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.

Hello, the following sentince is poorly written, especially the end of the sentence. Does someone have a suggestion for improvement? I'm a non-native myself Critics have characterized biodynamic agriculture as pseudoscience on the basis of a lack of strong evidence for its efficacy and skepticism about aspects criticized as being magical thinking. Timelezz (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What about "Biodynamic agriculture has been characterized as pseudoscience because it is based in magical thinking and there is no good evidence that it works" ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There is good evidence that much of it works. Sources mostly agree that it is an effective method of agriculture: it uses composts and manures, field alternations, mixed crops, and much else that is now recognized as good practice, and that are shared by other forms of organic agriculture. None of these are based in magical thinking.

The dispute is over areas where BD differs from other organic practices, primarily the use of homeopathic plant preparations and timing planting/weeding/harvesting based on the positions of the Moon and planets. These are two narrow areas of a large body of practice. We should be careful to note that the critique is aimed at these specifically. HGilbert (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's like claiming homeopathy is healthful based on the the properties of water. It's the woo that makes BA what it is, otherwise you cd pretty much be talking about organic methods, no? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a good comparison. If homeopaths gave ibuprofen for a headache and but claimed it had special vibrations, that would be a better analogy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note. We should not give our own opinions, but let the sources speak for themselves. Explain the criticism that is in the sources. Also, BD-farming is a practice not a field of study, so it could by definition not be pseudoscience (although it can be "pseudoscientific"). Timelezz (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You both seem to be making good points here. I have no axe to grind on BA but it seems to combine 'ordinary' organic with BA-specific practices. The former are agreed to work, while it is the latter that could be labelled pseudoscientific. The area of disagreement is presumably whether adding the BA-specific practices makes it work any better. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion derailed from rewriting a sentence to discussing if BA works or not. What about this: The lack of strong evidence for its efficacy and skepticism about aspects said to be magical thinking has made critics characterize biodynamic agriculture as pseudoscience. Walkiria Nubes (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It will only be possible to agree on any such sentence if we agree on what it is supposed to say, so the discussion had not derailed. However, I'd avoid talking about unnamed critics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it should focus on whatever there is criticism on. Since BD-farming is distinct due to the 'dynamics' part, it is most relevant to represent the criticism on this aspect. Though, the sentence should make clear what is criticized. Timelezz (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes. That means we must name the critic(s) and supply citation(s) proving they said what they did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if someone can summarize effectively for the lead the critique that is presently detailed and cited in the body in the light of the above discussion, i.e. being careful to specify what exactly is being critiqued. (Detailed citations definitely need to be given in the article. The lead normally summarizes what is spelled out further there.)

