while to develop that interest. You and I may have to partner up sometime to fix some tax articles. II | (t - c) 01:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Here are the tax-related sources I've been looking at, trying to figure out whether I can get any good edits out of them: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. It's kind of a hodge-podge, but the first three and last three both have a coherent underlying theme, sort of (neither of which are particularly uplifting, which is probably why I haven't turned them into edits yet, but some are just new.) EllenCT (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I just did some edits over at Tax evasion in the United States. Right now my focus is more on offshore tax havens, so of those links, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists project on "Secrecy for Sale: Inside the Global Offshore Money Maze" is the most interesting to me. I haven't looked too much into Cyprus and the Tax Justice Network, but from what I've read in Bloomberg Businessweek Cyprus as a tax haven is a bit hyped. Cyprus Isn't Even Such a Big Offshore Bank Haven discusses this a bit. I trust BBW quite a bit. II | (t - c) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Aphthous stomatitis#Recent revisions harmful?

With respect, I now think that the point you raised was bogus, based on this line in core wp policy: (WP:Verifiability#Accessibility) "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. This implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may only be available in university libraries." Lesion (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, you think the line was bogus entirely because of some sentence you read in a policy somewhere? So previously you thought this was a legitimate concern, but now because of something you read, you don't? Does that mean that your independent thought is automatically superseded by that which is imposed upon you by an external force? That policy is not news to me; it has been around for a long time. But I've never seen an article quite so devoid of publicly-available sources in my time on Wikipedia (and an apparent disregard of such sources), nor have I seen an article which went to quite some length to remove all publicly-available sources and replace them entirely with sources which have very limited accessibility. There is a wide group of Wikipedia editors (as well as likely most users) who do not agree with the strict, closed-off view of Wikipedia. Accessibility has been the subject of numerous debates, but probably due to inertia and the lack of widespread use of inaccessible sources there hasn't been much move to change things. We are not writing Scholarpedia. We are writing Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of or seen Wikipedia:Jagged_85_cleanup? I was part of the group which discovered that he was negligently (and perhaps willfully) misrepresenting sources. The damage spreads to tens of thousands of edits, many of which were "referenced". Luckily, many of the sources were readily-available which greatly aided our ability to discover the fraud. He was eventually banned, but this happens all the time. In fact, I could easily argue that your work on this article also engaged in negligent misrepresentation, in that you put in the lead of the article that the disease affects "about 20% of the general population" which my questioning reveals is a number basically dropped out of nowhere by a random (published) source and should probably be attributed as the opinion of the author (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Notably this number and the article does not even clarify as to whether this is lifetime prevalence for a given individual (most likely) or whether it is the number estimated to affect the population any given time. Just because something is published doesn't mean we throw it in an article. It requires editorial judgement to not toss around facts into Wikipedia which are not really factual. The power of Wikipedia is that it can make things which are untrue, true, by virtue of its widespread use and authority among the general public.

Also, if you had spent more time using reviews published in journals which were paywalled I wouldn't be as bothered. Cochrane reviews, although not immediately accessible, are much more accessible than dead-tree textbooks. They also tend to be more reliable at least in my experience, whereas dead-tree textbooks tend to be a bit more loose with the facts and somewhat remiss on footnoting their statements. II | (t - c) 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I thought it was a legitimate point, and I will still try to include as many pubmed central references as possible when re-working articles. Often they will be the first sources I look for and choose. However it is apparent that this is personal preference, a type of editing which does not need to be enforced on other editors. Did you notice how much of the article was based on the Cochrane reference, this is highest quality and freely available to all. I could have looked harder for freely available sources to include, as demonstrated by the sources you were able to add. I consider the reworking I carried out on that article to be the creation of a skeleton upon which future edits can now be more logically build upon. The headings now follow MEDMOS and several tertiary sources have been used to give the general frame of the topic. The criteria I used to remove the previous article's sources were not based at all on whether they were freely available or not, my decisions were based on MEDRS...Literally the only content we have not carried forwards is the stuff about Zinc, and I would like a secondary source to put that back in. I'm just respectfully pointing out that verifiability =/= accessibility according to core wp policy, because it seemed to me that you were not aware of that either by the nature of the comments. I get what you are saying about "closed off wikipedia", however you could also look at as a good thing, making esoteric and closed off scientific knowledge available to the mainstream. Making the inaccessible accessible.

Neville et al. is probably the most widely used oral pathology text in the US, which is where the 20% figure came from. I already stated that a source which gives an average incidence an explains the derivation of that figure would be an improvement, but in the mean time, I think that is a good source to use in addition to the slightly vague "5 - 60%" offered by Cochrane.

The use of textbooks is not a bad thing, as long as they are mainstream and good quality. I find they have the space to fully lay out a topic in all its detail, often this is not matched by a scientific paper. Also "dead tree" is inaccurate, since most of my textbooks are electronic =) The major textbooks in modern times tend to have "continually updated online content" and gimmicks like that...so they might not be as out of date as would have been the case a decade ago.

Overall I think I am just trying to say that the revisions were not harmful, and I don't see how anyone could think this version (before my fist edit) [8] (and later I tweaked things a bit and added tags highlighting the multiple remaining problems [9]) was better than what we have now. Lesion (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the harsh wording in my section title on that talkpage as it was likely an overreaction. Yes, I agree that the article is largely improved, and I don't want to be discouraging about the work you've put in, which I do appreciate. :) I also didn't mean to mislead you that my personal opinion represents policy. I know policy pretty well, and if accessibility to sources was required, yeah, that would be a big change. I personally often find things out in sources of limited accessibility and then search it out in a widely-accessible source, but that is just a personal practice. By the way, Cochrane is not freely-accessible to Americans, not that it is a big deal. Of facts in the previous version and not in the current version, I noticed that the previous version says 85% have fewer than 4 episodes per year whereas the current version which may be worth discussing. II | (t - c) 13:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Good job

I didn't envy the task of anyone attempting to write a summary of that discussion.[10] You did a commendable job. Fladrif (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing you read it carefully and noticed that I have a crack at you in there, to follow-up on my original dig. I figured you weren't really in a position to complain. Do you have anything to say about that whole thing? Also, why prevent easy viewing of your talkpage conversations? (Extremely irritating to me.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who had similar issues with becoming emotional, found the following quote helpful:

“It is a wise thing to be polite; consequently, it is a stupid thing to be rude. To make enemies by unnecessary and willful incivility, is just as insane a proceeding as to set your house on fire. For politeness is like a counter--an avowedly false coin, with which it is foolish to be stingy."

— Arthur Schopenhauer, Wisdom of Life and Counsels and Maxims

In pulling this is up, I noticed that WP:CIVIL has a quote from Schopenhauer these days: "Civility is to human nature what warmth is to wax." II | (t - c) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I read it very carefully. I have no complaints about any aspect of the summary. I've made it pretty clear what I think about the "whole thing"; it would serve no useful purpose to embellish further. Fladrif (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

When I said "that whole thing", I meant my criticism of your behavior in particular, which you haven't commented on per se. I understand it is a sensitive subject and you are not required to discuss it. I used to have a temper/moodiness problem, which is reflected in my earlier Wikipedia attitude, so I sort of understand (and I still lose it every once in a while). I suspect mine was partly due to health issues (and perhaps age) and it resolved after I became better at cutting out gluten. II | (t - c) 15:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I meant to write as well to thank you for trying to bring some semblance of order or closure to that thread. It's frustrating to see a very simple request - for a public statement of Arbs' positions on the appeal - derailed in such dramatic fashion, although I suppose I should be used to it after 7 years on Wikipedia. Anyhow, thanks for your cogent summary and your efforts to refocus the discussion.

  On another note, I haven't been following your editing recently (or, I should say, I haven't seen your name popping up on my watchlist much), but I hope you're still active here. You've always been one of the more thoughtful and thought-provoking editors on medical topics. In fact, given our current dearth of clueful admins and editors, you should let me know if you think you'd like to run the gauntlet at RfA in the future. I'd be happy to support or nominate you. Either way, thanks for the statement and I'm glad to hear things are going better from the health perspective. MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks MastCell. There's certainly no one that I would rather be nominated by, so I may take you up on your offer at some point, although right now I'm trying to reduce the burdens on my time and focus more on improving my own personal situation. In theory, I spend my time where the marginal benefit is greatest (either for the cause I'm involved in, or myself), but in practice I'm controlled by my interests, which on Wikipedia has never really included administrative stuff. I don't think I've gone a month without an edit or two in several years, but up until the past few months I was pretty inactive but spent much of that time substantially building a personal knowledgebase (using ubernote.com, though evernote is the more common tool). In the last few months I've went on a small spree by adding numerous freely-accessible law review references to tort and contract and substantially improving a few other law-related articles (such as warranty, assignment (law), directors and officers liability insurance, investment banking, and some tax stuff). It's rather relaxing to work on law articles, where there's hardly anyone to bug you and the academic literature is in less flux!

