Talk:Alex Avery

message: i don`t agree with the removal of the nyt quote, so i undid the edit, do kindly explain why this is irrelevant. also why is calling him a vehement critic negative language?trueblood (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is hardly vandalism to report information published in the New York Times, which they deemed relevant for inclusion. I tried to enlarge the context, though, to include that he claims that those he disagrees with may also have conflicts of interest. I did change it just to list the companies, instead of explain what they did, as that point wasn't explicitly made in the report. Don't remove either one unless you have a source which concludes that the New York Times article is wrong. "Vehement" may have a connotation of irrationally opposed to, so I guess it may be negative; "leading" seems appropriate because he was interviewed on the subject by the Times. I added a quote from the times that shows the depth of his criticism. Also, please don't revert to earlier versions and lose the work I've done wikifying and categorizing the article. Rigadoun  (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  please explain removal of reference 

message: Per the biographies of living persons rule, I've removed some sections which were placed to insinuate a conflict of interest. Mentioning in isolation that specific works of the author were co-written by so-and-so and Monsanto is clearly such an insinuation. If a reliable source is making a direct claim of criticism against Alex Avery, then quote that, but dancing around a serious isn't good encyclopedia writing. Jefffire (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i reinstated the nyt quote, it really fits in with the context, avery insinuates that positive findings about benefits of organic food are contaminated by the researchers funding and the nyt pointed out that avery himself might have a conflict of interest. what is wron with that? trueblood (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  the complete qute is:
Mr. Avery said Mr. Heaton's study was tainted because of the Soil Association's interests. 
A number of research trials time and time again have not found any significant differences, he said. You need very large, carefully designed and carefully controlled studies to prove that there is a difference because of large natural variability. 
Pressed to be more specific, Mr. Avery whose organization has received financing from Monsanto, DowElanco and the Ag-Chem Equipment Company, which are involved in conventional agriculture and biotechnology, did not offer further criticism
trueblood (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insinuations 

message: IP 71.62.25.129 continues to insert the erroneous assertion that the FDA says there is no evidence that organic food is healthier than conventional food.(e.g. these edits: ). This statement is not supported by the reference he's citing, and I have not been able to find any information on the FDA's website about their views, pro or con, on organic food. Furthermore, this IP's edits present the British Nutrition Foundation as though it were an arm of the British government, when in fact is a food industry sponsored think tank. On top of that, this editor has not explained what was wrong with the original version other than to say that it's an "unsupported assertion". I would call it a fair and neutral presentation of Avery's main thesis. Would you care to defend your edits? I would prefer either this version or the origianl version. Yilloslime (t) 00:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the current version is the more neutral worded one. this article is not the place to have that discussion anyway, you should take that to the article on organic farming or organic food.Truetom (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: look here for one of the few studies that do find a difference:
Truetom (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: according to the article the study was funded by the EU..., i don't know about discrediting avery, but there seems to be a slight chance that this man is biased himself and that is reflected in the article, i mean you don't want to present him as an independant researcher that has no opinion about the subject. he says himself that he thinks  organic foods "are clearly no safer, no more nutritious, no more healthful -- there are zero advantages for consumers" ...Truetom (talk) 12:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FDA and Avery