As far as naming the critics goes, I think general practice would be to do this in the body rather than the lead, unless the critical standpoint is unusual. I'm not sure if this is the case for BD. HGilbert (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if we can get the text straight in the "Criticism as pseudoscience" section, then this should be boiled down to a paragraph in the lede. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, we can work out the lead once the body section is sorted. I think that means we should move all the citations out of the lead, then probably rewrite the lead to reflect the whole of the body, not introducing any new ideas in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am very disappointed. I point out some grammar mistakes, others want to make a larger project out of it but are not willing to invest time in it. I am very disappointed. Timelezz (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for that; everyone has their own agenda and skills, and when the right person comes along, they will work on the article. It will require time and skill. If you are so keen on it, that person might one day be you. Remember, too, that almost everyone here is a volunteer, with many calls on their time. Assume good faith. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That was not my point. I do understand everyone's short on time. But I really do not understand why people block small improvements by arguing something more substantial should be done, while they don't have the time. If you don't have the time to work on a bigger project, don't suggest that others should do it. It's **ugh**. Timelezz (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, you were the one doing that; the rest of us just joined in to work out what the implications were, and noted them here for whoever felt up to the job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I did what?! I only requested a native speaker to rewrite the sentence to proper English. I did not ask for a whole project.Timelezz (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biodynamic agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070515063159/http://www.sekem.com:80/english/cultural/EBDA.aspx?PageID=1 to http://www.sekem.com/english/cultural/EBDA.aspx?PageID=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We should employ the term used by the sources, especially since some sources explicitly emphasize that this is not an astrological calendar. It uses actual star and planet positions, which Western astrology does not for the Zodiac, for example. In any case, RSs trump claims of WP:truth that go against these sources. HGilbert (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed. Please don't ignore past discussions. We know that within the biodynamic community, they want it to be perceived as something other than astrological, in an attempt to promote the pseudoscience. Wikpdia is not a venue for promoting pseudoscience. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism sections are inherently POV and the text should be incorporated into the rest of the article. However, if that's not to be done, then the heading of this section needs to reflect the content it references. The final paragraph is a response to criticism and failing to mention that implies the entire section consists of criticism. This is misleading. Additionally, referring to the three researchers as Anthroposophists is not only redundant, but a weasel word intended to diminish the statement in the eyes of readers. The fact they are researchers at the Goetheanum, which is also linked in that section, is enough to describe them. Readers can reach their own conclusions without "help" from us. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Could just call the section "Pseudoscientific aspect" or somesuch. It's important the anthro's are identified as such as theirs is an in-universe fringe view, not an independent assessment, and readers need to be clear about the distinction per WP:PSCI. (Oh, and now you're edit warring your POV edit in. Naughty.) Alexbrn (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience. The edits in dispute appear to be attempts to undercut how very fringe this subject is. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking again at this article I'm a bit surprised we're so circumspect about this in saying it's been merely "criticized as" PS. I'd have thought there was no doubt and this should be simply asserted. I'll consult the sources ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It appears so fringe that that there's not much said about it outside their own industry/universe. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The argument isn't whether or not it is pseudoscience. Please reread what I typed above and attempt to understand it without your frothing-at-the-mouth wish to "out pseudoscience". You're clearly WP:OWNing this article to turn it into a slam piece. Slam pieces aren't encyclopedic or neutral. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. WP:FRINGE/PS. WP:ARBPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Corollary: the mainstream WP:OWNs all articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The scientific mainstream, in this case. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPS sanctions apply here. I've tagged the article while we get this sorted out. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Most discussions of BD treat it as mainstream organic agriculture; see the references. It is by no means "fringe". HGilbert (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The following was removed in recent edits and replaced by a single source. I suggest that the text should be combined with the new source, not replaced by it. HGilbert (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Studies have compared biodynamic farming methods to both other organic methods and to conventional methods. Most studies have found that biodynamic farms have soil quality significantly better than conventionally farmed soils but comparable to the soil quality achieved by other organic methods; the decisive factor is likely to be the use of compost and manure.^[1] All organic and other integrated farming techniques,^[2] result in an increased diversity of soil micro flora and fauna, for example, yet biodynamic agriculture has been found to result in particular improvements in this area over organic systems, indicating "less stressed soils and thus diverse and highly interrelated soil communities".^[3]

No. When we have a secondary source that reviews the research we use that, we should not take it on ourselves to do our own amateur review of the primary literature and thus make Wikipedia an ersatz secondary work; we should be writing at the tertiary level. Alexbrn (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What sources are not included or misrepresented here? HGilbert (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in this edit you inserted a source at the top of the "science or pseudoscience" section, when it doesn't actually answer that question. Moreover, you write the source "concluded" the DB had a positive effect on soil quality, when the source does no such thing. It makes a number of contradictory reports on soil and never makes any conclusive statement on "soil quality" at all. This is a WP:V and WP:NPOV concern. Also, you put the review "concluded" that BD "has positive effects on yield" when in fact much of the discussion in the source is about lower yields. Unless you can show I'm reading the wrong text or something, it looks quite difficult to reconcile your edit with the source. I suspect we may need a trip to Arbcom to get to the bottom of what's happened here. Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hgilbert: you have not answered. As the article now stands it is ridiculous, with this misrepresentation of a source sitting directly beneath long-standing content using the same source, and directly contradicting it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The abstract reads "a fair share of the available peer-reviewed research results of controlled field experiments as well as case studies show effects of BD preparations on yield, soil quality and biodiversity. Moreover, BD preparations express a positive environmental impact in terms of energy use and efficiency. However, the underlying natural science mechanistic principle of BD preparations is still under investigation. In addition, quality determination methods, based on holistic approaches, are increasingly being investigated and recognized". This is the authors' own summary of their conclusions, having investigated the wide body of evidence. Representative text includes "The first peer-reviewed study directly comparing BD and CON farms was carried out in New Zealand on 16 farms23. BD farming practices for at least 8 years resulted in higher soil organic matter contents, increased quality of soil structure, increased microbial activity and higher numbers of earthworms. BD farms were financially as viable as their CON counterparts. Droogers and Bouma24 compared BD and CON soils on two neighboring farms, where each farming practice has been applied for at least 70 years. They found significant differences in soil organic matter (SOM) content and water availability in favor of BD soils. In addition, soil density, and thus compaction, was lower in BD soils. Initial research provided data for a simulation model, in which BD farming practices expressed higher yield potential, long-term stability and sustainability than CON soils."

