Talk:GMO conspiracy theories

Is this Wiki article needed?

Can't this topic of conspiracy be added as a section at Genetically modified food controversies? 64.134.64.190 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Conceivably. I think this is slightly different though. In comparison Climate change controversy and climate change conspiracy theory. jps (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Related discussion

Editors may also be interested in Talk:Genetically modified food controversies#GMO conspiracy theories. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor's comments on identifying GMO conspiracy theories and theorists

A GMO conspiracy theories article could be interesting, with notable content, however, imo, we must be clear in defining what is a conspiracy theory, and then, in connecting people - named individuals - with support for conspiracy theories. Like the hot button term, controversy, conspiracy theory is easy to apply as a broad characterization; in this case, given the culturally pejorative connotation of the term, we need to be extremely specific. We should keep in mind that conspiracy theory, at its negative extreme, implies delusion and fanaticism.

For a Wikipedia article about GMO conspiracy theories, we need more than personal opinion, instead, a plainly written, evidence-based description of each such theory. Common sense suggests that a conspiracy theory must consist of a detailed hypothesis - "X is doing Y" - that has been well-identified in sources as such, and adherents who have been similarly identified. There is an important and quantifiable distinction between an opinion and a conspiracy theory — the existence of the latter needs to be reliably identifiable as a view held by the public or in mainstream scholarly circles.

• A single-author assertion concerning conspiracy theories should be given the same level of scrutiny as single-author assertions about any other subject — considering the (readily demonstrated) amateur and professional popularity of skeptic/debunk/myth-buster activities, an area in which conspiracy theories are considered, we should take particular care in deciding who is expert and independent (as in, presumably neutral and objective).

• When naming people, especially where their public and professional credibility are part of their work and livelihood, such as scientists, politicians, business leaders, advocates/activists, and media reporters and commentators, identifying a person as a conspiracy theorist, even by implication, could be damaging.

So far, the article names Vandana Shiva and Bill Maher, both quite high-profile figures. Are they each reliably connected with well-identified conspiracy theories, is that easily verifiable in the cited sources?

Perhaps most important, then, is that, relying again on common sense, the immediate takeaway impression given of anyone named in a conspiracy theory article who is not commenting on the phenomenon, is that they are involved in conspiracy theories, so it is necessary to be extremely clear that that is indeed the case. --Tsavage (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead says, "GMO conspiracy theories...have been identified by various commentators and skeptics including Michael Shermer, Mark Lynas, and Jon Entine." While Shermer established The Skeptics Society, Lynas says he was an anti-GMO anti-nuclear activist with no qualifications who has since become a pro-GMO pro-nuclear activist without obtaining any additional qualifications. Entine is a scholar of the U.S. conservative American Enterprise Institute, which promotes scepticism about climate change science. None of them are experts on conspiracy theorism.

Conspiracy theories are a study of social sciences not natural sciences, although social scientists may rely on natural science for some issues. In this article, the theory that Monsanto wants to destroy family farms is not something that geneticists would have any expertise in evaluating, they can only determine whether the claims made about the effects of GMO are accurate.

It is also a BLP violation to accuse persons of being conspiracists without reliable sources that say they are.

TFD (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The arguments against Lynas are that he has no particular expertise, but the point more broadly is that neither do the people he is criticizing. Entine's employment at AEI is relevant inasmuch as AEI has an ideological bent, but I note that Entine is not involved in any discussion of climate change. It is not fair to simply dismiss a source based on affiliation -- you have to have substantive criticism as well.

Finally, the claim that conspiracy theories are a study of the social sciences is a bit misplaced. Yes, conspiracy theories are studied in the context of social sciences, but they involve a complex web of claims in which commentators from scientists to politicians to journalists are experts. To argue that conspiracy theories should only be described by social scientists is a precious claim that is similar to those who argue, for example, that moon landing conspiracy theories can only be debunked by taking pictures of the moon landing sites.

jps (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RS

This article is filled with blogs as purported RS. They need to go. So are articles by Pro-GMO advocate Jon Entine. I have deleted them from Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Conspiracy_theories. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I used the "primary sources" tag to refer to this section of the talk page about use of blogs. If you know of a better tag, please let me know what that would be. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed quite a bit of material that was grounded in blogs. Many of the other references do not seem much better. Anyone else care to delete material that has sources that are not RS? Or explain why the other sources are WP:RS? I'm not sure there is enough material here for an article. It seems like there might be enough material for a sentence or two in Genetically modified food controversies. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Regarding this edit: Please do not try to edit war the above non-WP:RS self-published content back into the article without both consensus -and- support that the sourcing does not violate our rules. I am not the only one who pointed out the problems with sourcing. I have already caught you lying about sources here. I did not take you to ArbCom over that serious misconduct. Please do not push it. If you prefer I engage you on your talk page rather than here, I am happy to move concerns about past behavior there. Please also be advised that this article is under discretionary sanctions per [1] and 1RR per [2] --David Tornheim (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have any evidence that all the things removed were "self-published". The sourcing is very good. I note that you nakedly lie about your agenda which is to skew Wikipedia towards your pseudoscientific belief about the horrors of GMOs. I find your WP:ACTIVISM to be, frankly, appalling and think you ought to be banned from the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Shermer Article

The Shermer piece, which I am not even certain is RS (as it appears to be commentary/opinion) refers to this book. That book might be WP:RS for conspiracy theories, since it is written by professors of political science. I do not know the best field for conspiracy theories, but political science or social sciences as The Four Deuces says above does seem about right. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) (revised 00:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

I do not think that American Conspiracy Theories is very helpful for the article. As a review of the book says, "this is not a descriptive study of American conspiracy theories. Those looking to read the details regarding the theories surrounding the JFK assassination, the Roswell incident or the 9/11 attacks should search elsewhere."[3] There does not seem to be sufficient detail to write much. The mention of GMOs is on pp. 146-148.[4] At what point does rational, if incorrect, criticism of GMOs become irrational conspiracism? They say for example, conspiracists "believe that [GMO] are a corporate plot, led by the giant multinational Monsanto, to profit off unhealthy food." High fructose corn syrup is an unhealthy food that some corporations profit from. But there is a difference between a dietician who says we should limit sugar and people who identify the Monsanto family as one of the key players in the international Jewish conspiracy of world domination. TFD (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I agree that is not WP:RS. The writers just make observations of random quotes of things they found on-line. There is nothing even remotely systematic in their analysis of people's various beliefs or attempts to distinguish truth-statements and facts (or provability) from purported conspiracy statements that we just "know" can't be true. It's more like a coffee table discussion about things they observed on-line and found baffling or ridiculous and assume the reader will immediately agree. And they basically admit they are not being systematic, making a "campy" statement like this: "Of course, everyone knows that artisanal producers of cheese and bacon also profit off of unhealthy food." I agree. Not WP:RS. I struck out that thought above.

By the way, how were you able to do that to quote from the book like that. I have seen many people zoom in on the right or relevant page of a book on-line, and I would like to be able to do that. Are almost all books available on Google like this? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My God, but that's a lot of original research going on here. The book is published by Oxford University Press. It's just about as good a source as we could possibly want for Wikipedia. Wow. Just wow. jps (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue with article in its current state

The article appears to be promoting the idea that GMO conspiracy theories exist to a significantly notable degree in the world, while failing to convincingly establish that as fact. Key problems:

• The premise of the article is not well-supported: the lead paragraph is based on a half-sentence from a magazine article, GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers),^[5] where it is not developed further.
• No practical definition of conspiracy theory is described for this subject, making it generally difficult for a reader to see the distinction between a conspiracy theory and simple conjecture, e.g. typically, rational, historically-based public concern about the activities of large corporations.
• Following on the previous point, the article presents not a single clearly described GMO conspiracy theory.

By not decisively establishing its subject, in sources and in text, this article also appears to be a non-neutral fork of the existing Genetically modified food controversies article, giving undue weight to a relatively minor aspect within the overall controversiality of GMOs.