  My latest spree of activity is actually related to a landmark health improvements. After my gut problems healed I still had major problems including (1) fatigue, particularly in the mornings, (2) back pain, (3) wrist problems (tendinitis or tendinosis). I woke up exhausted every morning and bought a device from Zeo, Inc. which told me I wasn't sleeping well. I had learned that valerian helped me sleep but a tolerance developed quickly, besides which I'm always after cures rather than ongoing treatments. After learning that I toss and turn a lot at night (making it difficult for the Zeo to even stay on), I discovered the clinical trial "Does valerian improve sleepiness and symptom severity in people with restless legs syndrome?" and while I have never experienced restless legs, I did find that periodic limb movement disorder was related to restless legs (both are treated similarly, and clinicians often observe that their standard dopaminergic therapies "augment" periodic limb movement disorder into full-blown restless legs syndrome; see PMID 8723377). I wasn't about to take a chance of augmentation or deal with that mess. Although the relationship between iron and these disorders had been hypothesized for decades (I believe), I wasn't too surprised to find in our remarkably dysfunctional system, the results are "mixed" (summarized in the 2012 practice guidelines with some dbRTCs reporting dramatic improvements and others none (because collaboration between disagreeing research teams in objective science is, of course, unheard of in the medical field). I knew my iron was low-normal. About a year ago I started popping an iron pill with vitamin C on an empty stomach, and by the end of a month and a half or so, I was sleeping like a baby. Haven't taken one since. With the wrist problem, I bought a Kinesis keyboard (a night and day difference). With the back problem, I had tied it to a mattress using Kovacs 2003, the only decent mattress clinical trial out there and still unreplicated. At first I got a memory foam pad for my terribly firm mattress but that only lasted so long. Since the objective firmness standard used in the Kovacs trial is basically not widely-recognized, even in the follow-up academic literature, I ended up just purchasing a knock-off sleep number bed a couple months ago. The result is amazing if you figure out the correct number, which appears to be similar for most people (mine is around 35, firmer than I had expected). The back pain industry is a great example of how modern medicine just completely misses the mark and causes enormous harm. I'm not saying that there aren't other causes of back pain, but these should only be looked at after the most obvious, low-hanging fruit is handled, which currently is practically ignored. I also spent some time on the board of a payer (a self-funded health trust), and tried unsuccessfully to convince my colleagues to take this direction with back pain. Meanwhile, we were paying out tons on MRIs (though sometimes rejecting payment on preauthorization grounds and telling the provider sue our insured instead) and back surgeries.

  Anyway, I don't see myself going back to editing medical articles as a focus anytime soon, but I am definitely continuing to watch it. In addition to my RSS feed to Eurekalerts, I monitor the American Society for Nutrition journals, NEJM, and JAMA. I suspect that medicine on Wikipedia these days may have too many rules associated with it for me to spend too much time on it. I've never been interested in focusing on perfecting a particular article, as that breaks my personal marginal benefit rule. Plus I have little interest in protracted debates. I'm more interested in getting into the details so I'm editing up my personal knowledgebase instead. Examine.com's project also has my interest: a wiki which is systematically building a clinical trial database (see e.g. the page on memory) and summarizing straight to the primary literature. There's some benefit to researchers not reinventing the wheel over and over again, each with their own little version of the primary literature. Building out a full clinical trial database, with effect sizes and even at some point participant demographic statistics included, has been a backburner project in my mind for a while to allow anyone to do a meta-analysis on the fly and play with the data. Of course it's way beyond my skills for the foreseeable future. I'm not involved with Examine.com at all and I'm not sure Examine.com is setting it up like that, but it's a good start. I would imagine that the Cochrane Collaboration might be trying to impose some structure on the data their reviewers are collecting, but if they are or are inclined to make this public, I haven't heard about it - then again I haven't dug into that topic lately. Medical research, academic publishing and clinical trial and have not changed much since the last time I did a little work on them, though, and that might be nice place to play near the middle between medical science and the more social science stuff I've been looking at lately. II | (t - c) 06:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request

I have filed a request for clarification of ArbCom's decline of Will Beback's ban appeal. The clarification request is here. You are being notified as you recently participated in discussion of this ban appeal. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Filibuster reform

Hi ImperfectlyInformed, I've updated the January 2013 filibuster reform section of the Filibuster in the United States Senate article per your comment on my my talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

AHA report

Thanks for your eagerness to assist in moving toward compromise in the TM article. If you read the AHA thread, I think that actually there's consensus that the AHA report is accurately represented in the article. Anthony and MastCell had wanted to add their inference based on their reading of the conclusion, but then Anthony contacted the first author and after doing so acknowledged that their inference wasn't accurate. The thread where you posted your comment has been discussing Ospina and the Cochrane reviews in detail, and indeed there isn't yet consensus on how to represent them and the sources that Jmh649 removed from the article without consensus or discussion. Any time you spend familiarizing yourself with those sources, especially the ones that were removed (particularly Sedlmeier), would be a valuable contribution. Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate representation of the discussion around the AHA statement. Look, it's really simple. The abstract states that TM had "modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating [its] efficacy." The conclusion of the paper specifically calls out a few approaches (not TM) as promising, and states that "there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence at the present time to recommend the use of the other techniques reviewed in this scientific statement." That's not ambiguous. I'm not drawing any "inferences". The authors clearly found that TM lacks anything beyond mixed or inconsistent evidence of benefit, and that they do not recommend TM.

In response, a number of editors are inferring that the authors meant to be more positive about TM in the abstract or conclusion. I'm at a loss for how to understand or respond to this. It seems to me that a number of editors find it unacceptable to simply convey the authors' rather unambiguous findings, as summarized in the abstract and conclusion they wrote, and instead are looking for ways to make this source say something "positive" about TM. I won't speak for Anthony (and you probably shouldn't, either), but I don't think you've accurately represented my view nor the state of consensus. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 BracketBot

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Accident may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How annoying. I requested an opt/out option. II | (t - c) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

See User:BracketBot#Opting out. Huon (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! II | (t - c) 06:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A technical suggestion

being able to thread user contributions, and exclude or include specific articles, is something that i imagine would be possible without too much fuss. I've tried messing a bit with the pywikipediabot but that has not really been high on my list of priorities. it was rather difficult to put together something like this subset of my edits, and it still doesn't include things like size of the modification, edit comment, etc -- I had to do so offline in vim. (it was also kind of irritating to not use ISO dates; that seems like it could just be an additional attribute in one of the tags there.)

Really interested in chatting more about this, assuming some horrible fate doesnt befall me in the next few weeks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, good luck. I'm really not that good at programming, but I was working with Python today. At some point I'll take a look at pywikipediabot. II | (t - c) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Winton and COI

Hi there, II. I just posted a thank-you reply on the Winton Talk page, but a proper answer to your question about direct edits as a paid consultant can be a bit involved, so I thought I'd come here to explain.

Aiming to make a very long story short, it's a complex subject, and one Wikipedians have disagreed about over time. It is the case that WP:COI does not flatly prohibit the practice, and in fact I once did make direct edits to client articles when I believed I had established consensus. However, in January 2012 there was a large debate about "paid editing" and "paid advocacy", and Jimbo weighed in to say he strongly recommend anyone who might be considered a paid advocate to stick to Talk pages. I always aim to follow best practices, so I have done that ever since. (I continue to edit non-client articles using my original account, User:WWB.)

All that said, you certainly have identified the principal downside of this approach: that it asks volunteer editors to take the time to review such contributions. I'm extremely grateful to anyone who will help out, so I aim to earn it by making suggestions that improve the project, and I try not to place too great a burden on anyone.

Well, that was not as short as I'd have liked to keep it, but I hope that helps. If you have any questions, let me know! And I might as well add: I have one more round of requests for the Winton page, which I'll be posting later today. If you're interested in revisiting the topic, I wouldn't turn down the help! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's pronouncement should perhaps be rethought a little. At the least, some sort of technical functionality to let you prepare the edit and another to sign off on it would be nice. II | (t - c) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For obviously neutral edits on uncontroversial subjects, it can seem quite silly, and a burden on volunteer editors. When a subject is more controversial, the caution makes a lot more sense. I think Jimbo's goal was to create a rule that was unambiguous and therefore easy to follow; despite the drawbacks, I've come to think it's the best way.

I try to make the process as unburdensome as I can. For section-by-section changes, I present new changes formatted for review, plus the prepared markup language. If I'm proposing a complete overhaul, I'll link to a new draft in my userspace. I'm afraid something software-side would be pretty low on WMF's list (I once inquired about creating a fellowship to address COI topics, though it didn't get far). If you have any user-side suggestions, I'm all ears!