The article's table of yields indicates that BD improves yields slightly over organic methods; both have reduced yields compared to conventional farming. HGilbert (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So when the source says "As mentioned before, yields are lower in the BD system" you think it's ookay to say "A 2009 review concluded that biodynamic agriculture has positive effects on yield". Could you point to where this apparently contradictory POV is "concluded"? Alexbrn (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The revised introduction was self-contradictory; it said that BD added certain things to organic agriculture, and then asserted that it was the first form of organic agriculture.

I have tried to take some of the very valuable material and phrasings from the revisions and merged them with the accurate parts of the older intro. I have provisionally removed one passage, which should be discussed here before readding. I have provided a separate heading as the other changes to the intro might be separately discussed here. HGilbert (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Spiritual science

• Proponents of biodynamic agriculture, including Steiner, have characterized it as "spiritual science" as part of the larger anthroposophy movement.^[1][2][3]

I do not see BD being characterized as "spiritual science" in these sources (or anywhere); only anthroposophy is so characterized. HGilbert (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You edit used weaker sources and had some WP:V and WP:OR problems (BD is the first formal organic system, as our sources state). So I've reverted. Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How about not reverting everything anyone else edits? You have not responded to the above critiques.

I have incorporated the "first" claim, as you request, and restored the lost material. HGilbert (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have done an emergency revert to prevent copyright violation, will take a look at the detail later. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to remove the Vogt source, as it's good WP:RS. It enables us simply to assert that BD was the first organic farming system; instead you're proposing more more waffly text attributed to "Richard Harwood, former C.S. Mott Chair for Sustainable Agriculture at Michigan State University". Generally, apart for simple information, the lede should summarize the body rather than containing novel content. Not sure why the opening sentence was changed either, particularly away from saying BD is "alternative agriculture" (well-sourced) to some more original formulation. I agree the "spiritual science" stuff was not well-sourced and so agree with your removal. Alexbrn (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A reminder to editors not to link to illicit PDFs of journal articles that are copyrighted to the publisher (as very recently happened) unless there is a permission waiver in evidence. Doing so exposes the WMF to potentiial difficulties. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think this is an illicit PDF? The referring page is here. HGilbert (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Because the IPR belongs to T&F and they currently charge £30 a pop for viewing it.[1] If they have given permission for a freebie copy to be linked from WMF websites then fine - but we'd need to see the waiver from them. If not, then this is a copyright violation which is bad for reasons I needn't dwell on here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear on all the details, but: While we shouldn't link to a copyright violation, we certainly can reference information to sources that have be copied on the internet in violation of their copyrights. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course. We just shouldn't link to problematic copies of those sources. The suitability of those sources as sources is another issue. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biodynamic agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070415163815/http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu:80/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Biodynamic%20agriculture.pdf to http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Biodynamic%20agriculture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The article states: "Since biodynamic farming is a superset of organic farming, it can be generally assumed to share its characteristics, including "less stressed soils and thus diverse and highly interrelated soil communities"."

In what sense is it a superset? Surely it is a subset, if the following statement is true: all biodynamic farming is organic farming, but not all organic farming is biodynamic farming. I think that the sentence I just wrote is correct. If so, then superset should be changed to subset.

Perhaps the writer meant that the practices of biodynamic farming are a superset of organic? But if so, that's not what the sentence actually says. Marchino61 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As you say, subset is more accurate. I've changed the article text.Dialectric (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Biodynamic agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081013055139/http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de:80/bdl/ to http://www.wiz.uni-kassel.de/bdl/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718171943/http://pub-epsilon.slu.se/509/01/Organic_Crop_Production_Chapter2_2008.pdf to http://pub-epsilon.slu.se/509/01/Organic_Crop_Production_Chapter2_2008.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025082521/http://www.fibl.org/english/research/soil-sciences/dok/index.php to http://www.fibl.org/english/research/soil-sciences/dok/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Include in article? "Heinrich Himmler had the biodynamic method practiced at several experimental farms of the SS, among them an infamous herb garden at the Dachau concentration camp." Uekotter, The Greenest Nation, 51. 130.68.143.53 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)R.E.D.

