Talk:Bioscience Resource Project

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bioscience Resource Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation C‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 18 June 2012 by reviewer Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs).

title?

Shouldn't this article be moved to the namespace "Bioscience Resource Project"? Sindinero (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing

The "Controversies" section is obviously written by the BRP themselves, framing "controversies" as being battles that they won on their own terms, in their own words. SO, I removed it with the edit summary "that's not controversy, it's a whitewash". Bafflingly, IjonTichyIjoTichy reverted, saying "content removed for no good reason".
Perhaps there has been some mistake? Removing propaganda that failed both WP:NPOV and WP:COI is, obviously, a perfectly good reason. IjonTichyIjonTichy, please stop doing this. bobrayner (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another revert. IjonTichyIjonTichy, quit editwarring and please try to follow WP:NPOV in future. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob thank you for posting on this talk page. However, you have only done so after I reverted your POV pushing, and after another editor opened a complaint against you on the Arbitration Noticeboard. You have some audacity to accuse me of WP:NPOV violation. In fact you are the one that should learn to follow WP:NPOV. And please do the community a favor and learn that on WP it is important to try to build WP: Consensus on the talk page before removing massive amounts of sourced content. Thank you. IjonTichy (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the publication about GMOs?

"The Bioscience Resource Project’s biosafety analyses of genetic engineering techniques (see 1.3.2 Publications) challenge two key assumptions that underlie both..." WHAT THE FUCK DOES (see 1.3.2 Publications) FUCKING MEAN? WHERE IS THIS SHIT?--85.180.209.113 (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and they don't care if we do, apparently. See the "discussion" above. Huw Powell (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]