Talk:European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 September 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recent removal of sources by editor Jytdog[edit]

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)[reply]

Please specify which refs I removed that you believe are reliable. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK[edit]

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)[reply]

The paper on consensus is widely cited, and maybe ENSSER is best known for it. Also we link related publications on articles. prokaryotes (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain how this section is not WP:COATRACK? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly from Coatrack you think concerns the article about a organisations and its publications? prokaryotes (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be about the organization, and not used as a platform to advocate for the organization's views. The goal is not to prove them correct but simply describe what they are, and what they do. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ENSSER is notable because of their publications.prokaryotes (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no basis for the statement in policies or guidelines about NOTABILITY. Where do you find that? Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered this on your AFD, also to repeat, What exactly from Coatrack you think concerns the article about a organisations and its publications?prokaryotes (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You shift the question to something about sources, so I answered that. Now you are shifting back to my original point. Again - the point is not to prove that their point is True. The content above is directed to showing that what they say is True. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[Meyer2010-1] "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)

[2] "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)

[3] 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)

[4] "Who benefits from gm crops? an industry built on myths" (PDF). Friends of the Earth. 2014.

[5] "Physicians for Social Responsibility Support Labeling of GMO Foods". 2013.

[6] DRZE (2015). "Health risks posed by genetically modified foods".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]