Uekotter's overview of the situation (on the same page) would be better: under the Nazi regime, biodynamic agriculture was "in equal measure a victime of Nazi persecution, a hobbyhorse of Nazi grandees, a playground of autarky policy, and an accomplice in the policy of annihilation" (p. 51). HGilbert (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon-

I would like to discuss a change in the verbiage about biodynamic agriculture and organic farming. Since biodynamic agriculture is based on anthroposophy and includes, very importantly, the idea that the biodynamic farm is an organism, that no inputs should be used in a healthy biodynamic farm from off farm, and that there are "biodiversity preserves" built into the farm (not to mention preparations and astrological consideration), biodynamic farming and organic methods are very different. They certainly are cousins, but not parent, daughter. I recommend removing this verbiage wherever it is found in the article.

Sincerely Samantha, NYU Masters Candidate Food Systems Snl223 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to present what the sources say. If you are disputing specific sources, or claim that some material is not sourced, please make it clear. From what I understand, there was a huge lobbying effort to make sure that biodynamic farming would be considered as part of organic farming, and the lobbying efforts were successful. It's all marketing, but that's what organic is all about - coming to an agreement on what can be called "organic". --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Organic and biodynamic farming are separate things, separate entities and separate certification systems. They may share certain philosophies or practices, but a biodynamic farmer would never call themselves an organic farmer. I'm not sure what you are asking as far as citation. I have cited all of my sources to graduate level standards, and what they say can be found by simply following those sources, or clicking on them, as good researchers do. Snl223 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't understand the very basics of Wikipedia, such as WP:V and WP:DR, then Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure and WP:Tutorial may be helpful.

Again, are you disputing specific sources? Are you claiming that some material is not sourced? --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N requesting more input. Alexbrn (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have protected the article due to edit warring and WP:FRINGE concerns noted above. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Good morning Wiki-editors,

In my graduate studies at NYU I have come across a number of scientific studies and updated statistics about biodynamic farm number that I have edited to be included in this article. This way, the article reflects the most current scientific and statistical evidence on biodynamic farming globally as of 2016.

And of course if there is any error in my posting, rather than just reverting it, please discuss.

Sincerely, Snl223 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Samantha NYU Masters Candidate Food Systems

See the comments below. Individual research studies deserve little or no weight, especially when we're dealing with something that is inherently FRINGE. Similarly, independent sources are needed to determine what statistics deserve mention (and should be treated as reliable). We simply cannot keep encyclopedia articles to present "the most current scientific and statistical evidence". --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What guideline or policy disallows individual research studies in scholarly journals related to farming? I know MEDRS requires research reviews, but what would be the relevant guideline for farming? TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

One last edit suggestion is adding the farmer's intended uses for the preparations into their descriptions.Snl223 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What sources are there for this? Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to add them, however, it doesn't seem to make a difference. Snl223 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This proposed addition seems likely to cause the most conflict as it covers a belief system outside of scientific research and thus will be challenged by editors who work to reduce the space given to 'fringe-theories'. I would let this go and focus on other parts of the article where changes are more likely to stick.Dialectric (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I always feel a bit uncomfortable with wholesale reverts. In this case, it removed material sourced to a research review and several articles in academic journals. What policy would allow the removal of this sourced material without discussion? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Which source(s) did you think okay? I didn't see anything worthwhile. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps those, as he mentioned, from reputable academic journals. Snl223 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And might I add, I did these edits piecemeal so that contestation or discussion could take place on each separately since, a month ago when you engaged in multiple wholesale reverts of my work on this article, you suggested that I edit the page democratically, on the talk page. I would be happy to discuss and support any or all of my edits further, but you don't seem to want to do so. My sense is that you are interested in protecting whatever "this work" currently is over reflecting biodynamic farming methods and current research accurately . Snl223 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems that these edits should be reviewed individually and those sourced to RSs should be restored. HGilbert (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Afternoon again,

This is perhaps the most important change I will request to this article. The way the opening statement reads, it is highly biased against biodynamic farming. Using the phrases "magical thinking" and "pseudoscience" are inaccurate. They are opinions. I would like to recommend they are removed, and a more unbiased introduction is fashioned that truly introduces people to the concepts of biodynamic farming as they were intended. My suggested changes are below, certainly not all of this needs to be used but I believe there are core points which are very important to include in the intro (especially those which are numbered):

