This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The final paragraph was previously dominated by voices saying that the FOIA requests are harassment a bullying tactics, with one small sentence saying "On the other hand, some have argued that such FOIA requests are useful to ensure transparency." Problems with this were (1) undue weight to the critics of the FOIA because of length and emphasis and use of direct quotations, and (2) the support for the FOIA requests is specifically for these FOIA requests, not just for FOIA use in general.
For these reasons, i added a source (the Nader essay) with a quote from it, here, and i changed the wording to be specific to this FOIA request, not just in general, here.
I'm explaining the reasoning here at length only because this has been a contentious article. SageRad ( talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests.
The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.
The FOIA is a valuable tool to help citizens uncover corruption and wrongdoing, and to vindicate our right to know what our own governments are doing.
Nader writes:
There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year. Based on documents that U.S. Right to Know obtained through the FOIA, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote a front page New York Times article about how Monsanto and the agrichemical industry use publically-funded scientists to lobby, and to promote its messages and products. For example, Lipton reported on a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, who had repeatedly denied having ties to Monsanto: "'This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we're looking to develop,' Michael Lohuis, the director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, wrote last year in an email as the company considered giving Dr. Folta an unrestricted grant."
The first part of the paragraph presents views that this FOIA request was harassment. Nader then presents the view that it was useful and right to use FOIA in this case so "on the other hand" makes perfect sense.
Regarding the metaphor, an FOIA request that results in some messy COI revelation is not like a mass shooting of innocent victims. SageRad ( talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA.
Let's let some other people read the source and see what they think it says.
To me, it's clear that the article expresses his favor toward the use of FOIA in this case, as he provides it as one of two examples of recent useful applications of FOIA that benefits citizens. That's so clear to me, i don't see how you can read his essay and not come away with that. This is a clear counter-argument to those preceding sources in the same paragraph that opine that the use of FOIA against Folta and others by USRTK was harassment, and therefore it is clearly a good counterpoint to them. SageRad ( talk) 12:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In this article, Ralph Nader is most certainly saying that the FOIA requests made by USRTK were justified and useful. If you do not think that he says that in the article, then please explain to me how you read it. The title of the article is "Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information". In the article, he makes a nod to the notion that FOIA can and has been used to harass researchers, and then he writes in contrast:
The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA. There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year.
He then describes the USRTK requests and what they have found out, and then concludes with:
One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests. The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.
Please tell me how you can read this and see something other than what i described. SageRad ( talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the edit because it really seems to be stacking the article to make the FOIA requests seem like harassment with Nader's voice buried in there. There are two paragraphs that speak about the FOIA requests being bad, now. The UCS "decried" them -- is that verb appropriate? Did they say "We decry"? Does the UCS report even mention Folta or the USRTK requests at all? Not that i can see. Therefore to say that the UCS "decried the FOIA requests" is a serious misrepresentation of the source, as far as i can tell, or else you or i are simply mistaken and that will come out in the dialogue here. The UCS report was not in response to the USTRK requests, but the article currently implies that, thereby further pushing a Folta-friendly POV. We need integrity of representation of sources.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."
So, we have two paragraphs harping on "the FOIA request was harassment!" trope, and only the first has any rejoinder, which is provided by the Nader piece. The Seife and Thacker source is retained (thank for that) but not mentioned in the article text in any way, not "Nader and others" or anything, so it would appear to be a second source as to Nader's opinion. I think it's very unbalanced this way and misrepresents a source. Was it a problem that the article ended before on a note that wasn't favorable to a pro-Folta POV?
Here i have partially reverted this WP:BOLD edit. Thank you, Adrian232, for making a note of your edit and reasons.
Mainly, i removed the UCS reference because it was misrepresenting the source as being against this FOIA request, explicitly as well as implied, and i condensed the topic back into one paragraph. I did retain the additional Guardian source added by Adrian232, although it seems to be getting a bit heavy now on the "FOIA was harassment!" side of representing points of view. SageRad ( talk) 12:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
“These requests to the genetic engineering researchers, just like other overly broad open records requests that seek excessive access to scientists’ inboxes, are inappropriate,” reads a February 20 statement.
Back to reality, i see that the UCS blogger Gretchen Goldman has called the FOIA requests by USRTK "inappropriate" because they are "overly broad". This is supported by sourcing. That is not a UCS statement. That is a single person writing a blog post on the UCS website's "blog" section. To be accurate. SageRad ( talk) 13:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."