I notice a previous POV tag was removed after three weeks, without explanation. While POV and other umbrella tags are at times left for unreasonably long periods (months, years), in this case, a POV tag is imo fully warranted, and should remain until properly addressed - in its current form, this article appears to be doing no more than promoting an unsupported general presumption that wild, crackpot speculation about GMOs is abundant. --Tsavage (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor removed many sources in defiance of the WP:PARITY statute which clearly establishes that sources which debunk fringe theories (such as conspiracy theories) are fine if they are done in similar venues. So we have multiple reliable sources attesting to the existence of the conspiracy theory. The practical definitions are outlined in detail in the sources and explained completely. The article is not about "a single clearly described GMO conspiracy theory", but rather it is about conspiracy theories which have developed surrounding the political controversies in regards to genetically modified foods. That is why the article is at a plural name. jps (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it is pretty clear that this page would benefit from improvement of its content and sourcing. Therefore, improving the page is more beneficial than being concerned over which tags should be added or removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I get your attempt at striking a balance, but look at the section above here were a book published by OUP is dismissed out of hand because two editors with rather naked agendas didn't like what the book said. How are we going to improve sources in the article if people just whinge like this? jps (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't find the challenges in this section to be all that convincing. The claim is that the sources are bad in some way, but no explanation as to why the sources are bad is offered. The authors being criticized are fairly beyond reproach, I have seen. The only people who seem to be upset with them are anti-GMO activists who are smarting from the mainstream critique. Am I wrong in this? jps (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Content verification: checking the sources

Here's a look at every claim in the article, with a review of each after verification was attempted in the cited sources. A main problem is that the article does not establish what a conspiracy theory is, therefore, anything in the vicinity of the phrase seems to be fair game for being considered a conspiracy theory.

• GMO conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food (referred to as genetically modified organisms or "GMOs" by activists) that have been identified by various commentators and skeptics including Michael Shermer,[1] Mark Lynas,[2] and Jon Entine.[3]

Unsupported. 1. Shermer - only GMO CT mention is "GMO conspiracy theories are embraced primarily by those on the left (who accuse, for example, Monsanto of conspiring to destroy small farmers)"; 2: Lynas - only description, "Millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole class of technologies on an unprecedentedly global scale." 3. Entine - no GMO CT mention, only use of the phrase is in the title, "Why GMOs? Challenging anti-technology conspiracy theories," which is an excerpt from an Entine article, "GMOs, Yes! Why “Biotech 2.0” foods are safe, sustainable and critical to global food challenges."

• Generally, these conspiracy theories posit that GMOs are being knowingly and maliciously introduced into the food supply either as a means to unduly enrich agribusinesses or as a means to poison or pacify the population.[1][2][3]

1/2/3 are same sources as previous statement, none make these claims, the words "poison" and "pacify" don't appear in any (Lyans does say, "would have dramatically reduced insecticide poisonings associated with that crop too, had the anti-GMO activists in India not succeeded in preventing its use"), and can't see how the text is a reasonable summary of anything in any of the sources.

• American biologist PZ Myers said that anti-GMO activists were claiming the retraction was a part of "a conspiracy to Hide the Truth™".[

Only mention in source is the last sentence of that article (an editorial), "But too late: anti-GMO propagandists are now seeing the retraction as a sign that there is a conspiracy to Hide the Truth™, and are using the efforts to apply standards of evidence to the work as proof that Big Science is out to give everyone cancer." No description of who those anti-GMO propagandists are, are what their theory is.

• A work seeking to explore risk perception over GMOs in Turkey identified a belief among the conservative political and religious figures who were opposed to GMOs that GMOs were "a conspiracy by Jewish Multinational Companies and Israel for world domination."[5]

Paywalled source.

• a Latvian study showed that a segment of the population believed that GMOs were part of a greater conspiracy theory to poison the population of the country.[6]

Not clearly supported. Source is a brief paper, "Belief in the paranormal and modern health worries"; most relevant GMO CT mention, "The study managed to locate in internet sites such kind of conspiracy theories," and a mixed discussion of "Vaccines; GMO (GM food; GM crop); Contraceptives; Microchips; Microwaves; Antibiotics, psychotropic or other drugs; Dental fillings," no clear support for the text, at best, a line in a list that may refer to vaccines or GMOs.

• In Monsanto section: Some anti-GMO activists claimed that Monsanto infiltrated both the American Food and Drug Administration and the American Association for the Advancement of Science which is why the two organizations have supported the scientific evidence for the safety of the genetically engineered food available for human consumption.[8]

Source is a pro-GMO magazine article, "Unhealthy Fixation," the entire GMO CT coverage is: "To explain why scientific organizations and regulatory agencies had declared GE foods safe, the anti-GMO witnesses offered conspiracy theories. They said the Food and Drug Administration had been captured by Monsanto. So had the American Association for the Advancement of Science." "Captured by Monsanto" is linked to a 20-minute video on YouTube, where author Jeffrey Smith provides a standard, rational science-vs-politics and economics description of US GMO regulation, no conspiracy theory espoused; AAAS is linked to an editorial in Huffington Post with a standard, straightforward critique of the AAAS Prop 37 anti-labeling statement, again, nothing like a conspiracy theory in evidence - noting and questioning the timing of the release and similarities in the content with the anti-labeling campaign could be construed as CT material, but as presented, reads as logical editorial speculation).

• Lead sentence to "Monsanto" section: A major aspect of many conspiracy theories is the fear that large agribusinesses, especially Monsanto are working to undermine the health and safety of the general public by introducing and promoting GMOs in the food supply.

Citation needed.

• "Monsanto" section: An example of Monsanto-based conspiracy theorizing were the claims by some anti-GMO activists that Monsanto banned GMOs from their cafeterias while promoting them for sale and consumption by the public.

Perhaps the closest to a conspiracy theory in this article, but more a case of disinformation as sourced. The source, a 2013 article titled, "Why We Shouldn’t Waste Time on GMO Conspiracies" describes how Greenpeace recycled a decade-old news story about one Monsanto plant in England where, in 1999, the externally-owned cafeteria operator had posted a sign saying it had removed GM soy and maize from its food. The closest the source gets to describing a GMO CT is, "The third hit is a 2012 post on the website of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ... [it] reads, 'Although it has never been proved, Monsanto constantly claims that GE food is harmless—so why wasn’t it serving it in its own office?'" Perhaps better sources would develop this as a deliberately manufactured conspiracy theory.

• The rest of the Monsanto section concerns various anti-Monsanto issues, not with conspiracy theories, and the sources still generally don't support the text, particularly Vandana Shiva, an anti-agribusiness activist, is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy, with no mention in the Lynas soure of what is in text, and Belief that Monsanto is particularly problematic ... has been identified as a salient feature of anti-GMO activism, which overly interprets a source that only points out that other biotech-involved companies like DuPont do the same, but Monsanto somehow gets he flak. Bill Maher is indeed criticized by science blogger Kyle Hill on the Scientific American website for promulgating Argumentum Ad Monsantum, but that article is in no way about conspiracy theories, and doesn't use the term—there is no verifiable reason why Maher is included here.

• The spread of the Zika virus is by GE mosquitoes.

Any relationship to conspiracy theory is tenuously established. The main source, a news magazine article titled, "A wacky conspiracy is circulating about Zika and GMOs — and it needs to stop" has one GMO CT mention in the article, "When we chatted with Alex Perkins, a Notre Dame biological sciences professor, about the Zika mosquito conspiracy ..." No real conspiracy theory is described or ascribed to anyone in particular, and the first sentence of the article refers to "a wacky rumor ... about the Zika virus." The conspiracy tag seems to come from the fact that the rumor was discovered in a Reddit conspiracy board, and the Reddit connection is the only conspiracy theory mention in the second source, snopes.com.

• The "Ethical criticism" section makes the CT connection with ...compared the conspiracy theories supported by some in the anti-GMO movement to those supported in the anti-vaccination movement

The source is an opinion piece, that says, "Let’s look at three hot topics on conspiracy websites: vaccines, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and fluoride—or as one website put it, the three biggest human rights tragedies of our time." Regarding GMO CTs, no web sites are specified and no specific conspiracy theories established, only the phrase conspiracy theorists is used a couple of times. See the footnote for the two paragraphs relevant to GMOs.