Biodynamic agriculture is a method of agriculture outlined by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) in a series of eight lectures (1924) given in response to farmers’ concerns about the declining health of their soils, plants and animals. The development of the biodynamic system was guided by Steiner’s philosophy, anthroposophy, and Geothean scientific principles which “strive to bridge the clefts that have developed… between the sciences, the arts and the religious strivings of man… and build the foundation for a synthesis of them for the future.”[1] Demeter International, the current organization which oversees biodynamic farm certification and sets farm standards, describes biodynamic agriculture as a method of growing which treats the “farm as a living organism: self-contained, self-sustaining, following the cycles of nature.”[2] It is often compared with Organic Agriculture, a method of agriculture that eschews the use of synthetic herbicides and pesticides, and in order to be considered for biodynamic certification a farm must first meet the requirements of the National Organic Program, but biodynamic farming goes further in a few respects: 1. Each farm is treated as unique organism with all parts of the farm and surrounding area working to contribute to the health of the whole. The mark of a “healthy” biodynamic farm is one that does not need to import any inputs at all. 2. Livestock is an integral part of a biodynamic farm. 3. Minimum 10% of a biodynamic farm is set aside as a wildlife preserve. 4. Nine biodynamic preparations are “added to compost or sprayed directly on the soil and plants during the growing year to stimulate and enhance biological activity on the farm”[3] and harness subtle, dynamic life forces. 5. Monoculture is prohibited: diversity in crop rotation and perennial planting is required, no annual crop can be planted in the same field for more than two years and bare tillage year round is prohibited. This protects the soil and manages the farm’s fertility. 6. Most importantly and certainly most controversially, biodynamic agriculture follows astronomical planting calendars (http://www.rhythmofnature.net/biodynamic-calendar) that take into account the cosmos and moon phases in planting and harvesting. Additionally, an emphasis from its beginnings on local production and distribution systems and its use of traditional and development of new local breeds and varieties distinguishes biodynamic methods. According to the biodynamic association, “a commercial industrial farm is a machine, but a biodynamic farm is a living organism,”[4] where one organ feeds another.

The opinions of scientists and others are certainly an important aspect of biodynamic agriculture, but they can and should be addressed in another section: Reception, not in the intro.

Thank you, Samantha Snl223 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:PSCI. Wikipedia's core neutrality policy requires that pseudoscientific ideas (such as those which inform BDA) are prominently identified. As to your other changes, please be aware we need good sources and text needs to be cited to them per WP:V. Rhythmofnature.net is not a good source. Sourcing stuff to Demeter is probably WP:UNDUE (we really should be looking for INDEPENDENT, SECONDARY sources). We should not be using primary research but should use secondary research where it exists: and we do. In all, your edit seems to be advocating for BDA, and WP:ADVOCACY is not what Wikipedia exists for. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps certain sources are not up to academic standards, though there are many sources currently on this article that I would contest. It is fine if you take issue with citing Demeter, however, removing the research review from Turinek et. al as well as other academic research on this topic is not only unhelpful, it is shortsighted. I am starting to understand that the current under this article is closed-mindedly treating it as a pseudoscience, and not interested in accurate representation of biodynamic farming as it is practiced, researched or represented globally today. If that is the case, that should be stated outright in the article, that this is propagating a "wikipedia slant" rather than portraying this article as an accurate representation of biodynamic agriculture in 2016. Many people visiting this page do so to learn, under the assumption that it is an unbiased transmission of information, which you have proven it is not. I won't bother to try to edit this page again. Snl223 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We already use the Turinek review, neutrally: it was not "removed". It was one of the (more minor) problems with your edit that it didn't recognize this and re-use the citation. We generally don't use primary research, but especially when we have secondary research covering the same area. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What policy or guideline disallows primary research on biodynamic agriculture? (This isn't a medical article.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary research is not "disallowed", even in medical articles. However WP articles should be based on good sources which (for non-trivial claims) are secondary and independent. WP:SCIRS guides us to respect secondary sources. If an WP editor takes it upon themselves to assess and include primary research this risks WP:OR (since most primary research is wrong after all). When we have expert secondary reviews, as here, they should always be preferred. Alexbrn (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we need to distinguish between secondary reviews and opinion pieces. The former utilize primary studies to draw larger conclusions. The latter simply state a person's judgments, without an accompanying analysis of data that may or may not support these judgments.

We should avoid giving opinions primacy over scientific studies, and merely because these are opinions of skeptics, rather than believers, does not elevate them over actual scientific research. HGilbert (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Though this article contains some solid information put together through hard work, it is in need of update to reflect the most current scientific research and available statistics. But, even my most factual and simple edits were undone by "Alexbrn" and "compassionate727" without any supporting evidence for doing so. I would like to know what their expertise is in, (other than reversing sound Wikipedia Edits), as I am currently a masters student at NYU studying Organic Agriculture and Food Systems under an expert in Organic Marketing very involved in current research, Carolyn Dimitri.