message: I removed irrelevant information regarding the publisher of Avery's book. The fact that Lynn Henderson publishes a magazine for "agribusiness professionals" among the other books and periodicals that he's published over many years is irrelevant. It's a rather paranoid attempt to paint Avery as some lynchpin in a Vast Corporate Conspiracy -- a seemingly contagious leftist disease lately. Avery's book and intellectual argument stand on their own. Avery told me he tried to find a non-agricultural publisher for the book for over a year, yet none thought there would be sufficient sales to interest them. It seems that the real conspiracy is trying to control wikipedia to paint ideological opponents as having nefarious motives. For the record, Avery has stated publicly that he makes zero money from the book and that all author-share profits go directly to his non-profit employer, the Hudson Institute. I hope that this ends this silly thread about Avery's publisher.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.25.129 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant that the book in question is published by a communications consulting company that also publishes overtly pro-conventional ag stuff. If Avery's book was book was published by an academic press or a major mainstream publisher, it would be thing, but the fact that he couldn't find such a publisher and had to resort to industry speciality source is another, and we can't lead readers to believe it's one way when it's really another. Yilloslime (t) 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) First of all, if you know Avery personally or professionally ("Avery told me he tried to find a non-agricultural publisher for the book for over a year,...") you should not be editing this article. Period. Please see WP:COI. Posting a note on the  biographies of living people noticeboard or the talkpage of an admin would be more appropriate. Second of all, nowhere on this talk page nor in any of my edits to the article itself have said or implied that Henderson had editorial control over the book. Thirdly, it does matter who published it. A research article "disproving" global warming will be taken a lot more seriously if was published in Science than if it were published in 21st Century Science and Technology. A self published book proffering a contrarian interpretation of civil war history will garner little attention and not be taken seriously, but if that book instead came out on Oxford University Press scholars would have to take notice. Publisher matters. Now, if WP had an article on Henderson Communications we could just link to it, and that would be that. But WP doesn't. So it's appropriate to have half a sentence describing who they are. Yilloslime (t) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, it matters who published it.  No, it is not of such relevance that it requires mentioned in the lead paragraph.  The usual publisher information in the Publications section would suffice.  As someone without any axe to grind here; it rather looks like attaching the publisher information in this manner is a means of inviting the reader to infer some significance from it.  Whether there is any significance is not explained, and certainly not cited.  Unless there is some good reputable cites where someone addresses the issues Yilloslime suggests are there, its inclusion in this manner is both leading and a matter of opinion.  It is not up to the Wikipedia editor to insinuate.  Is there anything to verify that the publishers are "a communications consulting company that also publishes overtly pro-conventional ag stuff", or is this just an opinion?  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it doesn't need to be in the first paragraph, and I think it could easily be rewritten to show up later. The refs that anon keeps removing along with the sentence attest to the description of Henderson: "Henderson Communications specializes in providing information to agricultural businesses via its AgriMarketing magazine and related media, educational books and consulting."; "We are pleased to announce that AgriMarketing's parent company, Henderson Communications, is publishing Alex Avery's new book 'The Truth About Organic Food--A Politically Incorrect Guide.'...it will make for very interesting discussions within the industry and provide you key talking points with your customers"; "AgriMarketing is the only magazine that covers the unique interests of corporate agribusiness executives, their marketing communications agencies, the agricultural media, ag trade associations and other ag-related professionals.". So I think characterizing Henderson as ""a communications consulting company that also publishes overtly pro-conventional ag stuff" is an accurate description. But maybe we could come up with compromise language, something like: "...published by Henderson Communications, a small, specialty publisher of agricultural materials," or something. Yilloslime (t) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact remains that this article isn't about the publisher, and the significance of its other interests to this article are only as established by you.  If you have a reputable cite where someone draws attention to the Avery's publisher, and says that it suggests something about the book, then you should include it.  Otherwise I can see no other reason for including this information so prominently other than to gently nudge the reader in the direction of the same conclusions you have reached.   That is not to say that the conclusions are wrong.  But it is not the Wikipedia editor's job to point them out if no-one else notable has. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you are saying, and, having had some time to get to use it, I think the current version (which says nothing about AgriMarketing) is acceptable. Would you agree, or do you think it goes too far? Yilloslime (t) 22:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Repeatedly deleting controversial material is not the samething as making "grammatical corrections," and wikipedia, for good reason, has a conflict of interest policy—you should read it. And that fact that you are single purpose account, with an admitted conflict of interest, who's already been blocked once for WP:3RR and now refuses to admit he broke any rules—none of this bodes well. If this pattern continues—and I honestly hope it doesn't, people can and do have more civil, less disruptive disagreements on wikipedea than this—you're likely to end permanently banned. That's not a thread (I'm not an admin and can't block or ban you), that's a prediction. And while Escape Orbit didn't agree with everything I said, I don't think s/he's vindicated your opinion either. Yilloslime (t) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Those aren't the edits that earned you a block. Please see the WP:3RR report here for which edits got you blocked.Yilloslime (t) 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avery's publisher