Overall, the article seems to rely on keyword sourcing, where "conspiracy theory" appears somewhere in the source, but is not necessarily developed. This is consistent with common usage as a sensational and pejorative term - it's likely that the phrase will turn up where conspiracy theories are not actually discussed - and imo is alone not enough to establish what we can reasonably call a conspiracy theory. Also, there are a number of sources whose reliability for this material is questionable, including Mark Lynas, Jon Entine, and pro-biotech blogs and articles, where a subjective assessment of any speculation as a conspiracy theory is useful in discrediting opponents. Notably, there isn't a single reference to particular party promoting a particular theory.

Contrast this with Global warming conspiracy theory, where the section on "Claims" begins:

In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", Senator James Inhofe (Republican, for Oklahoma) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" He further stated, "some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor." Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.

That seems like a reasonable standard for establishing a particular CT, as far as description and sourcing; it goes on to identify notable proponents, and the reasoning behind the theory, including benefits and parties who stand to gain. Quoting from the Shermer article: A conspiracy theory, Uscinski and Parent explain, is defined by four characteristics: “(1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, hide truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good. It is reasonable to look in sources for at least these four criteria to be established in order to call something a conspiracy theory. --Tsavage (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Short version

The article is mainly built from sources supportive of GMOs and biotech, that use conspiracy theory as a negative term to indicate irrational reasoning in opponents' views. As there is no single strict definition to separate a conspiracy theory from reasonable conjecture, in order to maintain neutrality and avoid unduly characterizing certain arguments and parties as conspiracy theories and theorists, the sources should quite clearly explain what the theory is and who is holding it, and give some context. We should not be simply echoing every popular appearance of the phrase, which largely seems to be the case here. There has been a suggestion to use academic sources only, which imo is overly restrictive, however, sources (as always) should be reputable and clearly on point for the exact content—they should be discussing conspiracy theories, not using the term only as a convenient negative characterization aimed at making a point. --Tsavage (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's fault that the vast majority of reliable sources are supportive of GMOs and biotech in comparison to the conspiracy theories that are being documented to have been criticized in this article. jps (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

After reviewing the sources used and Tsavage's comments above, I conclude that the 'Monsanto' section is almost entirely WP:COATRACK. The articles referenced in this section mention conspiracy in passing, if at all, and a number of the sources are of low quality. The salvageable content belongs instead in Genetically modified food controversies, if anywhere.Dialectric (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, how is it a WP:COATRACK? Do you think this is a coatrack for Monsanto? For the conspiracy theories? For the claim that conspiracy theories regarding Monsanto exist? You need to be more explicit. It is completely unclear as to how you came to this conclusion. jps (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice -- Article under DS and 1RR

Please be advised that as part of the ArbCom decision on GMO's this article is under discretionary sanctions per [6] and 1RR per [7]. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a banner to this effect at the top of this page already. You can include it on any relevant page using {{ARBGMO talk notice|style=long}} shellac (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pldm: Thanks. I see. Those headers get so cluttered that I did not notice it. Some of the other pages have a special bot or something that when you edit the article it says something to the effect of: "danger, danger, under 1RR sanctions." But this one does not. I'll remove this notice soon... --David Tornheim (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Problematic reversions

@Alexbrn: You've reverted several items at once that have already been reverted and are under discussion, with the edit summary: These are probably okay for WP:PARITY & make for a more neutral article.

The reversion includes BLP violations concerning Vandana Shiva and Bill Maher - considering that verification has been attempted for every claim in the article, noted in the previous section, "Content verification: checking the sources," it's clear that these entries are unsupported.

Additionally, you cite WP:PARITY, however, not one conspiracy has been described, no specific groups have been identified, and no material has been taken from sub-par sources, so PARITY does not apply.

Your wholesale reversion with no good explanation does not appear to improve the article, only to make a point, and is against the intent of DS to ensure orderly editing. Please self-revert, and address the sourcing problems if you wish to improve this article. --Tsavage (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

These reversions are not problematic, nor are they "several". The claim that these are "BLP violations" is false. Go ahead and trot on over to WP:BLPN if you want to. Both Shiva and Maher are DOCUMENTED in similar kinds of sources as saying exactly what is attributed to them. If you want to add their actual words, feel free. The claim that verification failed is indicative of terrible WP:COMPETENCE issues with regards to editors who are toeing the "anti-GMO" party line here at Wikipedia. We cannot allow their sensitivity to facts to cloud our judgment as to how we explain what is occuring.

In short, I find this kind of rhetoric not only over-the-top but borderline idiopathic. It has no place at this WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia dedicated to WP:NPOV.

jps (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been watching these edits, and I do not think that arguing about which version to revert or not revert to is going to solve the underlying issues. At least one of the "blog" sources is from scienceblogs, which may perhaps be a somewhat more substantial source than something that is someone's personal blog, so these are not black-and-white issues. We are dealing with sources where a blog-type post of someone's personal opinion may reasonably be rebutted by someone else's blog-type post of personal opinions. If, for example, there are BLP concerns about Shiva and Maher, let's identify the specific place on the page, and correct that, as opposed to simply hitting the "revert" button again. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's fine with me, but I'm a little dismayed by how much rhetoric is passing for analysis here. The identification of conspiracy theories seems relatively uncontroversial outside of these pages. I don't even see any argument against the identification by the people so named! jps (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Trypto is quite right this is not black & white, but on balance I'm thinking probably we need to be sure that the fringey aspects of this topic are clearly identified as such. There may be better ways to do it than with the currently-sourced content, but just deleting it all isn't a great solution. Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn: A problem here is that, by policy and common sense, we have strict cautions against leaving questionable material about living persons, concerning in part legal issues of defamation. If we're identifying people as conspiracy theorists, and those claims are not well-supported, they should be immediately removed until such support is established. Your re-insertion of the Shiva and Maher material indicates you support those claims, so you should make sure they are indeed well-sourced, and address the sourcing criticism. --Tsavage (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhetoric passing for analysis? Verification of each claim in the article was attempted and noted in the Talk section above, if there's a problem with that analysis, address it directly as a sourcing issue, it's that simple. For example, the article says about Shiva:

A major aspect of many conspiracy theories is the fear that large agribusinesses, especially Monsanto are working to undermine the health and safety of the general public by introducing and promoting GMOs in the food supply. Vandana Shiva, an anti-agribusiness activist, is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy,[2]

The "major aspect of many conspiracy theories..." is unsourced. The source for the Shiva part of that is the transcript of a speaking engagement by pro-GMO activist Mark Lynas, who says about Shiva, an anti-GMO activist (quoted in its entirety, and not out of relevant wider context, see the whole source[8]):

Speaking of the lunatic fringe, someone else who claims scientific credentials is Vandana Shiva, probably the most prominent Indian anti-biotechnology activist, who incidentally draws much larger audiences than this one to her fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto and all things new in agriculture. Shiva tweeted after my Oxford speech that me saying that farmers should be free to use GMO crops was like giving rapists the freedom to rape.

That is obscene and offensive, but actually is not the half of it. Let me give you my all-time favourite Vandana Shiva quote, regarding the so-called terminator technology, on which she launches constant blistering attacks without once acknowledging the salient fact that it was never actually developed.

“The danger that the terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or the natural environment is a serious one. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet”.

A lot of rhetoric there, but where is the conspiracy theory connection established, in "fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto"? Is it the Shiva terminator quote? That is speculation about environmental impact, perhaps scientific hyperbole, but no mention of hidden plots. This reads simply as an attack on Shiva's credibility, or a counterattack, among opposing activists. Lynas says Shiva"claims scientific credentials", while our article on her says:

Shiva studied physics at Panjab University in Chandigarh receiving bachelor of science in 1972 and a master of science in 1974.[8] After that she worked, briefly, at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre before moving to Canada to pursue an M.A. in the philosophy of science at the University of Guelph (Ontario) in 1977, with a thesis entitled "Changes in the concept of periodicity of light".[8][9] In 1978, she completed and received her PhD in philosophy at the University of Western Ontario,[10] focusing on philosophy of physics. Her dissertation was titled "Hidden variables and locality in quantum theory," in which she discussed the mathematical and philosophical implications of hidden variable theories that fall outside of the purview of Bell's theorem.[11] She later went on to interdisciplinary research in science, technology, and environmental policy at the Indian Institute of Science and the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore.[7]

So directly contrary to Lynas' direct assertion, Shiva appears to be a well-educated physicist, a PhD scientist specifically trained in the intersection of science and environmental policy, in other words, academically speaking, an expert in the area of activism she's involved in.