There is no need to protect ego over the greater good, and those who keep reversing these edits blindly are making a mistake. I do not have the time or energy to "push my edits through", and it is unfortunate that the layperson's introduction to biodynamic farming will be so slanted and outdated being that it could be, where appropriate, a promising path to food security in the face of climate change. Snl223 (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps start at WP:5P? Wikipedia is not here to "reflect the most current scientific research" which, necessarily, is often unreliable - but to reflect accepted knowledge as reflected in reliable mainstream sources. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Alex, could you clarify what content you have a problem with? Most of the additions were referenced to WP:RS sources. I think the 'Purpose: x' statements should be removed as fringe, but the addition of referenced country-specific data, and more recent sources is an improvement and a total removal is not justified.Dialectric (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. We are not here to mirror a company's "country-specific data" accreditation system based on their own self-published site. That is more for a brochure, not an encyclopedia. Similarly we don't use primary sources when we have good secondaries. Alexbrn (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) As discussed: the sources appear poor, the pov was changed, content was removed. As a whole, I'd rather see the revert. If there's something in there that deserves more attention, someone will need to point it out. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Country-specific acerage information is a useful addition to this article. Do you have evidence that Demeter is not a reliable source for this information? If not, let's raise it at WP:RSNDialectric (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Country-specific acerage information is a useful addition to this article." Why the assumption based upon sources with vested interest in promoting the absolutely best possible spin? This is is a WP:NOT issue. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were to start with the assumption that all sources with a vested interest were misleading, hundreds of articles on corporations would be stripped of relevant data including revenue, products, and employment numbers. Organizations are generally treated as reliable sources for non-controvertial information. What is controvertial about a certification organization reporting data on the acreage it is certifying? Which section of WP:Not do you think applies here?Dialectric (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is it's not encyclopedic. This large table is basically equivalent to the sales figures of a company, here copy-and-pasted from its web site, which also raises WP:COPYVIO questions - I notice you have now twice re-inserted this. Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the table is unencyclopedic. It gets the point of being in contention with WP:NOTCATALOGUE, etc. too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces, which section of WP:NOTCATALOGUE do you think applies to this discussion?Dialectric (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The part of the policy where we avoid indiscriminate information like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Country-specific production numbers are not indiscriminate. We have these for organic and GMO crops articles. These figures provide a referenced view of how widely the practice has spread. Even if you disagree with the reasoning behind biodynamic farming, the number of farmers who follow the practice is a useful indicator of influence. Wikipedia includes membership numbers for a wide variety of organizations, including those that are widely discredited. Acerage farmed under biodynamic guidelines is in no way indiscrimnate, and contributes to a broader understanding of the topic.Dialectric (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

NOT emphasizes the need for third-party sourcing to determine if something is encyclopedic. --Ronz (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What section of WP:NOT are you referring to? Third party sourcing is only specifically mentioned in 'Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style' and in a statement about software updates. I agree that third party sourcing is necessary for controvertial subjects and extraordinary claims. However, we already have acerage information in a number of other agriculture articles, and I fail to see how such information is either indiscriminate or controvertial. Dialectric (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not, but if you don't think this is about public relations despite my previous comment, then we're not going to make much progress here. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You're not what? The wording of your comment is unclear. Referencing Demeter here is no different from the 10+ references to Monsanto in the Monsanto article, for example that cover such things as corporate acquisitions and revenue. Would you remove these for being PR? Are you saying that Demeter is not a reliable source for information on the acreage they certify? If so, what do you base this position on? If we can't resolve this issue here, an RFC may be in order.Dialectric (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned no specific part of NOT, though I think you've identified one important part that I had implied. I have no interest in looking into a different article to see how well NOT is being followed there on unrelated issues. WP:OSE. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What other part of NOT do you think is relevant? The point of policies is to have consistency across the encyclopedia. If you have no interest in looking at a specific article, which I believe undermines your point, be aware that dozens, probably hundreds, of other articles on corporations exist which similarly reference corporate sources for non-controvertial information without having a 3rd party ref to specifically say that that bit of information is notable. Taking your perspective to its logical end would gut many articles. Dialectric (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am unaware of any general consensus for your interpretation of the policy. I think we need third-party sources for cases like this where public relations is clearly a driving factor if not the primary driving factor. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor point: Wikipedia is not edited "democratically", with each editor getting a vote. Instead, the various sources are examined for authority and reliability, with higher value assigned to the most reliable and authoritative sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Demeter is not a company reporting on its own sales, it is a certifying agency reporting on a total acreage encompassing many small and medium-size farms, data that is significant and not readily available in any other way.