Otherwise, if the topic interests you, you should check out WikiProject Cooperation, which encourages guideline-respecting COI editors; there's also also a mirror, focused on bad actors, called WikiProject Integrity. And User:Ocaasi is the primary author of a really useful document called the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Let me know if you have any questions! It's a topic I think about a lot. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

James

Why should James be given a 'break'? He's clearly the aggressor, misusing his admin rights. I need to understand this - he's threatened to block someone who he's been in a very long content dispute with. If I did that, I'd be blocked or desysopped in heartbeat. From what spring doth James' immunity from this basic rule magically appear? I'd really like to know. Dreadstar ☥ 02:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's human, and James was being hassled by a few people after he'd made it clear he doesn't want them on his talk page (I see you have continued to post on his talk page). Regardless of what he said, he hasn't done anything, and I doubt he would've done what he threatened. I think you're exaggerating when you say you would be desysopped. James already dealt with a huge backlash on the Fladrif unblock, which I also commented negatively on. Now you're trying to rub it in, and you should stop. [Concluding personal advice emailed to Dreadstar] II | (t - c) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept that, and I'll drop the stick. Thanks for your understanding in this matter. Dreadstar ☥ 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Quick Hedge fund note

Hi there, Imperfectly. I know you said you'd be taking a couple of weeks to consider the Hedge fund section under discussion, but I did want to make sure that you'd seen I had in fact located another paper, published by the FSA, discussing systemic risk from a different angle. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I did notice that, thanks. It's on my list, although a few other things have captured my attention for the moment. Looks like if I get to it over this weekend I'll meet the deadline. Incidentally, you paying attention to the elections at meta? I noticed that you used to write for a Wikipedia blog. I'm running for the FDC. Wish there was more attention on it. II | (t - c) 06:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact I do still write a blog about Wikipedia—though I'm afraid my output has been limited to one or two posts a month lately, I did update it on Monday! I'm aware that elections are getting started, but it doesn't look like voting has begun yet. When is that actually supposed to start? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not to sound rude but that's the type of question which is easily solved with a little poking around.... looks like it started already. II | (t - c) 16:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem—and in fact your nudge got me to write something about the WMF elections: here's the post. As you note, significantly less attention around the FDC than the BOT elections. No huge surprise, but a bit disappointing. And good luck! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Imperfectly. Will you still have time to weigh in on the Hedge fund Talk page sometime soon? If you're busy, I may seek out another editor who has occasionally contributed to the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

More involvement would be nice, so feel free to hit up other people. I spent a couple hours reviewing the literature again tonight. I'll be honest: I'm a little uncomfortable with the situation editing in a potentially controversial situation like this. I'd rather not be profiled by Occupy the SEC, a group that I follow. Plus, as someone who's been (somewhat involuntarily) a hedge fund investor as a fiduciary, I think most hedge fund investors get ripped off and would be better off with a long-short mutual fund. But I'll try to fairly present what I think is fair to conclude from the (reasonable) literature; my intuition is that researchers should be careful about conclusions when the data is biased by selective disclosure. II | (t - c) 05:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's completely fair. I'll see if I can get some input from one or two others who have participated in the page before. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:India Against Corruption

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:India Against Corruption. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Very poorly-prepared but tried to offer some thoughts. II | (t - c) 07:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

my comments on groupuscule's page and your response

just wanted to emphasize that I am sorry you were offended. I was quite clear that I was not saying anything about what groupuscule thinks about the relationship between HIV and AIDS, so if you thought I was, you misread what I wrote. But if you can tell me what was offensive I will certainly consider deleting it. I am sorry but I really don't see what upset you so. 01:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's best just to not go there with extremely negative characterizations unless you've got a really good reason. Do you want people to be calling you a Monsanto or tobacco shill? Keep it civil. The statement was basically saying "you're like an AIDs denialist but by that I don't mean you are an AIDs denialist, just that you argue pretty much exactly like one". OK, I don't think that's constructive. There's a lot of differences between these two topics. By the way, you could sharpen your writing style. Sometimes it comes off as sort of a stream of consciousness. And I don't say that in a mean way - I do appreciate that you're around, so I'm not trying to discourage you. I do think you could do less discussing and more article-editing (not just deleting), but that's something we can all work on. II | (t - c) 06:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

OK... that is different from "vile, bad faith comment". Appreciate the advice on sharpening, and editing more. Will work on that. ThanksJytdog (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what one's standard is for 'vile'! Perhaps if you had worded it more nicely I wouldn't have had that reaction. II | (t - c) 07:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of what I was afraid of when you responded. To you "you're like an AIDs denialist but by that I don't mean you are an AIDs denialist, just that you argue pretty much exactly like one" is offensive and vile, to me it is accurate. I tried very hard to say it nicely. You know, I do get called a Monsanto shill. I run that risk, because Monsanto's (and that of other ag-biotech companies) science is mainstream, and their currently marketed GM products are mainstream, and a whole regulatory and economic infrastructure exists worldwide around those products. To a certain extent, I am in the same "camp" with them (which does not mean that I think they are awesome companies and think they do no wrong or deny that they do wrong or that I am a shill). I cannot deny this "relationship" and if anybody characterized me like that, with nuance, I could only agree. If you look at the entire field of science as a big circle, with the consensus-es in the middle, a ring of developing science around that, and an outer ring of fringe.... and you stand in the middle, you can look over there on the fringe, and see those who say currently marketed GM foods are unsafe, and you can look over there and see HIV/AIDs deniers, and look over there and see global warming deniers... all out there on the fringe, who all argue much the same way, exasperatingly. The point of my post was to show that relationship, and carefully, clearly stating that I was not saying that groupuscule agrees with them on anything else. It is not a comfortable thing to say to somebody or, I imagine, to hear. But I don't know that those opposed to the consensus on GM food even see their own "kinships", especially those who come in self-righteous fury (which groupuscule generally does not do). I see mine. And I don't know if they would hold to their style of argumentation, if they saw the parallels. If you consider this, do you still think my comments are vile? If so I will delete them. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have the time that you have to research and debate this topic that you do and I really would prefer to not get dragged too deep into, but at this point I'll get into a bit of debate and see if you can answer some of my questions. I'm disappointed that you haven't taken my advice to look into the strongest sources in his essay. For example, you still ignore Jose Domingo's scientific review, instead rambling about David Suzuki who is relatively insignificant. Rather than switching focus to someone like Domingo and substantive arguments, you are insisting on ad hominem and guilt by association arguments. I'll say it again: I don't think equating someone with an AIDs denialist or calling someone an industry shill is appropriate. We just have different standards on appropriate dialogue.

In any case, I know a fair bit about both AIDs and genetically modified organisms and I'll explain a bit about why the comparison is different. First off, AIDs is a single disease and relatively straightforward to test, and its effects can be witnessed with a single patient. For modified foods, the health effects (if any) are likely to be extremely subtle and in my non-expert opinion appear unlikely to show up in a 90-day study of 30 or even 50 rats; it might require more like 500 rats to notice a subtle effect. Generalizing the results of rat studies to humans is uncertain, both when effects are shown and when they aren't (a while back I showed you a review quantifying the problems of generalizing animal research to humans). As you should know, a lack of observed effects in unstudied populations is epidemiological nonsense; without careful study, any health effects are invisible among the numerous health problems suffered in the average human population.

Regardless of rat studies, there is of course substantial equivalence. As I mentioned on the talkpage, although I'm no expert, it seems probable that a tweaked EPSPS is not going to cause health problems. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to analyze more than the most notable varieties. However, it is not reassuring that most of the scientific reviews in the past few years have questioned the safety, as I mentioned on the MfD page. Nor is it reassuring of your competence or good faith that you continue to avoid any engagement of these sources, preferring rather to stretch out some obscure linkages to put people into buckets. With regard to Monsanto's science, I have the following questions:

• The opponent scientists, in an open letter about Seralini, say the regulated do all their own testing. Is there any sort of barrier between the scientists studying the safety and Monsanto? It seems clear that the most credible results would come from a contract research organization which is selected by the regulators, perhaps even on a blinded basis as to the corporate constituent. If Monsanto selects the research firm, do you really think that is appropriate? If the safety is clear-cut, surely Monsanto would not be damaged by independent testing?
• Did Monsanto test Sprague-Dawly rats similar to the way that Seralini et al tested them? Geneticist Jack A. Heinemann claims that Monsanto's studies are not much different from Seralini et al. If this is the case, is it appropriate for most of the criticism to mention the problem of cancer in Sprague-Dawley rats?