How is this rhetorical analysis, and how does the source support the statement that Shiva is a conspiracy theorist? --Tsavage (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Shiva is a conspiracy theorist" ← I don't see those words in the article. They are your words. In general, we are allowed to post description & analysis of peoples' views, and should avoid crying BLP as it's disruptive. We might however upgrade the source to a news site, how about Scroll.in for example? Or work in the Nature piece where Shiva is identified as thinking Monsanto guilty of genocide? Alexbrn (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn: You say, "Shiva is a conspiracy theorist" ← I don't see those words in the article." In a GMO conspiracy theories article, anyone mentioned by name is either involved in propagating conspiracy theories, or is mentioned in or commenting on or debunking them. Which association do we make for Shiva and Maher? If none of them apply, then why are they in the article?

Do incorporate other sources, or remove the material until then. I'm not familiar with Scroll.in, it appears to be an Indian news source. There is a relevant CT section there, in an editorial column, "Anything That Moves" by Girish Shahane. This could be a useful source if reliable for the claim.

We seem to be entering into odd territory, citing FRINGE'S WP:PARITY, which essentially says that, if an extreme claim is notable enough for coverage, but hasn't been examined by reliable sources, we can use less reliable rebuttal sources, on a parity basis with the original sources (e.g. amateur; self-published). However, I don't see how this extends to using unreliable secondary sources to establish the primary existence of such minority claims. By that measure, we could use any source at all, disregarding RS, to say, "X is a conspiracy theory/theorist." Am I missing something here? (And the wording of PARITY should be looked at, if it can be used in this way.)

The Nature material you reference is:

During an interview in March, Vandana Shiva, an environmental and feminist activist from India, repeated an alarming statistic: “270,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since Monsanto entered the Indian seed market,” she said. “It’s a genocide.”

The claim, based on an increase in total suicide rates across the country in the late 1990s, has become an oft-repeated story of corporate exploitation since Monsanto began selling GM seed in India in 2002.

I'm not clear on how that equates to conspiracy theory. Shiva cites a statistic, and comments that it's a "genocide." Strong word, but where is the conspiracy theory? What the "oft-repeated story" consists of is not made clear in this source. (At this point, I'm not familiar with Shiva's work, so I wouldn't know.)

In any case, you have BLP-challenged material in this article, so please do address that in the text.

BTW, as a general comment for the record, I'm not toeing some anti-GMO line as suggested above, I am not pro- or anti-GMO, and my editing and discussion is not based on an ideological stance regarding GMOs or anything else - I AM healthily skeptical all around. With DS and the general GMO editing environment, and patterns of behavior being observed, please take care with accusations and aspersions. --Tsavage (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, Tsavage, that many of your complaints can be handled with wording tweaks, but you don't seem to be offering them. The problem is that editors like myself are fighting two fronts, criticism that is legitimate and criticism that is illegitimate. Thus far, you've not done much to combat the illegitimate criticism and it is difficult to cull out the legitimate ones therefore. I've seen this dynamic play out before on other pages. Offer some alternative wording that salvages content rather than removing text for dubious reasons (I understand you're not the one removing text at this time, but again, it's a matter of dealing with compounded argumentation that contains a lot of rhetoric that doesn't lead us to improvement). So, what I'm saying is, get better criticism or it's hard to take you seriously. jps (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Strange that you would insert your opinion here, when Tsavage was addressing Alexbrn and his inaccurate statement about his own words. Why aren't you telling Alexbrn that he is hard to take seriously? Also remember when you said, fallaciously, that Domingo had been denounced, and then offered 3 sources that didn't support your claim? But now you're the authority on "serious" editors? petrarchan47คุก 04:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd that you would act like a hypocrite and carry on with misrepresentations. Oh wait, that's your MO. Carry on. jps (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

many of your complaints can be handled with wording tweaks, but you don't seem to be offering them I've provided 1,800 words of content verification, itemized and formatted for easy access to each point. I found no good support in any of the sources for the content it is cited to, and made that clear. That's actual EDITING work, no5 just talk. How can I offer wording that salvages sources that don't support the central thesis—how can I make a source seem to say what is only implied, or is plain not there, and why would I want to? As a decisive test, I could not copy in content verbatim that would be equivalent what is in the article.

For example, Shiva, detailed above, is a single sentence: how would you edit it so that it is about conspiracy theories, and is supported by the source? I can't. --Tsavage (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, I can't even really grok your problem. I think you are concerned that the word "conspiracy theory" is not linked to the advocacy of Shiva. You seem confused by what claim of Shiva's is being contested (the claim that GMOs led to tens of thousands of farmer suicides is precisely this), but then seem more concerned that this isn't a conspiracy theory. I think you either have a narrow vision of what constitutes a conspiracy theory (that it must be actions of a conspiracy actively promoted -- but see conspiracy theory -- our own article on the subject to see how the idea actually manifests in discourse both high and low) or that it is somehow demeaning to accuse Shiva of engaging in this kind of rhetoric. Or maybe you think the source itself is problematic? Do you want attribution to Lynas, for example? You say you don't know how to edit it, and I agree because I can't seem to find your own critique here. It's confusingly unfocused. jps (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the citation that is currently in the published text, to Lynas, can you simply copy to here the text in the source that one should read to verify that...

Vandana Shiva ... is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy

...assuming that "conspiracy" refers to the (unsupported) lead sentence of the "Monsanto" section...

... large agribusinesses, especially Monsanto are working to undermine the health and safety of the general public by introducing and promoting GMOs in the food supply.

That should make what we're each talking about as far as verifiability in this instance perfectly clear. --Tsavage (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Speaking of the lunatic fringe, someone else who claims scientific credentials is Vandana Shiva, probably the most prominent Indian anti-biotechnology activist, who incidentally draws much larger audiences than this one to her fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto and all things new in agriculture. Shiva tweeted after my Oxford speech that me saying that farmers should be free to use GMO crops was like giving rapists the freedom to rape." - See more at: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/#sthash.adqIXZmT.dpuf jps (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto I already addressed that, and I have read the Lynas speech, and included above the entirety of his Shiva references. That (a professional Shiva opponent has claimed that) Shiva makes fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto doesn't verify that Shiva identifies Monsanto as a major source of a conspiracy to undermine the health and safety of the general public by introducing and promoting GMOs in the food supply. How do you conclude all that? And how trusted is this source for anything factual, because that Shiva is opposed to "all things new in agriculture" is a pretty broad assertion: if Lynas is speaking rhetorically there, who knows how literal he is being elsewhere? And he makes a verifiably false claim about Shiva's scientific credentials. This is a poor source for this claim, no matter how much arguing is done to support it. --Tsavage (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Your argument seems to be "just because Lynas says this doesn't make it true." Except you can easily find these speeches available online. I think my reading is rather plain. Your reading is either that Lynas is an unreliable reporter of this point or that somehow Shiva's discussion of the "evils of Monsanto" doesn't rise to the level to what Lynas is attributing to her. Or what?