In addition, reliably sourced information from other sources was removed without justification. This should be restored. HGilbert (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We should examine the proposed edits (see diff for details:

• however, it goes further in a few respects. Most importantly, biodynamic farmers see their farm as an enclosed, self-sustaining organism, so emphasis is on creating soil fertility and preserving health from within Should be restored

• and compost and field preparations meant to harness healing life forces which are said to positively effect fertility on the farm. could be simply: “and compost and field preparations”

• As of February 2016, biodynamic techniques were used on 164,323 hectares in 64 countries with Germany accounting for 44% of the global total^[4]. Should be restored; valid source and in line with 2011 figures.

• Biodynamic agriculture has only become the subject of scientific research within that last few decades, making scientific understanding of this farming method infant at best. Thus far, only preliminary beneficial outcomes have been scientifically established. Critics continue to Do not restore

• which highlights the importance of further scientific study.^[5] Restore, sourced and unoffensive

• This organization is a non-profit, international organization with certifying systems in 45 countries.^[6] Restore

• biodynamic farms certify through independent certifying agencies which interpret Demeter Farm Standards when certifying a farm. To transition to biodynamic, conventional farms must follow The Farm Standards for three years before being able to market their products as biodynamic, while certified organic farms only need to follow biodynamic standards for one. Restore

• Restore table of acreage

• Similarly to Organic farming, Biodynamic methods display... Restore in accordance with source

• Further research on the biodynamic preparations… Continue discussion about primary studies.

HGilbert (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So just taking the first one for now, you want to insert unsourced text into the lede in violation of WP:V and WP:LEDE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd assume it would be a part of their marketing. Do any third-party sources think this is a meaningful distinction? If so, in what context? Enough to deserve mention in the lede? --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes and why should Wikipedia gush in her own voice "Most importantly ...". Must be an indisputable fact, this importance! Alexbrn (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be sourced, of course, to RSs. This is easy to do for this material. I will provide citations here. But how is seeing a farm as a self- sufficient organism "gushing"? Especially since every major independent source that discusses BD uses this phrasing (see below). HGilbert (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

For example: ^{[1][2][3][4][5]} HGilbert (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Taking into account the substance of the above comments, and setting to the side their tone, I suggest the following as a solution to the first edit:

• Biodynamic agriculture regards each farm as a self-sustaining organism. It emphasizes building soil fertility and maximizing the use of on-farm nutrient sources.^[1][2][3]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
• As of February 2016, biodynamic techniques were used on 164,323 hectares in 64 countries with Germany accounting for 44% of the global total^[6].

Proposal 3

The following is unneeded, as more up to date figures are available in the separate article on Demeter International:

• This organization is a non-profit, international organization with certifying systems in 45 countries.^[7] HGilbert (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Please quote from the sources, as I assume from your links that none are easily available for us to find on our own. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Most or all are readily available online. These two are typical, but every one of the above says something similar:

• Vogt cites BD's "four essential aspects – its concept of nature, its characteristic preparations (see below), the notion of a farm as a living organism and individuality, and the intimate, ‘personal relation’ to nature"^[2]
• Dimitri: "Biodynamic farmers consider farms to be organisms that consist of soil, livestock, crops, people who work on the farm, ponds and streams, wild birds and insects, animals, and the local climate and seasons; all of these aspects of the farm work together"^[3] HGilbert (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why would we include this special pleading? They see the world as different from what objective reality shows it to be. Problem's their end. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

By "problem's their end" do you mean that all sources on this theme are problematic, despite being perfectly reliable according to WP guidelines? Or what? HGilbert (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the biodynamic crowd have a grab-bag of beliefs inherited from the Steiner cult which have no grounding in reality, but wish to present them as fact. They can do that on their own websites, but not on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that farmers are instructed to think certain things, but it just seems to be meaningless marketing differentiation. That's the the in-world presentation. Where is the independent analysis? --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

These are all independent sources. HGilbert (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy, do you believe this same argument applies to religion articles, where followers have 'a grab-bag of beliefs inherited from the [prophet x] cult'?Dialectric (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