Finally, I noticed that Spinwatch noted that many of the organized opponents to Seralini's study are affiliated with the Scientific Alliance (e.g., Anthony Trewavas), a UK group which among others things is relatively anti-climate: for example, ironically their most recent letter profiled on the website says that to be considered a "sceptic" is "something for any scientist to be proud of". So a line can be drawn from defending Monsanto to climate change denialism fairly quickly, altho drawing that line in a debate is clearly irrelevant. II | (t - c) 22:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Long response! Sorry for not responding sooner. I don't quite understand where you are coming from - need some time to think about this. Quick note on the biggest problem with Seralini's study - issue is statistical power. He chose (1) S-D rats (fine for tox, everybody including Monsanto uses them) and (2) did a lifetime study with them and (3) used 10 per arm. Those three choices together render his results uninterpretable. S-D rats have a super high cancer/death rate over the lifetimes, over 50%. It is common sense (and OECD regs) that if you do a lifetime study with a model with such a high natural rate of cancers/death, that you need to do a LOT of rats per arm (OECD regs say 65). So if he had done S-D/lifetime/65, he could have gotten interpretable data (depending on other experiemental design elements, of course). If he had done S-D/90 day/10, that would have been fine too. But S-D/lifetime/10 is a waste of time and money. And tragic. More to come! Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to walk me through the power analysis on that. As you should know, power analysis is heavily affected by the expected effect size. If the foods being fed are nearly isogenic, please help me understand how the expected effect size is calculated and why it is calculated as it is. In addition, Heinemann suggests that only one study (out of 7 by industry - Monsanto and DuPont) used more rats, and it used 20 per sex. Yet this warranted no uproar. However, I haven't went through and fact-checked his comment. And I don't understand how it is tragic. I guess you must be a rats' rights advocate. II | (t - c) 15:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi - Industry studies are 90 days or shorter; they don't need to use more than 10 per arm as they don't have the long-term confounding effects that a lifetime study in these rats do (they do S-D/90 day/10). Seralini has been arguing for about 7 years that we need longer term studies - his big 2012 study was meant to prove that; this is why there was so much at stake for him. He has argued this whole time that small signals in the 90 day studies are significant (which regulators worldwide have said is wrong) and that longer-term studies would definitively prove that. This is one of the reasons why I call his 2 year study a tragedy. From the get-go the study was doomed to be uninterpretable - he wasted 3M euros and 2 years on a study that had no chance of proving anything. If he really wanted to change the consensus by providing killer, indisputable data that proved he was right, the two year study was his chance. Things he has said since the publication ("I will reveal all my data if Monsanto reveals theirs"; "I used the same rat as Monsanto" (ducking the statistical power issue) - always bringing it back to Monsanto) signal to me that his intention was more to stir that pot than to prove his point...in other words his intent seems to have been more political than scientific. But anyway the shortest statistical power discussion is here. The EFSA analysis, more formal, is here.Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Turning back to your earlier, longer statement. I am not making any argument about guilt by association, you are still misunderstanding me. I am sorry about that. You state the scientific consensus that HIV is a single disease (btw, I would not be surprised if one day, as we have with cancer and will do with depression, we start to be able stratify patients based on genetic or other biomarkers, but that is a different story); as you know, HIV/AIDs deniers argue strenously that AIDS is not a single disease and that there is insufficient data that HIV does anything bad, much less explain all the things that happen in AIDS. The way they do this is by emphasizing some data points, and completely ignoring many others. The also do this by relying on a few dissenting scientific authorities and advocates whom they proclaim as heros and whistleblowers, and ignoring the huge body of grungey science and the many prominent scientists that form the consensus. These are two ways that those who deny the consensus on GM food "prove" their points. HIV/AIDS deniers have Peter Duesbergm Rebecca Culshaw, etc anti-GMO people have Domingo and Seralini. Fringe arguments have consistent methods. That is what I am trying to say. And is exasperating to have to have actually try to argue for the consensus from bare ground, with people who don't understand science and who have swallowed talking points and made up their minds already. "The antibody test has a large number of false positives and false negatives"; "we don't understand how HIV could kill someone"; "people with AIDs die of many different diseases" - half truths and truths and ignoring of piles of data. argh. "We don't fully understand the effects of genetically modifying a plant"; "there may be subtle health effects"; "Obesity, autism, and allergy have all increased dramatically since GM food started to be marketed". "Horizontal transfer happens - humans or our bacteria could "catch" the genetic modifications." argh. Exasperating. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

answering your two questions: "The opponent scientists, in an open letter about Seralini, say the regulated do all their own testing. Is there any sort of barrier between the scientists studying the safety and Monsanto? It seems clear that the most credible results would come from a contract research organization which is selected by the regulators, perhaps even on a blinded basis as to the corporate constituent. If Monsanto selects the research firm, do you really think that is appropriate? If the safety is clear-cut, surely Monsanto would not be damaged by independent testing?" This is one of the kind of frustrating that opponents raise... it is out of touch with the reality of how regulation works in every developed country. Basically, if a company wants to make money from a product, the company takes the risk (in other words, pays for) all the development costs. The costs of inventing the thing, the costs of testing if it works, the costs of testing its toxicity. Government regulations define what you have to test for, and define that they must be done under GLP, but outside of that, the company can do the testing itself, or contract it out to a CRO. Regulators check on labs that do testing (internal company or CROs) to ensure that GLP standards are indeed met, and they review data submitted for any given product. If the data raises flags, they can demand further testing. That is how it works for everything from drugs, diagnostics, medical devices, new food or cosmetic ingredients, and GM crops too. I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for safety or efficacy testing so that a company can make money. I want my tax dollars to go to building roads, teaching kids, etc. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• 2nd bullet has a lot in it. About what rats are used by companies that develop GM crops, and how, I have answered already. With respect to where critics come from.... this is an interesting question. Going in order from most conflicted critics to the least, by bucket: Of course big ag companies themselves criticized, as did industry trade groups (BIO, Euro BIO, etc); you have people like Henry Miller who run advocacy organizations paid for by industry to promote ag biotech, then you have people who have put themselves out there as kind of "defenders of biotechnology" (like David Tribe) who have varying levels of connections to the ag biotech industry but are academics and have regular (hard) jobs doing that. Among them are folks who have never made personal money, but are professionally invested in ag biotech (may have been working for years on how to create drought-resistant wheat or sorghum, for example). The most even-handed treatment I have seen of this, is here. There is way too much conspiracy-thinking out there for my taste, on the left and the right, in the developed world. Sloppy, not only unproductive but actually destructive, crappy thinking. On this issue, of "corporate control", here is a really egregious example, from the headline onward http://independentsciencenews.org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/. I did a lot of commenting on that article. But what really upset me was the Fox News-like insinuations. The left meets the right in completely bullshit tactics - the sad thing is that I think the authors of that article actually think that the headline is reasonable. Which is just so, so lost in bubble-land. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The messy format of our discussion frustrates me and leaves me reluctant to respond. My second bullet was very short, by the way. It looks like you thought my closing paragraph was a part of the second bullet. It was not. A few bulleted points:

• I think you're missing the point a little with regard to the power analysis. If the active genetically-modified food is substantially equivalent, then why is the conventional power analysis based on OECD 451 and OECD 453 appropriate? Shouldn't we expect a much smaller effect from a substantially but not actually equivalent substance? In any case, is there any research or analysis demonstrating that cancer, rather than other endpoints, is the appropriate target?
• Your response on the independent testing is that "this is one of the kind of frustrating that opponents raise... it is out of touch with the reality of how regulation works in every developed country". This just sounds like basic status quo bias. You further defend it by arguing that "That is how it works for everything from drugs, diagnostics, medical devices, new food or cosmetic ingredients, and GM crops too ... I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for safety or efficacy testing so that a company can make money. I want my tax dollars to go to building roads, teaching kids" which doesn't really make sense: the company can certainly continue to pay for testing which the regulator conducts or delegates to a CRO. Even if the company didn't directly pay for the testing, it would be a wash for consumer welfare, given that the corporation will simply pass on the costs of the testing. By the way, how has the whole industry-sponsored testing worked out for drugs? Reviewed the antidepressant literature much? Ever heard of clinicaltrials.gov, which arose in large part because of industry-encouraged publication bias?
• A little pop-quiz question: do you know a condition related to wheat which has been hypothesized to be exacerbated by changes in wheat dating back to the Green Revolution? Do you know how far that research has gotten, and could you comment on what this says about how effective we are at rooting subtle effects out?

