03:2703:27, 8 May 2014diffhist+17
Séralini affair
"80 scientists" was confusing and hard to verify (one would have to count the scientists among the signers of that petition)
21:4121:41, 6 May 2014diffhist+326
Séralini affair
Old content is biased. Added reference to GMOSERALINI.ORG. Please leave this reference alone, as the owner of the website is a subject matter expert and as such passes the tests laid out in WP:SPS.
17:3117:31, 5 May 2014diffhist+326
Séralini affair
"widely criticized" is subjective. Regulatory agencies are few in numbers and cannot apply "wide criticism". To establish wide criticism status, must establish that a large proportion by a *representative sample* of the scientific community.
17:2817:28, 5 May 2014diffhist−160
Séralini affair
This is not supported by references. Must include references to all studies and all rebuttals. If mentioning "members of the scientific community", please qualify. In the current form, this constitutes weasel words.
17:2717:27, 5 May 2014diffhist−564
Séralini affair
Confidentiality agreements are standard. Stating this in the lead gives the false impression that it is unusual. Removed. See Talk page.
12:4812:48, 24 April 2014diffhist+166
Séralini affair
Refined summarization of the status of criticisms and provided access to counter-opinion. Removed additional statement that qualifies as weasel words. Please take this to the Talk page to avoid a lock on this page.
12:3912:39, 24 April 2014diffhist−564
Séralini affair
I am removing the uncited paragraph once again. It is a biased character study that deters from the facts surrounding the article. Please rephrase and add appropriate references before re-including.
03:2703:27, 8 May 2014diffhist+17
Séralini affair
"80 scientists" was confusing and hard to verify (one would have to count the scientists among the signers of that petition)
21:4121:41, 6 May 2014diffhist+326
Séralini affair
Old content is biased. Added reference to GMOSERALINI.ORG. Please leave this reference alone, as the owner of the website is a subject matter expert and as such passes the tests laid out in WP:SPS.
17:3117:31, 5 May 2014diffhist+326
Séralini affair
"widely criticized" is subjective. Regulatory agencies are few in numbers and cannot apply "wide criticism". To establish wide criticism status, must establish that a large proportion by a *representative sample* of the scientific community.
17:2817:28, 5 May 2014diffhist−160
Séralini affair
This is not supported by references. Must include references to all studies and all rebuttals. If mentioning "members of the scientific community", please qualify. In the current form, this constitutes weasel words.
17:2717:27, 5 May 2014diffhist−564
Séralini affair
Confidentiality agreements are standard. Stating this in the lead gives the false impression that it is unusual. Removed. See Talk page.
12:4812:48, 24 April 2014diffhist+166
Séralini affair
Refined summarization of the status of criticisms and provided access to counter-opinion. Removed additional statement that qualifies as weasel words. Please take this to the Talk page to avoid a lock on this page.
12:3912:39, 24 April 2014diffhist−564
Séralini affair
I am removing the uncited paragraph once again. It is a biased character study that deters from the facts surrounding the article. Please rephrase and add appropriate references before re-including.