References

There is a dispute over including information that some editors feel is reliably sourced, while other editors dispute the validity of the information (though not that the sources are RSs). See above sections for details. HGilbert (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV must be followed, which is not the same issue as sourcing. The WP:TONE of this article must not be gushingly positive when there are so many critical studies. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you see a problem with quotes from biodynamic sources / farmers included to describe what they believe the nature of the practice to be? I don't see how the inclusion of brief statements of a belief system from followers of that belief system becomes NPOV as long as the statements are framed clearly as beliefs, and critical sources are also included.Dialectric (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If present, these should be countered by critical comments or NPOV is violated. This article must not promote the practice Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just so. Biodynamic agriculture is essentially a cult, and the beliefs of cultists don't get presented without the context of reality-based sources that show them to be wrong. You can believe that burying a cow horn full of fermented dung will wreak magickal changes in the soil, just don't expect Wikipedia to avoid the rather obvious fact that it's complete bollocks. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Huh - "that some editors feel is reliably sourced"? If editors "feel" that stuff is reliably-sourced, and it is either (a) unsourced or (b) sourced to inherently unreliable sources, that "feeling" doesn't matter. This looks like an attempt to get a carte blanche WP:LOCALCON for promotionalism, and is an improper RfC. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• "There is a dispute"? No there isn't. The problem is simply that you have a very obvious agenda and refuse to accept any answer you don't like. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree that this RFC is malformed. For the filier, I suggest closing it and opening another with one or two specific statements you think should be included in the article, with references. To the other commenters, I don't see anyone arguing that we should strip the article of criticism of biodynamics.Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• RFC needs redone If possible, the RFC should be re-worked, re-issued with better specifics. People being asked to comment on this might not have backgrounds enough to evaluate the full scope of the contention, and having better directions on what the issues actually are would be helpful.

The sources appear to be fine. Another editor talks about "tone" however I don't see "gushingly" or "agenda" involved in the article at all, I find the article itself to be fine. But at the same time, a better RFC is needed. Damotclese (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I am closing this. The discussion above is still relevant. HGilbert (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Biodynamic agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added ((dead link)) tag to http://www.biodynamie-services.fr/_ressources/document/fichiers/26/agenda-2015-engl-2-.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723070359/http://www.ifrnd.org/JSDS/1(4)%20May%202011/Organics%20Olympiad%202011_Global%20Indices%20of%20Leadership.pdf to http://www.ifrnd.org/JSDS/1(4)%20May%202011/Organics%20Olympiad%202011_Global%20Indices%20of%20Leadership.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217150906/http://www.bdgrowing.com/mediaLibrary/files/PDF/BriefhistoryofBD.pdf to http://www.bdgrowing.com/mediaLibrary/files/PDF/BriefhistoryofBD.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525221413/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/pacificnw11202005/taste.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/pacificnw11202005/taste.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biodynamic agriculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415163815/http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu:80/~Linda%20Chalker-Scott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Biodynamic%20agriculture.pdf to http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/%7ELinda%20Chalker%2DScott/Horticultural%20Myths_files/Myths/Biodynamic%20agriculture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This person named Alexsomething has reverted two perfectly justified edits that I just made and even deleted my telling about it in the Talk area. After a quick look into the history of this article, it seems very obviously dominated by this overconfident person who has much free time on his hands and won't let anyone deal with this heavily opinionated article, reverting edits done by editors who want to keep a NPOV. Ironically, his editing notes always claim to be keeping a NPOV themselves. Someone please put an end to this. If this guy thinks he knows everything then he can write his own book and those interested can read it. Wikipedia is not for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Reading this page for the first time, I noticed an apparent mismatch between a statement and its reference. The statement – "One study found that the oak bark preparation improved disease resistance in zucchini" – is followed by the footnote currently numbered 11, an article titled "Soil and Winegrape Quality in Biodynamically and Organically Managed Vineyards" from the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. I cannot access the full text without paying, but the abstract describes a long-term study done on a vineyard and mentions nothing about zucchini. If the article's full text includes a statement about a study showing improved disease resistance in zucchini, it presumably has its own reference, and that source, not the vineyard article, is the one which should be referenced for this statement in Wikipedia. Perhaps a more experienced Wikipedian can add the appropriate flag to invite clarification or correction of the reference by someone knowledgeable about the sources? —Macam14 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a primary source anyway so not what WP:SCIRS guides us to use. I've culled it, and a load of unsourced guff. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Steiner didn't use the word "astrology", but says only "astronomy", he mentioned lunar aspects, the concept was developed since his speeches in 1924. Many other methods don't use astrology. --BunteWelt (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but what he used is astrology, not astronomy, and it's pseudoscience at best. This has been discussed at great length. Attempts to change the emphasis or wording too much may violate WP:FRINGE. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Past discussions: Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture/Archive_2#Astronomical_vs_astrological. (long), Talk:Biodynamic_agriculture/Archive_3#Astronomical_vs._astrological (brief reminder of previous discussion) --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)