![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So this editor filed an AfD yesterday, and now begun to remove reliable references. After reading the AfD and looking what he removes, and why, it appears that this editor is editing in a none neutral manner. prokaryotes ( talk) 11:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Help me understand how the following doesn't violate WP:COATRACK:
A 2010 paper explained the scope of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. [1]
A 2012 study, looked at the effects of genetically modified Bt toxin on young ladybird larvae. [2]
In 2015 the ENSSER published a study assessment in regards to GMO safety, and concluded that there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and that because of research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state if GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis. [3] A related statement was published in 2013, and signed by over 200 physicians, scientists, and academics. Subsequently the statement was widely cited, i.e. by Friends of the Earth, [4] Physicians for Social Responsibility, [5] or Deutsches Referenzzentrum für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften (DRZE, A German national institute for ethics, bio sciences and medicine). [6]
References
- ^ "European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)". Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung. 2010. doi: 10.1007/s12302-010-0157-y.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
( help)- ^ "Lethal effects of genetically modified Bt toxin confirmed on young ladybird larvae". 2012. doi: 10.1186/2190-4715-24-10.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ Hilbeck; et al. (2015). "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (PDF). Environmental Sciences Europe. doi: 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ "Who benefits from gm crops? an industry built on myths" (PDF). Friends of the Earth. 2014.
- ^ "Physicians for Social Responsibility Support Labeling of GMO Foods". 2013.
- ^ DRZE (2015). "Health risks posed by genetically modified foods".
Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is a very new article. Accusations of "coatrack" are very premature. There is no deadline here - let the article stand for a while and come back to it in a few weeks.DrChrissy (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So this editor filed an AfD yesterday, and now begun to remove reliable references. After reading the AfD and looking what he removes, and why, it appears that this editor is editing in a none neutral manner. prokaryotes ( talk) 11:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Help me understand how the following doesn't violate WP:COATRACK:
A 2010 paper explained the scope of the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. [1]
A 2012 study, looked at the effects of genetically modified Bt toxin on young ladybird larvae. [2]
In 2015 the ENSSER published a study assessment in regards to GMO safety, and concluded that there is no scientific consensus on the relative safety of GM food, and that because of research issues due to intellectual property rights, limited access to research material, differences in methods, analysis and the interpretation of data, it is not possible to state if GMOs are generally safe or unsafe, and instead must be a judged on case-by-case basis. [3] A related statement was published in 2013, and signed by over 200 physicians, scientists, and academics. Subsequently the statement was widely cited, i.e. by Friends of the Earth, [4] Physicians for Social Responsibility, [5] or Deutsches Referenzzentrum für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften (DRZE, A German national institute for ethics, bio sciences and medicine). [6]
References
- ^ "European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER)". Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung. 2010. doi: 10.1007/s12302-010-0157-y.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter|authors=
( help)- ^ "Lethal effects of genetically modified Bt toxin confirmed on young ladybird larvae". 2012. doi: 10.1186/2190-4715-24-10.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ Hilbeck; et al. (2015). "No scientific consensus on GMO safety" (PDF). Environmental Sciences Europe. doi: 10.1186/s12302-014-0034-1.
{{ cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( link)- ^ "Who benefits from gm crops? an industry built on myths" (PDF). Friends of the Earth. 2014.
- ^ "Physicians for Social Responsibility Support Labeling of GMO Foods". 2013.
- ^ DRZE (2015). "Health risks posed by genetically modified foods".
Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment This is a very new article. Accusations of "coatrack" are very premature. There is no deadline here - let the article stand for a while and come back to it in a few weeks.DrChrissy (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)