You then seem to argue that it cannot possibly be correct that Shiva is opposed to all things new in agriculture. I have waded through much of her content and cannot find any support for novelty in agriculture: [9]. Can you? It seems to me that Lynas is being literal here. I would also argue that Lynas statement that Shiva claims scientific credentials is not verifiably false. jps (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Shiva and scientific credentials: "Shiva refers to her scientific credentials in almost every appearance, yet she often dispenses with the conventions of scientific inquiry. She is usually described in interviews and on television as a nuclear physicist, a quantum physicist, or a world-renowned physicist. Most of her book jackets include the following biographical note: “Before becoming an activist, Vandana Shiva was one of India’s leading physicists.” When I asked if she had ever worked as a physicist, she suggested that I search for the answer on Google. I found nothing, and she doesn’t list any such position in her biography." [10] jps (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing way beyond the source and content in question. I'm simply pointing out that the source is questionable or outright wrong on other points about Shiva, and most importantly, I can't find where it supports the article text. The article says:

Vandana Shiva ... is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy

I don't see that in the source. "Fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto" doesn't establish anything about her being a main proponent of a Monsanto conspiracy theory, as our text claims, and that's the only reference to her and Monsanto in the source. The New Yorker article you quote says, Shiva’s fiery opposition to globalization and to the use of genetically modified crops, should we also cite that? And that article confirms her PhD credentials, which substantiates that Lynas is categorically wrong in one part of his Shiva claims.

Why are you trying to use the transcript of speaking engagement diatribe by a professional opponent of Shiva as a reliable source about Shiva? And how is an article to be collaboratively written if every point is to be argue like this? --Tsavage (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you on about? You seem to me to be arguing some other argument. I've shown you where in the text of an article about GMO conspiracy theories the author has connected Shiva to a claim about Monsanto being a juggernaut. You don't think that this has happened? Or you don't like the wording? Either way, your argument is opaque. Then you ask if we should cite the New Yorker article. Why should we? It's not trying to describe the situation surrounding conspiracy theories, so what's the point of this rhetorical red herring? It looks like you are putting up straw horses just to knock them down. Or you're trying to poison the well. Something, but it's not at all about moving this discussion forward toward actual content. Your attempts to argue against the plain reading of reliable sources are dizzying and confusing to people, so much so that I wonder if your obfuscation is just a smokescreen for some other agenda. You go on to say that the confirmation of getting a PhD shows that Lynas is categorically wrong that she claims scientific credentials. What? Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

So finally we get to the meat of the question. "Why are you trying to use the transcript of a speaking engagement diatribe....?" Because this article is about conspiracy theories and this is one public place where conspiracy theories were identified. Lynas is a reliable source in the sense that he has identified and is acknowledged as reliable by many scientists in the field (including more than a few who are completely out of the GMO controversy). It is you who are identifying him as unreliable, and I think you are doing this either because you've been hoodwinked into accepting the agenda-driven editors' claims that he isn't reliable or because you have an agenda yourself (your emotive language is unmistakeable). Then you ask how we are to edit collaboratively if we argue every point? I don't know how we're going to edit collaboratively because I find your points to be poorly argued, corrupt, or based in a form of ignorance I cannot understand. Do you see the impasse?

jps (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto, the only reference to Shiva and Monsanto in the source, does not support the article text, Vandana Shiva ... is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy. The verifiability challenge is clear. I'll leave the rest to other editors to agree or disagree. --Tsavage (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The fucking source is about GMO conspiracy theories. He identifies Shiva as being on a hangup about Monsanto in the context of that speech. The text summarizes the situation thusly. The verifiability challenge is either a problem with language comprehension or is just plain obstructionism. jps (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I try very hard to make a good faith response to what editors say, but honestly, I'm finding this discussion to be tl;dr. Editors really do not need long essays on why there are problems with the page; instead, it would be much more helpful simply to say something like: We should attribute the material about Shiva along the lines of "According to Mark Lynas, Vandana Shiva is in particular known for identifying Monsanto...". WP:KISS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Content not supported in source. Fiery speeches about the evils of Monsanto, the only reference to Shiva and Monsanto in the source, does not support the article statement, Vandana Shiva ... is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy. --Tsavage (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of succinct comment that I was hoping for. But I'm confused: other editors seem to be saying that Lynas is saying something like that. Alternatively, should we instead be saying something like: "According to Mark Lynas, Vandana Shiva is in particular known for fiery speeches describing Monsanto as evil."? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: A series of succinct comments are in the verification section above. Is this not our basic procedure: check sources, post succinct comments? That's what I did, but editors choose to ignore them and instead revert, and argue freeform.

other editors seem to be saying that Lynas is saying something like that Not clear. Are you suggesting that "fiery speeches describing Monsanto as evil" can be restated as "known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy"? That "Monsanto as evil" equals "the conspiracy"? I think an argument trying to be made is that the whole Lynas speech is about GMO conspiracy, and therefore this just refers to it, but A) that's way too much interpretation; B) the speech in fact does not establish any GMO CT, it uses the word a lot, mentions JFK and other conspiracies, mentions Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth doing stuff, but doesn't ever actually describe a particular GMO conspiracy. Have you read the source?

Lynas' job as a speaker is to give fiery speeches excoriating anti-GMO and other "anti-science" targets. A transcript of one of those speeches is not a reliable source for establishing that Shiva is anything at all. It is not PARITY rebuttal of poorly-sourced CT claims, it's using a poor source to say something about someone else. And if the argument is then, well, it's Lynas opinion, it still doesn't say what the text says, and if it did, we'd still need a reliable source to establish that the subject is noteworthy, i.e. a description of the Monsanto CT in question. In Lynas own article, we can quote Lynas freely, not here. He's not a CT expert source. What happened to basic RS? --Tsavage (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

#Content verification: checking the sources is kinda tl;dr. I don't think that you are really describing Mark Lynas accurately. So what are you proposing that we say on the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That section addresses every claim in the article as it was at that time, each claim is a paragraph, there is no need to read anything beyond the relevant paragraph for any one case. I tend to work on one statement and one source at a time.

How would you describe Lynas? The Mark Lynas article says, British author, journalist and environmental activist who focuses on climate change, with a well-publicized public conversion to supporting GMOs in 2013. He writes books, articles, and editorials, and takes speaking engagements, promoting his views. The cited source is one of those speeches, about GMOs. Excoriating may be a bit strong, but that's the gist of it. He does say Shiva is in the lunatic fringe.

You haven't addressed the sourcing issue. Do you find that "fiery speeches describing Monsanto as evil" can be restated as "known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy"? That "Monsanto as evil" equals "the conspiracy"?

If not, it's an unsourced comment about Shiva and should be removed. It's not saying anything much anyway, because the one Monsanto conspiracy theory is broadly described in one unsourced sentence a couple paragraphs away. --Tsavage (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an awful lot of discussion over something that has been deleted from the page for a long time. But to directly answer your question about sourcing, I already said that I would probably prefer something like: "According to Mark Lynas, Vandana Shiva is in particular known for fiery speeches describing Monsanto as evil." That does not say anything about what you say is not in the source. But I have repeatedly asked you to suggest alternative wording, and you have not done so. As for how to describe Lynas, I support the version of his description that is now on the page: "an environmental activist and writer who opposed GMOs for years and recently switched positions". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If by a long time you mean yesterday... Yes, I hadn't but I now see the removal, so discussing Shiva at this point is indeed without a point (to answer your question about rewording, though, I did reply: "it's an unsourced comment about Shiva and should be removed"). Lynas' description is fine. Thanks for the reply. --Tsavage (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(It sure feels like a long time! ) Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to agree to your proposal, User:Tryptofish, but Tsavage here is somehow saying that the statement in the source doesn't support the statement in the article. I have questioned whether Tsavage understands the language of the piece, because it seems like that's exactly what Mark Lynas is saying. Attributing this to Mark Lynas would be fine with me, but it looks like Tsavage just cannot make heads or tails of what Lynas is writing. So in the meantime, I'm stuck with a "NPOV" tag without any actionable points. I guess I could work on reinventing the English language or something. jps (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was directing that more to the other editor, Tsavage, than to you. But he and I have a specific discussion immediately above, so maybe that could be a starting point for something to work on? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are wanting to quote a pro-GMO writer, but if you do quote Mark Lynos, be sure to tell the reader he is an advocate. Just as quoting the Food Babe would require such a label. Readers need to know if our information is potentially biased, and we don't want to inadvertently fool them into thinking Lynas is neutral on the issue. petrarchan47คุก 04:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