On the other hand, some have argued that the FOIA requests were useful to ensure transparency. Ralph Nader wrote, "One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests."
So Kingofaces43 and Adrian232 both think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to say that UCS has made an organizational position statement against the USRTK FOIA statements because a Wired article claims that a blog post is a UCS position statement? That's your position here? I find this amazing. Meanwhile, you think the phrase "on the other hand" is POV pushing. Just astounding bias here, is my reckoning. Willingness to push POV at any cost. SageRad ( talk) 15:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I made an entry at the RS noticeboard to gather inputs on the principles of reliable sources as relates to this issue. SageRad ( talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
In February 2015, Gretchen Goldman writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit science advocacy organization, criticized the FOIA requests for being "inappropriate" and "overly wide", saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."
We might wish to discuss this edit. I guess i'm okay with the edit, as it still may retain the cumulative sense of UCS positions, as well as the more recent reference to Michael Halpern's piece in October 2015. Just noting it here for others to discuss, if desired. SageRad ( talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Folta HAS been subject to harassment. See commentary by David Gorski. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/05/a-sad-day-for-public-science-advocacy/ Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also commentary by Jack Payne at Phys.org http://phys.org/news/2015-08-activists-misuse.html Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And here are some more news sources on it. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/12/14/harassment-scientists-threatens-independent-research-science-journal-wa
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-new-gmo-controversy-20150925-column.html
I respectfully suggest that Minor4th do his/her due diligence before engaging in rule violations and knee-jerk reversions as well as mischaracterizing edits, such as claiming that stating that harassment occurred is an "accusation". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Secondary complaint about Minor4th's inappropriate behavior: s/he chose to mass revert a number of edits, including structural edits to simply put a sequence of paragraphs in chronological order, thus damaging the article.
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (
talk)
04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The final paragraph was previously dominated by voices saying that the FOIA requests are harassment a bullying tactics, with one small sentence saying "On the other hand, some have argued that such FOIA requests are useful to ensure transparency." Problems with this were (1) undue weight to the critics of the FOIA because of length and emphasis and use of direct quotations, and (2) the support for the FOIA requests is specifically for these FOIA requests, not just for FOIA use in general.
For these reasons, i added a source (the Nader essay) with a quote from it, here, and i changed the wording to be specific to this FOIA request, not just in general, here.
I'm explaining the reasoning here at length only because this has been a contentious article. SageRad ( talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests.
The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.
The FOIA is a valuable tool to help citizens uncover corruption and wrongdoing, and to vindicate our right to know what our own governments are doing.
Nader writes:
There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year. Based on documents that U.S. Right to Know obtained through the FOIA, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote a front page New York Times article about how Monsanto and the agrichemical industry use publically-funded scientists to lobby, and to promote its messages and products. For example, Lipton reported on a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta, who had repeatedly denied having ties to Monsanto: "'This is a great 3rd-party approach to developing the advocacy that we're looking to develop,' Michael Lohuis, the director of crop biometrics at Monsanto, wrote last year in an email as the company considered giving Dr. Folta an unrestricted grant."
The first part of the paragraph presents views that this FOIA request was harassment. Nader then presents the view that it was useful and right to use FOIA in this case so "on the other hand" makes perfect sense.
Regarding the metaphor, an FOIA request that results in some messy COI revelation is not like a mass shooting of innocent victims. SageRad ( talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA.
Let's let some other people read the source and see what they think it says.
To me, it's clear that the article expresses his favor toward the use of FOIA in this case, as he provides it as one of two examples of recent useful applications of FOIA that benefits citizens. That's so clear to me, i don't see how you can read his essay and not come away with that. This is a clear counter-argument to those preceding sources in the same paragraph that opine that the use of FOIA against Folta and others by USRTK was harassment, and therefore it is clearly a good counterpoint to them. SageRad ( talk) 12:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
In this article, Ralph Nader is most certainly saying that the FOIA requests made by USRTK were justified and useful. If you do not think that he says that in the article, then please explain to me how you read it. The title of the article is "Monsanto and Its Promoters vs. Freedom of Information". In the article, he makes a nod to the notion that FOIA can and has been used to harass researchers, and then he writes in contrast:
The proper response to abuses of the FOIA is not, however, to advocate blocking citizens or reporters from using the FOIA. There are countless government and corporate scandals that have been revealed by the FOIA, but here are just two from this year.