I noticed in the independentsciencenews that you commented that "I know [the scientific consensus on GM food that is on the market, is that is (sic) as safe as its conventional counterparts] because this is what regulators and mainstream scientists say", and further you seem to personally agree with that consensus. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But personally my faith in institutions is not as strong as yours, as you can probably tell from my username. I don't see a perfect system in the mainstream science or regulators, especially in the health sciences. What I see is an extremely high noise to signal ratio, an extreme lack of collaboration, promising leads dropped in favor of pursuing controversies, numerous petty disputes obscuring the (unclear) truth, and an extreme amount of confidence (which raises questions of overconfidence effect). In addition, my experience is that industry has a tendency to work against rather than for the truth. Basically, the human body is awfully complicated, and even after all these years we're just scratching the surface. What I find even more troubling is the tendency to ostracize and castigate scientists who don't agree that we can strongly confirm the effects of novel proteins on the body. If anything leads to groupthink or a bandwagon effect, characterizing those who disagree with you as "fringe" will. Science is not the place for that. II | (t - c) 02:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi II. I am responding but if this is how you intend to keep communicating I will stop. The sarcastic questions and coy/sarcastic pop quiz are just ugly and I have better things to do with my time. I imagine you do too, so if this is so frustrating that you have to be sarcastic, shall we just stop?

• first bullet. What do you mean by "active genetically modified food"?
• second bullet. If folks want to reform the regulatory system that is great. Off topic, but great. How has the regulatory system worked for drugs? Extremely well. I don't want to go back to the days when thalidomide would have been approved, or even more interestingly, when it could not have been allowed back on the market. I don't understand where you are coming from on this. Do you think 'western' drugs don't work or something? With respect to anti-depressants, our science for psychiatric diseases sucks and so yes, the drugs (technology built on the science) are crappy too. Every psychiatrist and depressed patient knows this. But people try, using the sucky tools they have. (people = drug companies, psychiatrists, and patients) I really don't understand where you are coming from.
• I imagine you are talking about celiac. As arc pointed out below, statements about the safety of GM food are relative to food from conventional counterparts. Food from conventional counterparts is not 100% safe, as everybody knows. Anti-GMO people keep trying to twist the consensus statement into "GMOs are safe" which is absurd. Nothing is safe. And if you are saying that celiac was caused by the advent of new breeds of wheat (you haven't said this but you seem to be implying it), you would be falling prey to the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. As far as I understand it, the consensus is that the reason for increased celiac is unknown. So if what you are suggesting is that we start to make regulatory decisions based on remote possibilities, you are coming from a different place than the current regulatory regime, which tries to make the best decisions it can, based on sound, accepted science and the data at hand. Your point seems to go back to questions of changing the regulatory system, which are outside the scope of the question of the scientific consensus on the relative safety of current GM food. I have grasped it by now, that you are maybe among those who are very concerned about "subtle, long term effects" of things, especially "chemicals." If so, I can see why you want to change the regulatory system.
• About my comment on independentsciencenews, I am going to regret that one in particular for a long while. You will see that further down, I corrected it.
• about the regulatory system, my deep reading of the work of regulators, and especially of the documentation they have produced to support their work, shows me people who work hard, and in good faith, and with an acute awareness of the limitations of our knowledge of biology and who do the best they can to provide nuanced and careful answers to questions posed to them, knowing that at the end of the day they have to provide a definitive answer. I don't know if you have ever watched, or read the transcript of, an FDA advisory panel. Really beautiful to see smart, well informed people grappling with imperfect data, trying to make the best decision they can, for the public good, which different people define differently. With drugs in particular, you have one segment of the public that demands access to unapproved drugs in development, the risks and benefits of which are really unknown to anybody, but "that could save my daughter's life" (Abigail Alliance) and on the other, you have people furious that drugs that are very useful for some patients but that also have serious side effects for some patients, were ever allowed on the market ("Avandia killed my husband!!! How could the FDA be so incompetent!?"). Which is more of a public good - for the FDA to super conservative and allow only the safest drugs in, or to allow sick and dying patients a "shot"? Hard questions that I don't see honored in your discussion.
• I wonder what your experience with industry is? In the biotech and pharma industry - especially in biotech - there is investor money on the line and investors watch very carefully to see how things are going. They tranche their investments and the next tranche is not coming if the data do not bear it. Money brings discipline to kill unfruitful projects. People think companies lie or cover up bad data all the time to try to make more money. In pharma/biotech, what happens all the time is that bad data leads to projects being killed, since nobody wants to pour good money into a bad project. CEOs who get drugs to market of course are richly rewarded and are funded on their next effort; those who get to a "kill" decision quickly get funded for their next effort; CEOs who lie have short careers. Companies that lie, or are perceived to lie, take serious hits. Merck has still not recovered from the Vioxx scandals. They used to have a sterling reputation for great science and great ethics. Gone daddy. Everybody sees that.
• finally, I don't know what you are talking about with respect to controversies over new roles for known proteins. New roles for proteins are discovered or suggested all the time. Not all of those roles have convincing data. Are you thinking of one in particular? Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to improve my tone, and I do appreciate your relatively clear engagement; I will also admit that I think you know more about this area than I do and I'm glad you're willing to share your perspective. I'm not clear on where I'm being sarcastic, but I'll grant you that pedantic grammar points is irritating. I don't think a question about you know is inappropriate. I'm not doing it to make you feel bad, but rather to illustrate that nobody knows everything. Biomedical science is a vast field, and grappling with the vast information isn't made any easier by the fact that scientists spend more time churning out papers (often noise) without collaborating to create a document which shows what the state of the science is and what has been established and what hasn't. When I read PMID 21200038 ("A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials"), which found that "Of the 1101 RCTs that had 5 or more prior trials to cite, 254 (23%) cited no prior RCTs and 257 (23%) cited only 1", I was surprised and disappointed, so I guess I'll provide that as an example that I'm not quite as cynical as I should be. I knew that scientists were bad at reviewing the prior work in their research area, but I didn't know it was that bad.

• Sorry for awkward wording. The rats which are eating the genetically modified food would be the "active group", whereas the rats eating the conventional food would be the control group.
• My point is that the regulatory system is far from perfect. It is better than no system, sure, and it does a lot of good. However, if I recall correctly most of the recent scandals could have been prevented if the industry had not manipulated things. I think the major difference here is that you look at it as a glass half-full whereas I look at it as a glass half-empty. With regard to antidepressants, they are an example of an area where the industry was particularly deceptive. Turner et al 2008 is an illustrative example: "According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive". The article already discusses problems at the regulatory agencies in the context of GMO research, but my feeling is that FDA review of GMOs is more subjective and less carefully-scrutinized.
• Yes, I'm talking about celiac disease. I'm not saying that there are conclusive answers in this area, but all the data I've seen point to an increased prevalence, and more recently to gluten sensitivity (altho why gluten sensitivity research has only surfaced in the past few years is another conundrum). Given that it affects so many people so directly in the developed world, it says something that so little is conclusively known. A recent Scientific American post discusses a speculative (tho based on published research papers) connection, noting that the levels amylase trypsin inhibitors in wheat have increased significantly.
• Skipping past your independentsciencenews comment (which is OK, I think it was honest), the next bullet about regulatory agencies: I have indeed read transcripts of FDA advisory agencies (tho never watched one). It's sometimes good, sometimes bad. I actually view drug approval and GMO approval somewhat differently, which I think is fair given that these are different areas with very different opportunities and challenges. I certainly agree that delaying innovation has costs. I will grant you that there are similar costs to delaying GMOs, but the cost-benefit is very different in GMOs.
• My experience is drawn largely from reading reports of issues and scandals. I guess I just draw different conclusions than you. Personally, I do have some experience as a regulator in financial services, but that's not relevant.
• At least some of the proteins that we're talking about are relatively novel for human digestion. That's all I am saying. For example, I am under the impression Cry1Ac is novel for human ingestion, as is Cry9c (the StarLink allergen). While a few proteins have received significant attention, I don't know much about most of them. II | (t - c) 00:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, whew! I love a good conversation, free of unneccessary interpersonal bitterness. (the world is bitter enough) I think we do share a lot of perspectives, differed by shading, if you will.

an aside to our topic.. I completely hear you on academic scientists not being in dialogue with each other nearly enough. I've had friends quit science because they felt that nobody would ever really read their articles and integrate them (they were doing cool science, too). And i work with scientists that present me with ideas that they say are new, and were done 10 years ago. Crazy. But the big disillusioners for me were the two publications by industry scientists trying to replicate really important academic science, to see if their companies should invest in developing drugs around it and found they could only replicate 20% of them. I think I cited them to you before and I know I did on the independentsciencenews thread... but if you want me to shoot you the refs I would be happy to. I still think curiosity-driven research is what leads to fundamental breakthroughs, and the best environment for that remains academia.

