- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)
GMO conspiracy theories
- GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is nothing but a one-sided POV fork of Genetically modified food controversies, which pejoratively labels criticism of biotechnology companies as "conspiracy theory." Obviously Monsanto et al do conspire—i.e. make secret plans—internally and with others, but these plans should be presented in a more neutral fashion. groupuscule ( talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Science and technology or possibly List of conspiracy theories#Medicine. Maybe make a few new sections within those and briefly describe the conspiracies, if any, listed in the article in question? PCN02 WPS 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. GMOs are a polarising topic. Like other similarly controversial subjects there is criticism that is justified (environmental concerns and IP issues) and then false information that can only be described as a conspiracy theory (deliberate attempts to poison the world). An article that examines the more out there claims is valid. Personally I would like to see this in the larger context of GMO activism, which is a more nuanced and interesting (to me) topic, but there is no WP:Deadline and there is not much wrong with the article as is. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This more or less is intended to behave the same as Climate change controversy and climate change conspiracy theory (not a WP:OSE argument, but an example of how fringe topics need to be handled sometimes) so a redirect isn't really appropriate. The controversies article handles the general controversy and how sources like the scientific literature address those, etc. The notable but pure quackery ( WP:NFRINGE is at play here) is what goes into this article because it would be undue weight in the controversies article even though the content and idea of conspiracy theories in this topic is notable. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad faith nomination by an anti-GMO WP:ACTIVIST who probably should be topic banned. jps ( talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The article could be improved but there's nothing outstandingly wrong with as is. I have to second the notion that this nomination was not made in the best faith given the editing history of the nominater. Capeo ( talk) 02:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - GMO and food safety related conspiracy theories are notable enough to be covered. — Paleo Neonate – 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep ( WP:SNOW) per kingofaces and others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per Aircorn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per SNOW. Bad faith nomination of a well-sourced article based on what seems like overt POV pushing. Delta13C ( talk) 12:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- The article lumps in a set of loosely related ideas under the pejorative label “conspiracy theory,” thus associating justified concerns (e.g. “powerless farmers forced to pay ever increasing amounts to anonymous international companies who profit from the cost of the crop seed and from the cost of the herbicides used to spray them”) with spurious and short-lived internet memes about the Zika virus and Chipotle.
- The second sentence of the lede reads as follows:
These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
- Industry influence on the FDA and the AAAS is a mater of record ( Michael R. Taylor, [1], [2], [3], ), so to call this idea a “ conspiracy theory” is wrong—since, according to the definition on Wikipedia, a “conspiracy theory” posits an “unwarranted” conspiracy (and is a “derogatory” term.)
- The last section of the article, titled “Ethical Criticism”, showcases a long quotation smearing GMO critics as “paranoid and misinformed” or as privileged Whole Foods shoppers. Its underlying premise is that biotech foods are truly wonder foods that will save the world, and so anyone who opposes them is wittingly or unwittingly doing something unethical. This is not useful, encyclopedic information.
