Talk:Alex Avery

please explain removal of reference

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)

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)

Insinuations

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)

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)

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)

FDA and Avery

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: [1][2]). 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)

I should not have cited the FDA -- I was mistaken. The FDA regulates labels and food purity and content -- they have not weighed in on organic food nutrition. Rather, I should have cited the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as the American Dietetic Association (ADA) that there are no significant (i.e. meaningful) nutritional differences between organic and non-organic foods.

Proof that the USDA sees no difference can be found in this University of Wisconsin cooperative extension service informational page here: http://www.foodsafety.wisc.edu/HotTopics/Should_I_Choose_Organic_Foods.html

And here is a link to the ADA's statement on organic food nutrition: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/home_4143_ENU_HTML.htm

For further proof that Avery's position is in the absolute mainstream of nutritional science opinion is this link to the Mayo Clinic where they, too, state that there is no evidence of significant (i.e. meaningful) nutritional differences between organic and conventionally-grown foods. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.25.129 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

look here for one of the few studies that do find a difference:[3]

Truetom (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Yilloslime thanks for your attention to my buddy Alex. I just wanted to make you aware of the reason why I use the word "few" in reference to the studies that do not share Alex's position. The reason for the use of the word "few" is because there are only a few studies that have a different position. Furthermore these few studies are used over & over & over again as some sort of rebuttal to the nutritional value of conventionally farmed foods. If you would like maybe I could provide you with a list of studies that were pro-organic that were scientifically proven to be bias. Additionally its clear that Alex's entry into Wikipedia was not written by him but rather a pro-organic activist whose intent was to discredit him. Alex did not write this himself. It seems to make sense that since I have read his book, articles & all of his other publications, his father's books and very familiar with the activities & funding of the Center for Global Food Issues that I would be aware of the facts surrounding his conclusions. I also posted that link which opposes Alex's views. Can you tell me who provided the funding for that study? Was it a grant to the University maybe? Please understand that many organizations do fund studies at universities where the conclusion just happens to be the one desired by the origin of the funding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.25.129 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Avery's publisher

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)

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)

The reasons for Alex's book being published by Lynn Henderson are given here. It is you Yilloslime that is choosing to mislead readers. When you say "we can't lead readers to believe its one way when its really another" please show me your evidence which proves the publisher had any influence on the content of Avery's book. Again you are attempting to distract from Alex's positions by adding irrelevant information about his publisher. I am sure that you struggle to make these types associations with any author which does not hold your viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.25.129 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(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)

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)

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."[4]; "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."[5]. 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)

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)

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)

Thank you Escape Orbit! I would also like for everyone to rest assured that if you make 2 grammatical corrections in editing that Yilloslime & Truetom will be right on it & have you reported & banned for the 3 revert rule. So be careful out there folks! Truetom has also sent me a message letting me know that he does not like me "wielding" the word "bias". If there is a rule about "wielding" words that truetom doesn't like at Wiki please make me aware of it. Yillo has also warned me that I can't edit Avery's page because I know the guy. Make all the threats you guys want. Stop freedom of speech when you don't agree with it! This edit war has some similarities to what I have read about wiki bias. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.25.129 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yillo if you look back at the "history" of my edits which caused you to report me you will see something interesting......

1. (cur) (last) 17:15, 21 October 2008 71.62.25.129 (Talk) (5,850 bytes) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 17:14, 21 October 2008 71.62.25.129 (Talk) (5,849 bytes) (undo)

It should be obvious to most people that those edits were conducted one minute apart from another & the changes where a grand total of ONE byte! One should not need that big of an imagination stretcher to realize that one byte is about equal to adding a space or deleting one letter in a misspelled word. I have also read the conflict of interest policy. I do not fit this category at all. I have no affiliation with Avery's employer, those who grant money to their non-profit organization or his publisher. I have no ties with any of these types of organizations. What I do have a connection with is the farmers in the largest agricultural area in VA & yes Avery is a member of my community. I am also no opposed to organic farming by any stretch period. Grow, sell & eat all of the organic foods you care to. I believe in America that people can buy what ever kind of food they want. I also believe that until there is irrefutable, concrete, scientifically proven evidence that organic foods are better for you or that conventional agriculture is bad for you, then conventional farmers may be hurt by misleading or false assertions. Anyone remember what happened to the apple industry after the ALAR scare?

As for my vindication by Orbit, my predicted ban & other hostile messages from you, go right ahead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.25.129 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yillo, I understand you want to help Wiki with enforcing the 3 revert rule especially when others disagree with your edits. I also understand your concern that I should not be allowed to edit on Avery's page because of a conflict of interest. Whatever you have to do to quash a different viewpoint than your own is understandable as well. For those with such concerns I will admit that I am new to the "arena" here at Wiki, the website layout & now have a full understanding of your rules. My opinions are evolved from a pro-hardworking-American family owned farm stance. I could be wrong but I thought that was a pretty mainstream & accepted viewpoint in my country. I am also pro-food supply & pro-nutrition in foods. Who isn't for good food nutrition & good sustainable supply? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaNgEr KiTtY (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)