On the statistical power thing... I thought that is what you meant (the active arm) but wanted to be sure. You are right, that much bigger Ns would be necessary to detect more subtle changes. Here is the issue, though, and this is where I both see your point and don't. Two part answer:

1) In an ideal world, I would like very much to have more definitive safety data before products are marketed. Definitely. But when you get to the real world, you have to ask, what phenotypic effects do subtle, long term biochemical changes cause? What do we understand about subtle, long-term biochemical changes in any organism and how they affect the overall well-being of that organism? We know very little. (this by the way is related to something that regulators went to work on very soon after the "substantial equivalence" idea took hold in the late 1980s.. they had to start doing massive studies of conventional plants to have a baseline -and even that baseline is questionable since there is so much variation in any crop year to year, place to place, how long it has taken to get from harvest to lab, etc. mind-boggling difficulties when you think about it. I think you get this). Toxicologists have to draw judgements about what biochemical changes mean. I don't know that the science is developed enough for anybody to make tox judgements if somebody did some kind of metabolomics-driven study of long term, subtle changes. Do you know what I mean? And really importantly, toxicologists need an understanding of mechanism to make judgements.. if there are just subtle, long term differences and some subtle, long term phenotypic differences, how do you connect them, so you can avoid the correlation/causation fallacy? This is a really big issue.

2) Regulatory science works in the gap between what we can see what we know, the best guesses (!) we can make about what we don't, and the need to make real-life decisions. Do we want to live in a society where new products are generated all the time, or do we want to live in a world where innovation is choked from coming to market? The US regulatory policy for chemical products is "science based" - it asks, what are the clearly defined risks that science can confirm, and how do we test well enough for them? (there is room there for change as clearly defined risks are defined). The precautionary principle says "What really bad thing has a reasonable chance of happening, and how do we be absolutely sure it won't?" You can see the difference in emphasis. The first has allowed the US to be the world leader in innovation, on many levels. It has also brought us PCBs. Good and bad. More of each. Stupid stuff that doesn't make the world better, but important things like drugs. I wrote, on groupuscule's page, about my worry about the precautionary principle - I struggle with it as an endless, moving goalpost. Like others struggle with "science based" regulatory regimes as being too willing to tolerate risk. What I am trying to say (too long I am sorry) is that if we as a society want to trade off reducing risk (by demanding more testing) for fewer innovations, I could live with that. But I think overall we are better off unleashing innovation and managing risk the science-based way. But reasonable people can differ here!

I think the big problem with scrutiny of GMOs is not regulators, but that there is no culture of product-introducers publishing their data in ag-biotech. Drug makers sell to doctors, who look for information in medical journals. They gotta publish. Ag biotech sells to farmers, who do not read scientific journals. Right? So you can see how we got here. It would be an interesting, and probably very socially productive move, if regulators required ag biotech companies to publish their tox data in peer-reviewed journals. As it is, the tox data is trade secret for the companies and regulators are required by law to keep it secret. So everybody worries.

On Celiac.. yep another great example of our ignorance about human biology. It kills me that we don't know for sure what APP (the protein from which is cleaved A beta, which makes plaques in Alzheimers) does in normal human biology. Think about all the money that has been spent researching that! We don't know what tau, which causes fibrils thought to be pathological in AD, is doing in extracellular space, nor how it gets there, as it is cytoplasmic. Also crazy.

Wow you were a regulator in the financial sector?! Hard, hard job. I wish you guys had more teeth. It would be amazing to have a beer and hear about your experiences there. So you totally understand risk management, then.

About novel proteins like Cry1Ac... kind of hear you, and I don't. We've been eating that for millennia. Regulators looked at that - at how it works in nature (needs an alkaline environment to denature (which we don't have); need specific proteins to cleave off a prodomain once it's denatured (we don't have those proteins); needs to bind to a specific receptor on the gut-wall of insects in order to create a fissure (we don't have those receptors)) and they looked to see if it shared domains with anything nasty, found none, and said, "GRAS." Which is the kind of analysis they did with all such proteins. To have a real tox worry, you need some sense of mechanism -- based on what we know, how could this thing possibly hurt us? And you look for that... Other novel proteins, like when they put the brazil nut protein into soybeans.. they knew that some people are allergic to brazil nuts, so even though they had no reason to suspect the protein they put in would cause allergy, they tested it anyway... and they discovered a new allergen. There really is a lot of caution, if some reasonable risk can be identified and tested for..

That's all.. thank you again for talking! Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a fair overview of the situation as I see it. Certain groups (particularly those who want to see their life's work put to use and those who have a direct profit motive) have a more free market attitude, and others like myself are more cautious. As far as forecasting long-term changes based upon in vitro and in silico analysis, you and I briefly discussed the Tox21 project, which may make that more possible. I am much less cautious when it comes to drugs but I see significant differences between the two areas: drugs cure people and cause relatively dramatic and easily-identified effects in human clinical trials. I don't even think that low yields (especially in the U.S.) are a major problem in agriculture. As far as Cry1Ac, ucbiotech.org says Bt microbial products have a history of human use of ~40 years, and probably no consumption history in that period (tho now we have data, I imagine); for Cry9c, it says there was no human history - so I'm curious where you came up with millenia. However, your overview of the GRAS is short and sweet, and if more of that was available, people might be less skeptical. Part of the problem as I see it is that the scientific community has a storied history of rolling over to industry on potential problems like these rather than pushing back, which is often accompanied with personal attacks on scientists' who stand up. If scientists demand more information and more ethical practices as a matter of principle, then they might just get it. A large part of public wants to be convinced on a case-by-case basis by the industry rather than letting it all happen behind closed doors. When you work as a regulator, you have to steel yourself to challenge industry (and sometimes, your colleagues) all the time, because you're constantly getting schmoozed and because in many positions you spend 95% of your time talking to industry rather than consumers. II | (t - c) 16:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi - just wanted to make a few drive-by comments. :-)

• I don't know which wheat-related condition you're referring to, though I have a vague recollection of something I once read. In any case, assuming that such wheat is considered "conventional food," it would seem that argues to raise the bar for the effects that need to be found before the statement "as safe/risky as conventional food" should be dropped. I'm not saying this myself, but since nobody is saying that we know no adverse effects exist (except maybe PR people?) and the risk statement is relative rather than absolute, I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
• I work in the biomedical sciences, and I don't think the picture you paint is accurate. I agree that there are some serious issues with e.g. replication (and indeed more than in other fields, although I don't have direct experience with toxicology), but a strong scientific consensus only forms around replicated data. I've also never seen any scientist suggest we can "strongly confirm" the effect/function/etc of any new protein (at least in the sense of being able to exclude the possibility of all other effects) - although if we're talking about oral ingestion, most are just broken down by our digestive enzymes. (This is why we can eat almost any non-poisonous plant or animal in the first place.) Prions are an exception; they're dangerous because they're extremely stable and don't get broken down in this way.
• I believe the word "fringe" in our case is supposed to refer to WP:FRINGE, i.e. to the Wikipedia classification where we determine the proportion of scientists in the relevant fields which hold a certain view. We're not actually trying to resolve any questions ourselves here - even if all the data was really poor but scientists still came to strong agreement (though I don't think that's likely to happen anyways!), we should still describe that position as the consensus. Apologies if you already understand that and I'm misinterpreting you. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

First off, thanks for joining in with some comments.