He's described as "pro-GM science writer", which would make him superbly neutral for our purposes. Science, rather than popular misconception, ignorance, agenda-driven advocacy and mass hysteria more common to those on the conspiracy theory side. Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The false equivalency attempted between Vani Hari and Mark Lynas would be laughable if it weren't so desperate. jps (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Lynas seems to clearly be a pro-GMO activist. He seems to be using the term "conspiracy theory" as a way to belittle those who disagree with him. We should not be citing the opinions he expresses on his personal web site as if they are from a neutral authority, and it is not clear we should be citing the opinions he expresses on his personal web site at all. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As with any controversial claim, we should have two RS sources which connect Shiva with conspiracy. I agree that Mark Lynas should not be the sole source of this claim. As I've stated above, I think the entire Monsanto section is thinly-sourced WP:COATRACK. Dialectric (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

According to his page here, he sounds more like a pro-science activist, than specifically pro-GMO. Can the problem here be addressed by attribution, as opposed to saying it in Wikipedia's voice? I agree with Dialectric that having multiple sources is a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian refers to him as a "pro-GM science writer". The cited material on his personal web site seems to clearly be opinion and rhetoric, without any attempt to appear objective. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A "pro-GM science writer" is not the same thing as a pro-GM activist. Opinion, by definition, is not objective. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There are three people mentioned in the lead to document the existence of the topic. One is Lynas, who is clearly pro-GMO and not objective. Another is Jon Entine, who seems be the head of some sort of pro-GMO organization. The third is someone named Michael Shermer, who appears to have written an opinion piece in Scientfic American (that I don't have access to). If this article is founded on some pejorative name-calling by obviously pro-GMO opinionated commentators, it should just be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not just remove the names? The sources in the following sentence (and more here on the talk page) are more than enough to support the whole paragraph, maybe with small amounts of rewording. We have an encyclopedia, academic papers, books, etc. Sunrise (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Converting it from pejorative name-calling by clearly identified pro-GMO activists into pejorative name-calling that is anonymous does not seem like a good way to improve it. I started looking for information about Michael Shermer, and found that he is someone who once posted a remark saying "there's nothing to worry about & GMOs save lives", so I suppose he can also be safely characterized as being an opinionated pro-GMO writer. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, he's a science writer making a factual, science based statement. The most you could say is he's "pro-science". Capeo (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We'd be left with "GMO conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories related to the production and sale of genetically modified crops and genetically modified food." It's almost a tautology. Why do you say that it's "pejorative name-calling"? Sunrise (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need an article to describe a tautology or to provide the obvious dictionary definition of a phrase formed by stringing three words together. If the primary people who think "GMO conspiracy theories" are a significant phenomenon worth writing about are just the pro-GMO polemicists that want to say that anyone who opposes them is delusional, then we should just delete the article (or merge it to become a minor subtopic in some other article). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

...Okay, but that argument is unrelated to the one we were discussing, and you didn't answer my question. In response to your new argument, that's what the other sources are for. I don't think you can group them all as "pro-GMO polemicists." Sunrise (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources

I collected some books and journal articles on this subject when I looked it up a couple weeks ago, so I'm posting this here (no particular order) in the hope that they'll be helpful.

• Peter Knight (2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 310. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9.
• Joseph E. Uscinski; Joseph M. Parent (5 August 2014). American Conspiracy Theories. Oxford University Press. p. 146-7. ISBN 978-0-19-935182-4.
• Franks B, Bangerter A, Bauer MW (2013). "Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: an integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory". Front Psychol. 4: 424. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424. PMC 3712257. PMID 23882235.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• Twardowski T, Małyska A (2015). "Uninformed and disinformed society and the GMO market". Trends Biotechnol. 33 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.11.006. PMID 25528967.
• Ellen Vos; Michelle Everson (26 January 2009). Uncertain Risks Regulated. Routledge. pp. 179, 380. ISBN 978-1-135-39153-9.
• Sujata K. Dass (1 September 2004). Biotechnology and Food Security. Gyan Books. p. 99. ISBN 978-81-8205-100-3.
• F. Bailey Norwood; Michelle S. Calvo-Lorenzo; Sarah Lancaster; Pascal A. Oltenacu (17 November 2014). Agricultural and Food Controversies. Oxford University Press. pp. 65–68. ISBN 978-0-19-936842-6.
• Paul Christou; Harry Klee (2004). "Chapter 50: Political and Social Risk Amplification of GMOs". Handbook of plant biotechnology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-85199-8.
• Räikkä, Juha (2009). "The Ethics of Conspiracy Theorizing". The Journal of Value Inquiry. 43. Springer Netherlands: 457–468. doi:10.1007/s10790-009-9189-1.
• Sabine Roeser; Rafaela Hillerbrand; Per Sandin; Martin Peterson (12 January 2012). "EU Risk Regulation and the Uncertainty Challenge". Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 1126. ISBN 978-94-007-1433-5.

This list isn't too selective, but they all connect GMOs and/or the biotech industry to conspiracy theories in some way. A couple of them specifically identify ideas like corporations suppressing data or collaborating with regulators. There are quotes like:

Edit 3 March: expanded series of example quotes

"Not everyone who opposes GMOs is a conspiracy theorist...But the most visible and vocal members of this movement, however, are conspiracy theorists" (Uscinski) "Critics of GE foods... also utilise circularly logical and thinly veiled conspiracy theories, whereby crop uniformity reduces genetic diversity, making crops more vulnerable to pests, thus resulting in the need for pesticides, which in turn are produced by the same companies that create and promote GE crops." (Christou) "Let us consider the widely held conspiracy theory related to genetically modified food...According to the conspiracy theory, not only do we lack sufficient scientific evidence that genetically modified food will not cause special and serious health risks for millions of peoples, but we have evidence that it is very likely to cause such problems. The evidence, however, is kept hidden...According to the theory, [Monsanto's] research results indicate that genetically modified food will probably kill people, but they have not published their results..." (Raikka) "The charge that big food interests take advantage of poverty to open new markets for GM food is restated by conspiracy theorists, who describe a deliberate macroeconomic creation of food shortages in impoverished nations in order to open the door to GM food." (Knight, entry in an encyclopedia of conspiracy theories) "In the case of corporations such as Monsanto, genetic modification is taken as a threat to the sanctity of life and reproduction, or as a threat to natural ways of eating." (Franks, under the heading "CTs framed as conflicts over sacred values") "Consider...claims that the FDA scientists actually advised mandatory labels for GM foods, but that the FDA administrators made a political decision not to...it was clear that the pro-GM side used the credibility of scientific organizations to bolster its case, while the anti-GM side told a political-conspiracy story." (Norwood)

--Sunrise (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, this list is quite good and I will try to add some of the sources to the article over the coming days. jps (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunrise, but what are we supposed to do with the list? I am sure that anti-GMO can be part of conspiracy thought, but none of the sources provide more than passing references. What you need is an article or a chapter in a book that explains this. It seems we are putting together cherry-picked passages and combining them with commentaries from unreliable sources to establish a vast left-wing conspiracy to destroy global food security. In which case, this article itself is promoting a conspiracy theory, using the same logic of conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You're seeing phantoms where none exist. The claim that these works only include "passing reference" is amazing to me. There is an entire chapter of Christou on the subject. jps (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

These sources look better. I've skimmed around the keyword "conspiracy" in those that I can access, and the coverage varies. One paper looks at CTs as a quasi-religious societal coping mechanism for rapid change (or something like that). One book seems to be base its research on the comments of everyday individuals who believe something is going on. Another seems to be using the term in in an investigative way, though probably negatively, as in, investigative journalism looking into the existence of a conspiracy (like, typically, the tobacco companies' now-proven conspiracy to hide the negative effects of smoking). Is there a line here, a definition, or is every investigative effort examining how things are organized or run behind the scenes, in any field, automatically a conspiracy theory (as it could be literally described)?

We need a solid secondary source that pulls this together, applying the concept of conspiracy theories, with a reasonably clear definition and illustration, to the GMO area.