He then describes the USRTK requests and what they have found out, and then concludes with:
One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests. The use of the FOIA by citizens, journalists, and others to expose scandals is essential to ensure honest scientific inquiry and is critical to developing protective public health and environmental standards. Scientific research should not be contaminated by the inevitable biases and secrecy that come with corporate contracts at public universities.
Please tell me how you can read this and see something other than what i described. SageRad ( talk) 17:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the edit because it really seems to be stacking the article to make the FOIA requests seem like harassment with Nader's voice buried in there. There are two paragraphs that speak about the FOIA requests being bad, now. The UCS "decried" them -- is that verb appropriate? Did they say "We decry"? Does the UCS report even mention Folta or the USRTK requests at all? Not that i can see. Therefore to say that the UCS "decried the FOIA requests" is a serious misrepresentation of the source, as far as i can tell, or else you or i are simply mistaken and that will come out in the dialogue here. The UCS report was not in response to the USTRK requests, but the article currently implies that, thereby further pushing a Folta-friendly POV. We need integrity of representation of sources.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."
So, we have two paragraphs harping on "the FOIA request was harassment!" trope, and only the first has any rejoinder, which is provided by the Nader piece. The Seife and Thacker source is retained (thank for that) but not mentioned in the article text in any way, not "Nader and others" or anything, so it would appear to be a second source as to Nader's opinion. I think it's very unbalanced this way and misrepresents a source. Was it a problem that the article ended before on a note that wasn't favorable to a pro-Folta POV?
Here i have partially reverted this WP:BOLD edit. Thank you, Adrian232, for making a note of your edit and reasons.
Mainly, i removed the UCS reference because it was misrepresenting the source as being against this FOIA request, explicitly as well as implied, and i condensed the topic back into one paragraph. I did retain the additional Guardian source added by Adrian232, although it seems to be getting a bit heavy now on the "FOIA was harassment!" side of representing points of view. SageRad ( talk) 12:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
“These requests to the genetic engineering researchers, just like other overly broad open records requests that seek excessive access to scientists’ inboxes, are inappropriate,” reads a February 20 statement.
Back to reality, i see that the UCS blogger Gretchen Goldman has called the FOIA requests by USRTK "inappropriate" because they are "overly broad". This is supported by sourcing. That is not a UCS statement. That is a single person writing a blog post on the UCS website's "blog" section. To be accurate. SageRad ( talk) 13:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, decried the FOIA requests in a February 2015 statement, saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."
On the other hand, some have argued that the FOIA requests were useful to ensure transparency. Ralph Nader wrote, "One thing is clear; food safety, public health, the commercialization of public universities, corporate control of science, and the research produced by taxpayer-funded scientists to promote commercial products are all appropriate subjects for FOIA requests."
So Kingofaces43 and Adrian232 both think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to say that UCS has made an organizational position statement against the USRTK FOIA statements because a Wired article claims that a blog post is a UCS position statement? That's your position here? I find this amazing. Meanwhile, you think the phrase "on the other hand" is POV pushing. Just astounding bias here, is my reckoning. Willingness to push POV at any cost. SageRad ( talk) 15:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I made an entry at the RS noticeboard to gather inputs on the principles of reliable sources as relates to this issue. SageRad ( talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
In February 2015, Gretchen Goldman writing for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit science advocacy organization, criticized the FOIA requests for being "inappropriate" and "overly wide", saying it would create "chilling effects on researchers and confuse the public about the state of the science."
We might wish to discuss this edit. I guess i'm okay with the edit, as it still may retain the cumulative sense of UCS positions, as well as the more recent reference to Michael Halpern's piece in October 2015. Just noting it here for others to discuss, if desired. SageRad ( talk) 15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Kevin Folta HAS been subject to harassment. See commentary by David Gorski. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/11/05/a-sad-day-for-public-science-advocacy/ Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Also commentary by Jack Payne at Phys.org http://phys.org/news/2015-08-activists-misuse.html Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And here are some more news sources on it. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/12/14/harassment-scientists-threatens-independent-research-science-journal-wa
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-new-gmo-controversy-20150925-column.html
I respectfully suggest that Minor4th do his/her due diligence before engaging in rule violations and knee-jerk reversions as well as mischaracterizing edits, such as claiming that stating that harassment occurred is an "accusation". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 04:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Secondary complaint about Minor4th's inappropriate behavior: s/he chose to mass revert a number of edits, including structural edits to simply put a sequence of paragraphs in chronological order, thus damaging the article.
Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (
talk)
04:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)