- Perhaps some of the people advocating against deletion could state a little more clearly their vision for how this article could be written in a neutral way. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 17:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: the editor who filed this AfD has not provided a valid reason for deletion. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per all of the above. These conspiracy theories really do exist, and the deletion argument is largely a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Additional comment. Just a note that the same nominator has also created another article in what appears to be in opposition to this WP:SNOW keep, which is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monsanto_public_relations_activities. Those who have commented on POV issues with the conspiracy theory article being nominated may also find that deletion discussion of interest. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question/observation for keep voters above. Check out the most recent addition to this article, a description of two films "which countered the growing anti-GMO sentiment among the public". In my view this provides a great example of how the "conspiracy theory" label creeps into a smear against all opposition to genetic engineering. Notice that Genetic Literacy Project is given as a source. I don' see anything here discriminating between "quack" and "legitimate" criticism; I see all criticism being painted with a broad brush. To those "keep" voters who believe this article needs to exist in its own right in order to discriminate, specifically, the quackery, do you consider this most recent edit acceptable? I would really like to have a dialogue about this, as I indicated above. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 18:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)
GMO conspiracy theories
- GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is nothing but a one-sided POV fork of Genetically modified food controversies, which pejoratively labels criticism of biotechnology companies as "conspiracy theory." Obviously Monsanto et al do conspire—i.e. make secret plans—internally and with others, but these plans should be presented in a more neutral fashion. groupuscule ( talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Science and technology or possibly List of conspiracy theories#Medicine. Maybe make a few new sections within those and briefly describe the conspiracies, if any, listed in the article in question? PCN02 WPS 19:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. GMOs are a polarising topic. Like other similarly controversial subjects there is criticism that is justified (environmental concerns and IP issues) and then false information that can only be described as a conspiracy theory (deliberate attempts to poison the world). An article that examines the more out there claims is valid. Personally I would like to see this in the larger context of GMO activism, which is a more nuanced and interesting (to me) topic, but there is no WP:Deadline and there is not much wrong with the article as is. AIRcorn (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. This more or less is intended to behave the same as Climate change controversy and climate change conspiracy theory (not a WP:OSE argument, but an example of how fringe topics need to be handled sometimes) so a redirect isn't really appropriate. The controversies article handles the general controversy and how sources like the scientific literature address those, etc. The notable but pure quackery ( WP:NFRINGE is at play here) is what goes into this article because it would be undue weight in the controversies article even though the content and idea of conspiracy theories in this topic is notable. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad faith nomination by an anti-GMO WP:ACTIVIST who probably should be topic banned. jps ( talk) 02:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The article could be improved but there's nothing outstandingly wrong with as is. I have to second the notion that this nomination was not made in the best faith given the editing history of the nominater. Capeo ( talk) 02:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - GMO and food safety related conspiracy theories are notable enough to be covered. — Paleo Neonate – 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep ( WP:SNOW) per kingofaces and others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per Aircorn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per SNOW. Bad faith nomination of a well-sourced article based on what seems like overt POV pushing. Delta13C ( talk) 12:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- The article lumps in a set of loosely related ideas under the pejorative label “conspiracy theory,” thus associating justified concerns (e.g. “powerless farmers forced to pay ever increasing amounts to anonymous international companies who profit from the cost of the crop seed and from the cost of the herbicides used to spray them”) with spurious and short-lived internet memes about the Zika virus and Chipotle.
- The second sentence of the lede reads as follows:
These conspiracy theories include claims that agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, have suppressed data showing that GMOs cause harm, deliberately cause food shortages to promote the use of GM food, or have co-opted government agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration or scientific societies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
- Industry influence on the FDA and the AAAS is a mater of record ( Michael R. Taylor, [1], [2], [3], ), so to call this idea a “ conspiracy theory” is wrong—since, according to the definition on Wikipedia, a “conspiracy theory” posits an “unwarranted” conspiracy (and is a “derogatory” term.)
- The last section of the article, titled “Ethical Criticism”, showcases a long quotation smearing GMO critics as “paranoid and misinformed” or as privileged Whole Foods shoppers. Its underlying premise is that biotech foods are truly wonder foods that will save the world, and so anyone who opposes them is wittingly or unwittingly doing something unethical. This is not useful, encyclopedic information.
- Perhaps some of the people advocating against deletion could state a little more clearly their vision for how this article could be written in a neutral way. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 17:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: the editor who filed this AfD has not provided a valid reason for deletion. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per all of the above. These conspiracy theories really do exist, and the deletion argument is largely a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- Additional comment. Just a note that the same nominator has also created another article in what appears to be in opposition to this WP:SNOW keep, which is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Monsanto_public_relations_activities. Those who have commented on POV issues with the conspiracy theory article being nominated may also find that deletion discussion of interest. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 21:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Question/observation for keep voters above. Check out the most recent addition to this article, a description of two films "which countered the growing anti-GMO sentiment among the public". In my view this provides a great example of how the "conspiracy theory" label creeps into a smear against all opposition to genetic engineering. Notice that Genetic Literacy Project is given as a source. I don' see anything here discriminating between "quack" and "legitimate" criticism; I see all criticism being painted with a broad brush. To those "keep" voters who believe this article needs to exist in its own right in order to discriminate, specifically, the quackery, do you consider this most recent edit acceptable? I would really like to have a dialogue about this, as I indicated above. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 18:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.