Common sense indicates that there is a general narrative out there that Monsanto (alone or representative of the biotech industry), is subverting regulatory policymaking (using various tactics, in the US, primarily, and elsewhere), and controlling the relevant science. This is perhaps the most wide-spread GMO speculation/CT, or cluster of related CTs - a reputable source describing this as a CT would give the article a good grounding. If notability for a specific theory is established, then perhaps primary sources, from material produced by CT proponents, may also be usable, and there must be quotes from CT proponents in news media.

It's difficult to avoid cherrypicking and synthesis to describe things that some may feel are obvious but unfortunately not well-reported for our purposes, but we need to establish notability in a reasonably solid way, not just by amassing passing references. Again, because personal POV is continually being brought up, I think coverage of the evils of Monsanto CT and any others would be a fascinating and useful article, we just have to write it properly, which means, verifiable, well-sourced. --Tsavage (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify what specific kind of sources are you looking for that aren't included here? I've added some more quotes to my original comment, including a couple that specifically mention Monsanto. We also have things like Uscinski saying that GMO opposition is a "prototypical conspiratorial movement" (follow up: "[Conspiracy theorists] believe that genetically modified foods are a corporate plot, led by the giant multinational Monsanto, to profit off unhealthy food"). In some cases, there are also citations to previous literature on the subject. A few of the sources just have passing references, a few refer to GMOs for examples in the context of academic discussions on CTs, and a few go into detail analyzing the specific claims. Sunrise (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:, I do not have access to Christou et al's article, but from the abstract it is clear it is not "an entire chapter" about conspiracy theories. In fact the term is not even mentioned there. Instead it says the authors "argue that opponents of GMOs have amplified the socially derived feelings of risk that the various stakeholders and publics harbour towards GMOs. We likewise conclude that GMO opponents are amplifying the factors of control and unknown risk." TFD (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Perception of risk is couched in terms of conspiracy theories that have become popular. Try on resource exchange to get a copy of the chapter. jps (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Again that appears to be just a passing reference. The quote another editor posted says, "Critics of GE foods... also utilise circularly logical and thinly veiled conspiracy theories..." The same is true of some critics of the Obama administration. It does not mean that criticism of his administration is a form of conspiracism or that we cannot write articles without providing some type of detail of the theories. For example birthers hold that he was not born in the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the chapter. jps (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

chipotle e-coli conspiracy theory

A few RS sources including Business Insider have covered a conspiracy theory that connects recent e coli outbreaks at Chipotle with the chain's public statements against GMO use. This could be added to the article. Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Good find. jps (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's more like it. Something we can ALL understand. :) --Tsavage (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is still a garbage pail approach, putting in anything remotely relevant. I would suggest following a model such as in the SPLC article, "'PATRIOT' PARANOIA: A LOOK AT THE TOP TEN CONSPIRACY THEORIES". It mentions the literature, who promotes the theories, reasons for their reasoning and a history before providing its list. It also provides explanations of the views presented in each theory. TFD (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That page has no relevance to this one. Unless you somehow think it shows that there are only 10 conspiracy theories in the world. jps (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article does not claim there are only 10 conspiracy theories in the world, writer has merely chosen to write about the 10 most significant conspiracy theories for a specific group of people.

Also, the Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories says, "One common feature of conspiracy theories is that they evolve to incorporate evidence against them, so that they become unfalsifiable and, as Michael Barkun argues, "a matter of faith rather than proof."" In that sense it only becomes a conspiracy theory once the causes have been determined and the evidence becomes incorporated into the theory.

And as far as I know the writer is not a conspiracy theory specialist.

TFD (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Um... I still don't follow you. Why not refer to one of the dozen sources which actually mention a conspiracy theory with respect to GMOs? I mean, we aren't trying to write the conspiracy theory article here. jps (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the dozen sources (unless one includes news articles) actually mention any conspiracy theories. Instead they say things such as, "Critics of GE foods... also utilise circularly logical and thinly veiled conspiracy theories..." But that does not tell us what these conspiracy theories are which is essential for an article about "GMO conspiracy theories." TFD (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that. It reads to me like you have a reading comprehension problem, then. It seems pretty clear to me. jps (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the issue one of inclusion criteria, then? Has an inclusion criteria been explicitly stated? I would set a baseline of two RS sources referring to some belief as a conspiracy theory, with that belief directly related to GMOs. This wouldn't necessarily be any more of a 'garbage pail' than Monsanto legal cases. Dialectric (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

jps, if I have trouble comprehending what you wrote it is because it does not make any sense. For example in your current posting, your use of pronouns is really confusing. But if you do not want me to reply to you, then stop asking questions. Dialectric, I would like to see a reliable secondary source that discusses GMO conspiracy theories beyond casual reference. The problem with the "Monsanto legal cases" article is that it implies there is some sort of pattern in the cases, without providing any sources that say that, hence it is implied synthesis. It would be better to have an embedded list in the main Monsanto article and leave each case as a stand-alone. TFD (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep asking for secondary sources, but there are a dozen in the article already. jps (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not say there are no secondary sources, I said there are not secondary sources that discuss GMOs beyond casual reference. BTW I have read the "Political and Social Risk Amplification of GMOs." It is about how GMO risk is perceived differently, as the risks and benefits are perceived differently, it is not "an entire chapter" about GMO conspiracies, and only mentions "thinly veiled conspiracy theories" in passing. If you think this topic is important it is an excellent opportunity for you to become the first person to publish a paper about it. But Wikipedia is not the place to start. TFD (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In this instance, I agree 100% with TFD, for the simple reason that this is straightforward common sense. OBVIOUSLY, we're not counting sources, we are looking for sources that support the content, quite literally: CONTENT SAYS = SOURCE SAYS, in a way that any reasonably English-literate person can make out. Get too far beyond a quote or a quite direct paraphrase, and it's original research. For better or for worse, that's the way Wikipedia works. It's not rocket science.

Not only are most of the sources casual references, they don't say what the content says. One of the sources cited in the lead sentence of the article, does not use the words "conspiracy theory" anywhere but in its title, let alone discuss CTs, that is how literally casual these references are. I listed specific, actionable problems in "Content verification: checking the sources" section, above. --Tsavage (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit like living in a parallel universe. You claim that content is not verified, but it appears to be. You claim the sources are not about conspiracy theories when they are. You claim that the sources are only "casually" referencing the topic, but we have clear identification of what the claims are and how they are connected. There are plenty of indicators here and more text and sources to be added above. In short, I must say it looks like a political tactic more than a real critique. It doesn't help that the pair of you have been seen, by me at least, to be supportive of the anti-GMO activism on other pages. jps (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Let us discuss and hopefully agree upon a clear criteria for inclusion for content in this article. If some editors still feel like there isn't enough here to justify an article, take it to afd. Otherwise, let's establish how we are defining GMO conspiracies and what is going into the article. I also don't understand the 'casual reference' language. In afd's, if something is mentioned in only a sentence or two in a larger article, that is an incidental mention. Is that what is being referred to?Dialectric (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Casual" isn't precise, but there are several types of issue - incidental, non-existent, vague - best is to take a look at my vetting list, above. We need an inclusion standard, but I think that's just straightforward RS: if we have a statement in the article, it should be easy to see where that statement came from in the source, and then, if the source is reliable for that statement. If editors find the sourcing fine on each item, so be it. I checked, made an actionable list, others, not just I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, should see what they think. --Tsavage (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

See, in principle I agree with you, but in practice, I cannot understand where your confusion comes from. It's like if someone complained that Lincoln did not identify the year of the Gettysburg Address in the speech. jps (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think some editors are holding Wikipedia to a higher standard than it is in practice. In some ways I agree with them, but AFD has shown time and again that general notability is a relatively low bar to cross. I would probably have preferred it if this had grown organically as a content fork from the controversies article, but it is what it is. Anyway if are looking for conspiracies some of the more obvious ones I have found are that aids is a genetically engineered bioweapon[11](page 42) and so apparently is ebola[12]. AIRcorn (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that practice (i.e., wide consensus) has established a relatively low bar for notability, and that's great, imo popular openness is what has made Wikipedia flourish. I also contribute to "In popular culture" sections, and generally like "Controversies" sections, which some call trivial and "unencyclopedic." What we should insist on, however, is basic consistency and verifiability within an article.