• With regard to the wheat-related condition (which I'm surprised you didn't guess), I don't understand what "it would seem that argues to raise the bar for the effects that need to be found before the statement 'as safe/risky as conventional food' should be dropped" means. If you're saying that it would be better to have more information on the results of conventional breeding, I agree, although I'm not entirely sure that's the most efficient use of scarce resources.
• I can follow up on this one about general consensus later, but first off your comment that "although if we're talking about oral ingestion, most are just broken down by our digestive enzymes" strikes me as naive, unless you have some special insight I don't. There are proteins which are extremely toxic when ingested - for example, read up on botulism toxin. Further, allergens are generally (always?) proteins. In any case, proteins are not the only constituents of potential concern, as there are numerous other constituents with significant effects on the human body (e.g., alkaloids; you could take a look at Ames' 1990 paper on natural pesticides in plants), although as usual there is extreme disagreement about the ultimate significance and effects. In terms of consensus and how effective the scientific community is, I basically just completely disagree. I'm always surprised at how people who presumably come from rational perspective take on very irrational, fixed beliefs in numerous areas. The relevant consensus, in any case, is almost never a consensus of the broad population of scientists (including computer scientists, physicists, geologists, etc) but rather a relatively small subgroup of experts who show their work through publication. It's not even clear that geneticists are the appropriate subgroup to comment on toxicology. I can provide some examples of other areas where there's been significant confusion around consensus later if you'd like, but generally my view is that one should use the word 'consensus' quite sparingly, and one individual should almost never claim consensus. I'm actually not a fan of the way the global warming consensus has been handled either, but it's not something I'm going to argue against given that the consensus runs, similar to my position on the GMO area, of not breaking stuff (which one could argue is a status quo bias, but I would respond that there important differences between retaining the current biological environment and the current regulatory environment).
• There is no requirement to describe a certain position as a 'consensus'. We can't just take whatever any one single individual claims in some sort of publication to be true. There's a reasonable argument that a claim to consensus is a point of view and should therefore be attributed (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). It's also seemingly within the scope of rationality to be skeptical of large groups not composed of experts in the particular field which don't show any careful scientific work in a publication - in other words, an AAAS press release is not equivalent to the IPCC. In any case, individual editors should not be describing any living scientist as fringe by themselves, much less career scientists who are Managing Editors of leading journals in the field (as Jytdog arguably did above in saying that Jose Domingo has fringe arguments). That seems like a more clear violation of WP:BLP (which does apply to talk pages) than arguing that someone overstated their case when they claimed consensus. Unless you want to publish an article under a real name, you don't really have a position at the scientific table to call career scientists fringe activists on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi II - I did not say that Domingo is a fringe character or that he is fringe himself. That is a pretty nasty mischaracterization and not something I would ever say. I said he is a hero to anti-GMO groups, which is an entirely different thing. In addition, Arc made it clear that when we are saying "fringe" here, we are talking about WP:FRINGE. These conversations are already hard enough, for pete's sake!Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, you completely ignored what arc actually wrote on the protein thing. He said "This is why we can eat almost any non-poisonous plant or animal in the first place". So throwing up botulinum toxin is another fairly aggressive misreading.Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And finally, what Arc meant respond to your comments about wheat: The consensus statement is that currently marketed food from GMOs is as safe as/as risky as food from conventional counterparts. It is relative. So if you are making an argument that food from conventional organisms is actually pretty risky, then that makes the scientific consensus true with an even wider range of possible harm caused by food from GMOs. Do you see? Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You lumped Domingo in with HIV-deniers such as Peter Duesberg in the same sentence, while the next sentence began with "fringe". I've already said I find your attempts to equate this controversy to HIV denialism insulting, so you shouldn't be surprised. If you don't want to get dirty, don't play in the mud. And the fringe grouping is for Domingo arguing that the ultimate question of safety (broadly) remains open. I don't think it was a nasty mischaracterization. I should clarify that I'm not generally that uptight about discussing whether scientists are fringe or mainstream personally, but my buttons have been pushed a little. In my opinion, questioning the ultimate safety of GMOs is not a fringe position. It certainly does not seem to be described as such in the scientific reviews that I've seen, and I can probably dig up a couple more in addition to the ones I've already mentioned. Rather, it is a rhetorical strategy. Honestly, given the history of this particular industry I would not be surprised if it originated from a company.

With regard to non-poisonous, I did notice that he specified non-poisonous, but I didn't understand its relevance, as it seems tautological. As I read it the implication of that statement is that we don't really need to worry about ingested proteins. Yes, I probably should have presented a better protein example - something not acutely poisonous - but it was just a reminder that digestion does not automatically render toxins inert.

Yes, we're talking about relative. So there are natural pesticides in our foods, which have uncertain effects. My a priori assumption is that if we increase the number or prevalence of these (or various other) substances, the result is likely to be a greater effect. That is, if you have more things that can potentially do something, than something happens more. So I don't completely buy the relative argument. There's also different relative arguments, such as ones talking about changes in the abstract. It gets a little messy. II | (t - c) 01:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the discussion. I'm short on time right now, so I won't likely be able to make more than brief comments on anything you have to say after this specific reply. I've written part of my response, which is the description of entry via the digestive system. (I'm adding it now because I likely won't be able to write the rest in the next couple of days, but I'll give it to you eventually.) TL;DR: yes, it is correct that you generally don't need to worry about any specific ingested proteins. I would speculate that it's just that the toxins and potential toxins are the ones that you hear about - see availability heuristic. Anyways, this is semi-technical to technical (and possibly way more than you expected, but as Jytdog has pointed out and as you probably know, these issues are complicated), so depending on how familiar and/or interested you are with the topic, I can unpack this explanation a bit further later on. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is helpful, yes. I'm familiar with that type of stuff but not as knowledgeable as you, and that is a very good overview. So yeah, we can consume a large variety of proteins without getting poisoned. However, I tend to be a bit skeptical of in vitro analysis or sweeping theoretical generalizations these days. I'm not saying that you can't find really good and accurate information like that, but when you mention that we don't know the pathway for botulism (perhaps it's just you don't know) but that there's only a couple typical pathways, it makes me want to roll my eyes. I also did glance at the cholera toxin section but that doesn't really put it into context at all. Do you have a good scientific review which covers this in general, out of curiosity? II | (t - c) 16:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I always assume that I may be incorrect or not have the latest knowledge - that's why I often use terms such as "I think," as I did in that case. :-). And of course, the number of "typical pathways" does depend on what level you categorize them at - but in general, some mechanisms of entry are easier than others, and the easier ways are the most commonly used. And for example, one can observe that the mechanisms are conserved, i.e. that toxins seeking entry (also bacteria and viruses, actually) have converged on the same general solutions despite vastly different evolutionary backgrounds. There are always exceptions to everything in biology, as you (very) rightly point out, but reasonably good predictions can still be made. Anyways, this seems like a good review on toxin entry routes (Figure 1 shows the typical pathways). It's written for scientists studying drug delivery mechanisms, but reviews in the pathogenesis field tend to have narrower scope. Note that the reference to botulism toxin refers to the pathogenesis in nerve cells and may not be the same as what happens during intestinal entry. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Extended explanation

The barriers to intestinal entry are: various types of digestive enzymes all the way from your saliva down to your small intestine; pH 2 acid in the stomach; and the physical barrier of the intestinal wall. Although there are (many) exceptions, proportionally they are very few - small hydrophobic molecules are your best bet, which is why most orally ingested drugs are small and hydrophobic. Most components of biological systems aren't, though, and those which do have very specific characteristics that allow this. To take your example of botulism, after the protein survives to the small intestine, it executes a specific adaptation involving receptor-mediated transcytosis across the intestinal wall, i.e. it uses the body's own pathways against it. Here is a 2004 review that discusses the topic; the receptor hasn't been identified, but this is a primary source which describes some of the progress. So in general, the toxin must bind to a receptor on the intestinal side of the barrier, trigger endocytosis, either avoid or pass through and escape the degradative organelles in the cell interior (where the cell may try to send it), and then find a pathway by which it can be released on the other side. In other words, the entry occurs by a regulated intestinal pathway, and the toxin uses and requires specific adaptations to co-opt the cellular system. I don't think the details of intestinal entry is known for botulism, but there are only a couple of typical pathways. One well-known example is cholera toxin (CTX), described at Cholera toxin#Pathogenesis, first paragraph. It's reasonably complicated and involves the toxin changing its form (or "tricking" the cell into making the change for it) several times at different stages of the process. In general, this doesn't happen for any random protein. It's elaborately complicated because the intestinal wall is elaborately complicated. (And note that I haven't even discussed the adaptations needed just to get to the intestine. The vast majority of proteins don't reach it in the first place. I also haven't discussed the even greater difficulties for the toxin to reach its desired location and then carry out its toxic function - it's not just a matter of circulating in the blood.) Anyways, the foregoing is what I was referring to as "poisonous" (i.e. evolutionarily adapted for a toxic purpose). But I did say "almost all" instead of just "all" - this is because the number of different types of proteins is vast, so probabilistically some number (that are not specifically adapted to be toxins) have some ability to get past the system anyways, even though they didn't evolve for that function; IIRC there may also be some that the intestine transports deliberately, but these are rare. Allergens (usually proteins) fall into either of these categories, although since an antigen can be less than a dozen amino acids long, only partial resistance to digestion is required - there is a brief comment on this in the lead of Food allergy. However, the length of a peptide sharply limits the potential for toxicity (there are a few possibilities, but allergies are the main one), since among other things peptides do not have enzymatic functions. (Also, since we're talking about celiac, IIRC as an interesting side note it's somewhat unique in this - it's targeted by IgA instead of the typical IgE and so it can cause a mucosal immune response, i.e. the peptides do not actually have to cross the intestinal wall, although I believe they can.) But stepping back, the most concern I can see is if the intestinal wall were injured, which can happen in various circumstances such as infection. Or one could consider that a protein's presence might cause changes in a plant's metabolic profile (these changes occur all the time naturally, but maybe it might change an equilibrium position, etc) - in other words, some food components would be more or less abundant than usual and, since many such components would be affected, some of them would probably be able to cross the intestinal wall. I'm not sure if this has been directly investigated, e.g. by microarray or RNA-seq - it would not surprise me if there are changes. But in such cases, the concern is about many components crossing rather than a single component, because any arbitrarily chosen single component isn't likely to reach that far. So if they're concerns, then we would need to worry even more about the genetic changes that happen in conventional breeding, which cause indiscriminate genetic effects rather than targeted ones, to the point that many (most?) of the "conventional" foods are no longer recognizable relative to their ancestors. Corn/maize is a relatively well-known example; among other things, it's now much larger, a different color, and it can't reproduce independently (it's equivalent to sterile if released into the wild). Also, cauliflower and Brussels sprouts are the same species - you can imagine that took a lot of genetic change as well. Anyways, that's all the background behind my original statement (or at least, the part relating to the point of intestinal entry), so let me know if that helps. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The rest of my comments are as follows. They again ended up longer than intended, unfortunately (and this time I don't have the excuse of being jet-lagged!) but I'll post them for you to read anyways. :-) No "button-pushing" is intended if it was my comments you were referring to.

