I am one of those who edits a page once a month. I have a few pages and topics a like and have added to my watch-list. Most of the reverts I see and do myself are plain vandalism. The remainder are punctuation and a bit of grammar.

I have had few cases of something I thought to be good being reverted. Recently on a page I added a few new facts that had been reported in the news, with citations. They where reverted by a moderator without a comment (I call that rude). After confronting him on his personal page, he argued that he could not read Spanish, therefore could not confirm my citation. Oddly, as I pointed out, the topic was a topic for which you absolutely need to be fluent in Spanish to read primary and secondary sources. Well, after a bit he got a moderator who could read Spanish to check my citations. But did not revert his revert, I had to do it myself.

Did this make me stop contributing to the Wikipedia. NO! It is our duty to confront such morons until they give in.

I am with you, I should have asked what proof he had, instead of assuming there was none. On the other hand, he could just have given it to start with... But the study is in no way useless. It is a peer reviewed meta study (highest form of scientific proof) that shows conclusively that there is no significant difference in nutrients between organic and non-organic food. I find that useful, as one prominent argument in favor of organic food is, that it was supposedly more nutritious. That has been shown to be wrong.

I don't get your point here, but maybe we are on the same page. If you want to answer the scientific question "Do organic foods have more/same/less nutrients than non organic grown food?" then you pick one variable and test both types of food. This is what the studies in this meta study did. Each study chose one nutrient and check if it was present in both food types. As far as this metastudy goes, there is no significant difference between both.

I seem to have hit a nerve. The parent insinuated that the study was paid by "corporate interests", provided no proof for his claim. It is just clear that the parent poster has no clue how organics are produced, as most are produced by, guess what, corporations. This tends to be the argument of conspiracy theorists on the side of organic foods. To answer your questions: I don't know where you get your facts? Here a quote from the article.

It states clearly that both nutrition AND health benefits where studied. It does not exclusively look at nutrition. Check the actual study, they state to have tested: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, -carotene and sulphur.

Yes, I usually hear people argue for organic on only one level. It is supposed to be healthier than normal supermarket food. I guess you want to argue nutrition != healthy. But that is not what the study focused on. From the article:

Whats to argue against that? It leaves everything else open: you can argue that organics have less pesticides, taste better, no chemical enhancers or what ever other claim not tested by this study. But that is how science works. You single out ONE variable, keep everything else constant, peer-review, publish. I see nothing strange here, especially something that would point to the study being paid by "corporate interests".

Where do you get the impression that someone was "avoiding" dealing with any other factors. It is just the nature of the beast, that you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value. I am pretty sure there are copious studies on how organic food contains less pesticides. I still don't see how choosing nutritional value makes you think it was paid by "corporate interests"? The actual title of the study is "Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature". "Organic 'has no health benefits'", that was title of the BBC article. I also find that article overly simplistic, but that is modern news reporting style, but don't read that cynical slant you report. And on your last comment

How can you disagree with the outcome? Organic foods have just the same amount of nutritional value as non organics. That's a fact based on this study. Again, I see no reason to think that for this reason it was paid by "corporate interests"?

Agreed, but what does that have to do with foods being organic? Organic would mean using more, not less space to produce the same amount. You are arguing for a vegetarian lifestyle, not an organic one.

Your argument does not fly with me. The study is clearly useful, as most (not you, of course) argue that organic is better for your health. It shows that there is "currently" no clear health benefit. Future studies might show this to be wrong, but for now this if scientifically accurate. Check out this podcast about Organic Food Myths, including that organic food is "good" for the environment... http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019

I do think that it is hard to imagine it. But, hey, some have a vivid imagination.

I agree with you on the personal myth debunking... but how does organic farming benefit the environment? Most information I have found, is that organic farming uses significantly more space to grow the same amount of product. This in turn means, that if everyone where to switch to organic foods, then we would need more agricultural square kilometers, which would in turn have to come from undeveloped or otherwise used space. So if you, like I do, hate deforestation and the real impact on the environment, then organic should not be for you. Organic food seems short sighted to me.

When you write it makes them "nicer", what do you mean? What is the "significant" benefit of organic products?

tells me you didn't like the outcome of the study, had no better arguments, then had to fall back to insinuating without proof that the scientist are just crooks who will bend the truth to earn a few bucks. Ahh, I love a good conspiracy.

That might have been a reason (past tens), but what is the current obvious reason?

In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Wikipedia)

I think you are mixing up natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is part of evolution but not equal to evolution. Genetic drift is an alternative as is artificial selection and sexual selection. I am not sure if there is an "official" definition, but I would argue, that screening of embryos is as much a part of evolution.

Strange, you compare the EU with to the USA? The EU doesn't even have a constitution or a democratically elected president. Currently it's just a NAFTA on steroids. Taking into account, that France has nukes, I would argue that they are quiet powerful. And what is the "obvious" reason not to give Germany a permanent seat?

http://screencasts.ubuntu.com/ is a good start for anyone not into Linux. I use it as a link on the desktop of my family members.

yes, I actually remember where the fixed speed traps are by what kind of windmill is near them. Most of the wind is generated in the flat north.