• I agree with the general idea of caution (so does everyone, I think, and I don't consider it status quo bias). As always, the relevant issue is acceptable risk - Jytdog knows this better than I do. I recall some result that calculated the degree to which the average person values their own life based on the risks they are willing to take, e.g. getting into a car. But precaution cuts both ways - some people think that developing GM foods is itself a precaution, against the possibility that world food production will not keep up with population growth. They may consider it important even if such a situation is very unlikely. (Similar precautions would include ensuring that less of our current food supply is wasted, etc.)
• I'm aware that the experts on any given topic are usually a specific group of people. I think likely some of these experts are authors on our sources, and presumably others would have been consulted. Also, if the major scientific organizations were getting it consistently wrong, I would expect to hear many more objections from scientists than there seem to be - e.g. multiple editorials in Nature and Science. There's not usually any one "best" group to speak for a complicated issue, though; it depends on what the specific statement is. One purpose of the scientific organizations is to synthesize the expertise of these groups. (Also, I strongly disagree that the AAAS source should be considered a press release - but regardless, three of the first five sources are complete reports on the subject of GM foods by equivalently respected scientific organizations.)
• One individual isn't claiming consensus, as many of the sources currently cited have multiple authors. I agree with your statement that "questioning the ultimate safety of GMOs is not a fringe position." However, I would emphasize the word ultimate, and say that this is different from the statement that the current evidence does not support safety risks above those of conventional foods. Consensus changes and can be wrong, but it's still the best knowledge we have at any given time, as I'm not sure what could be better (I recognize you may not agree). To illustrate this in a different way - I will not be surprised if a GM food is one day found to have significant negative effects on health, especially as more such foods are approved. This would not change the fact that under my current understanding, at this point in time it is not the best conclusion to draw. I agree that we're not "required" as such to describe a position as consensus, but as far as I can tell the statement is accurate and there's no reason to exclude it either. (There is also the argument that excluding it may be misleading, depending on how or whether it is replaced, and what other statements are in the article.) Since it's a topic where there's a lot of public misunderstanding, I favor making it prominent. I apply the same logic to pretty much any viewpoint that (in my best judgement) competes with popular FRINGE viewpoints.
• With respect to attribution, the claim already is being attributed, to scientists in general. I could likewise say that the statement is factual, and should be presented as fact without reference to scientists (i.e. "Food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk than conventional foods.") I haven't thought about this issue yet, but I consider the current statement extremely oversourced (cite-killed, but potentially necessary in the current situation) and more than sufficient to support this argument. To me, saying "scientific consensus" gives more allowance for the existence of legitimate debate, partially because the strength of a scientific consensus can vary. In policy terms: I consider the consensus of experts to fall outside ATTRIBUTEPOV (so it could only be attributed as "scientific consensus" but this isn't generally required). If it didn't, it's not clear to me that anything ever could, and then ASF and parts of FRINGE would be superfluous. I would also cite DUE and GEVAL, depending on how related or contradicting statements are presented, or sometimes even if there are none - in my opinion, simply attributing a statement can imply that the support for that statement is limited in some way, and thus can be an implied violation.

--Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

II, I just don't get why you are continuing to push on this ... from a scientific perspective, there is no reason to think that the GM foods on the market are any more dangerous than conventional food. And I mean this from the very foundation of it - the way scientists think about it. Scientists genetically modifiy things every single day in their labs - literally every single day, and have for over twenty years. Plasmids, single celled organisms, simple multicellular organisms, complex ones like plants, and complex ones like rats. We are even doing gene therapy on humans. From a scientist's perspective there is nothing exotic or bizarre about doing this. In the lab, you do your experiment, you see if it went right - if the gene got where it needed to go - and if doesn't, you do it again and again until it comes out right. Then you do more tests to make sure only the thing you wanted to change, changes. Hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers have been published on this. Genetic modification is now basic technology, like a semiconductor. Suspicion of this is driven by ignorance of people outside field... you know it is probably a lot like how people viewed digital banking when it first started happening. Lots of people stayed away from ATM machines at first and some still do; some refuse to interact with their accounts over the internet. To people who understand finance all this was a total natural evolution - money has been moved around without actually handing over chunks of gold, or even, legal tender, for a very very long time, and extended this to consumers using computer technology is just another clear step in that line. And you better believe that the specific systems being used today were tested like crazy before they were released into the wild. Right? You probably understand that stuff intimately... and you probably understand why people like my mom still drive to the bank to do things, too. Just fear and ignorance. What if those people got together and called for a ban on digital banking, because they say it is too risky? What if a bunch of them took to the street and set up tons of websites decrying the evils of digital banking and how Chase et al are trying to control us? You see how this could become totally insane, and wild, wild claims could be made... based on fear and ignorance. You are a smart guy, I just cannot see why you are investing in such a weak position... I don't get it. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not viewing this as a battle and I don't feel personally invested in it. Admittedly, I have kept an eye on this subject: when I edited the lead to the article several years ago, I added the NRC source with roughly the statement that no evidence of harm to humans has been documented. I think that's a fair statement, but it's not affirmative in the same way and it doesn't disenfranchise a portion of the scientific community. In any case, the thread that I opened is just about making sure that the sources are being used appropriately. Regardless of one's personal views, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and WP:NPOV have to be followed. I actually do view Wikipedia as a platform for addressing ignorance so I don't blame you for being passionate about that, but in doing so you can't evade the basic guidelines. I opened the current thread partly as an opportunity to educate editors about the policies. Incidentally, I don't think digital banking was ever viewed as a threat. Retrospectively, securitization has been acknowledged as a threat to the stability of the financial system, which is why the Dodd-Frank Act requires a 5% risk retention by mortgage originators. The financial community and the scientific community are pretty different so I'm not sure it's helpful to compare the two. Both are populated by imperfect humans, but due to self-selection bias the people are generally pretty different. II | (t - c) 20:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I kind of regret my posting - I was in a bad mood this morning. Thank your kind and civil response! I like the analogy to the most esoteric securitizations which probably is more apt .... but I was reaching for something that touched consumers - everyday folk who consume/use it but really have no idea what goes on in the backend. (btw did you see this article in the NYT today? ) Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

another article, with good description of a scientist baffled by entrenched fear of GM technology: http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/26/pbs-explains-why-biotech-crops-are-reall Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind encouragement

You are hereby unofficially nominated for membership in the Order of Good Cheer. Please visit Nova Scotia in a tunic, grab a peace pipe, and dig into a giant slab of meat at your earliest convenience.

...It was really nice to read. I got a few days off from my new job, and finally with jet lag firmly in my favor for the first time in years, and I think things went much better today. Well, except for the fact that I procrastinated on a half-empty table on Joe Biden which needs a couple hours or so of work... Tomorrow I hope. Anyway, I am trying to think of some image I can leave you to express my gratitude. Hm.... EllenCT (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard "vote"

Your remark was a bit confusing. Yes, Hayek was an economist (and Rothbard had a PhD in econ). If you are supporting the political stance, I understand. But I do want to make sure. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I'm just saying I would not make the same vote for Hayek. They have different reputations and focuses. II | (t - c) 04:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for engaging in this conversation with such great civility! Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Glyphosate edit war

User:Mark Marathon, User:ImperfectlyInformed, and User:Jusdafax I hope you come and discuss the reasons for the edits you made during edit war you conducted, so when the lockdown is over we can go back to editing productively and collaboratively. I created a Talk section for the discussion. I am copying this note to all your Talk pages. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

groupuscule's page

Hi II

Groupuscule just wrote on her page to Thargor that "You—and those marching in lockstep with you on the GMO issue—are harassing me. I am assuming that she is referring also to my "HIV denialism" thread. As you had earlier objected to it, suggesting I delete it, now that I have good reason to believe that groupuscule considers it harassment, I would like to delete it, but your comments are embedded in mine. Are you OK with me deleting the lot? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I'm glad you're taking that initiative. I've noticed you're upset about the tone. I don't like the combative tone either (and I haven't accused anyone of conflicts of interest, at least that I can recall), but it's on both sides to improve it. I hope you can work on your wiki-tone, as it can come off as sneering sometimes. II | (t - c) 00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I don't intend to sound sneering at all!! If you care to, if you ever notice me making a sneering-ish comment, I would deeply appreciate you pointing it out (and what about it comes off sneer-y) so I can better avoid it. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)