On the pop level, if GMO conspiracy theories is a collection of CT descriptions with reasonable RS...cool, don't let's make it a dumping ground for everything with "GMO" and "CT" on the same page.

Example of good pop GMO CT content, "The Ebola virus is an escaped bioweapon"^[13] (from Aircorn, above): the news article describes the Ebola-as-GE-bioweapon theory in detail, includes the key proponent, and the criticism that would seem to negate it. And I can see exactly where it came from in the source. Clear and RS. --Tsavage (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have brought behavior concerns to WP:AE here. Jusdafax I messed up your ping there. So hopefully this one will work. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pro-GMO driven GMO conspiracy theories?

Trying to get a better, source-based way of distinguishing GMO CTs from simple speculation, and name-calling use of CT that does not describe an actual CT, I stumbled on this claim of a conspiracy theory started by Monsanto in an anti-GMO blog.

The CT: Monsanto speculates that anti-GMO activists secretly planted unapproved GMO seed in open land, to make it appear that GMO seed had escaped into the wild.

It's better-documented than anything in this article. For example, in "Monsanto suggests sabotage in modified wheat case" (via AP)^[14] a quote from Monsanto's CTO Robb Fraley:

Monsanto Co. is floating the theory that some of the company's detractors may have intentionally planted genetically modified wheat discovered in an Oregon field last month.

The St. Louis-based company said in a call with reporters Friday that sabotage is the most likely scenario partly because the modified wheat was not distributed evenly throughout the field and found in patches. Robb Fraley, Monsanto's executive vice president and chief technology officer, said that is the "pattern you would expect" if someone had dispersed the seeds.

And...

Fraley said suggested that the culprits could be activists who have campaigned against genetically modified foods, which are engineered to include certain traits.

“It’s fair to say there are folks who don’t like biotechnology and would use this to create problems,” he said.

And from Bloomberg's "Monsanto Says Rogue Wheat in Oregon May Be Sabotage"^[15]:

Some Monsanto opponents may have planted seeds they illegally saved from a field trial to cause trade disruptions and build opposition to gene-altered food, said Val Giddings, a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit think tank. Field trials of modified crops are often destroyed by activists in Europe, he said.

This seems to be a full-blown GMO CT, using Uscinski and Parent's four-point criteria: “(1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, hide truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good:

(1)Anti-GMO activists (2) covertly obtained and planted unapproved GMO seed (3) to damage the credibility of Monsanto and biotechnology, (4) thereby depriving the world of the advantages of biotech.

One thing this does is highlight how we as editors should drop the knee-jerk reaction that any edits that appear to oppose GMOs is the work of anti-GMO, anti-science, FRINGE-pushing editors, and acknowledge the plain fact that there is equally pro-GMO PR and activism that has nothing to do with science, and encompasses a range of tactics to discredit opponents, including propagating conspiracy theories. Iow, assume good faith. --Tsavage (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In serious writing there is a distinction between a theory about a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. The example used is: "The 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy directed by al Qaeda." "The 9/11 attacks resulted from a conspiracy directed by the U.S. government." It has become used as a pejorative to disparage opponents, which is the thesis of this article. Activists could have planted the seeds. It only becomes a conspiracy theory once it is disproved and GMO backers claim that the activists were directed by a NWO which directed the liberal media and justice system to villainize Monsanto, which again is what this article attempts to show. TFD (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So the line between simple speculation and conspiracy theory is that the latter requires a speculative narrative in which necessary elements have already been disproved? --Tsavage (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the lines. People may also believe popular misconceptions based on bad information. TFD (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the source is good, but not precisely for the reasons you outlined, Tsavage. I'm actually somewhat disappointed in your seeming inability to do a careful evaluation of sources, but it's perhaps not surprising in light of the peculiar and over-the-top intransigence you have shown on this page. In any case, I've added it to the article, but note that it's just about the worst source we have at this time and it's definitely WP:FRINGE, but it's valuable as she acknowledges that this is how she is painted. Oh, and, she's definitely a GMO conspiracy theorist: [16], [17], [18]. jps (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting inclusion, I was examining how we're defining CTs. You're commenting on your own edit. Monsanto's plausible speculation doesn't seem any different than some of what we're calling GMO CTs in the article.

Over-the-top intransigence? To me, this isn't discussion, it's attempting to characterize editors with differing views as bad actors in the editing process. Overall, I've said my piece. Let's see how it goes... --Tsavage (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You insist you are neutral in this whole thing, but it seems to me that you bend over backwards to praise anti-GMO sources. Do you deny this? jps (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Because, here's the thing. You say that Monsanto's speculation is plausible (and the link that brought you to it implies otherwise). And then you say it is as plausible as "some" of what we're calling GMO CTs in the article. But you don't get any more specific than that and we're going by the sources which identify them. Wikipedia is ruled by verifiable statements sourced to reliable sources. We aren't allowed to make this-for-that comparisons unless it is done in the sources. So far, the source that we have which does this is the one you cited and I included in the article, and, as it is pretty clear to me that she is a conspiracy theorist (is it clear to you? Don't worry, we won't say it in Wikipedia's voice in articlespace, but it is just a test for WP:COMPETENCE I'm trying to do) her acknowledgment that she's been called a conspiracy theorist is a powerful verification that this charge is notable, which is, after all, the standard for inclusion here at Wikipedia. So that's where I'm at. I'm happy to work with you, but it is hard going when you seem to be on a completely different wavelength. jps (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You are saying that because reliable sources establish that someone is a conspiracy theorist that any theory they present is ipso fact a conspiracy theory. That is a classical ad hominem fallacy. Because x advocates incorrect theories, every theory they advocate is incorrect. So Alex Jones says there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, ergo there were WMDs and anyone who denies it is a conspiracy theorist. It is as if the only way to counter conspiracy theories is to adopt their convoluted logic. TFD (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I am simply trying to figure out what the exact argument being offered is. If a claim is plausible, I'd like to know how that determination was come by. Hopefully not solely on the say-so of Alex Jones. jps (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine what is plausible. See "No original research." TFD (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't the one who claimed the claim was plausible. jps (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not use the term. Experts who write about conspiracy theories rely on expert opinion of specialists in the relevant disciplines. So for example an expert on conspiracism relies on the consensus of experts that Apollo 11 reached the moon. Because the consensus is that man landed on the moon, the moon landing was faked is not just implausible, it is wrong. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether man landed on the moon or whether it is a conspiracy theory to deny it. Instead we accept the view of experts that it is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't you either. jps (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Name of this article -- inconsistent with our other GM articles

It has just come to my attention that the name of this article is inconsistent with our naming of other GMO articles, which never use GMO in their titles. Examples:

• Genetically modified organism (Talk)
• Genetically modified food (Talk) rather than "GMO food" or "GM food"
• Genetically modified crops (Talk) rather than "GMO crops" or "GM crops"
• Genetically modified fish rather than "GMO fish" or "GM fish"
• Genetically modified bacteria rather than "GMO bacteria" or "GM bacteria"
• Genetically modified food controversies (Talk)
• Regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms(Talk)

• Regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union -- that's a mouthful! (Talk)
• Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Switzerland

• Traceability of genetically modified organisms
• Timeline of genetically modified organisms

• Genetically modified organism containment and escape

For the first 5 (possibly 6), I think their titles are fine. For the remainder, my personal preference would be better to simplify the titles to use GMO rather than "genetically modified organism". Either way, we should be consistent, so if the other articles are going to use these long titles, then whatever the logic is behind that applies to this one as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:MOS details that some people (but not me) get super excited about. The relevant guide is WP:NCA. If you come up with a consistent interpretation that can be applied here and elsewhere, knock yourself out! jps (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an interesting point that had not occurred to me until now, although I too tend not to care that much about these things. I read WP:NCA just now. For me, spelling it out is helpful in most of the titles above, and the only two where it seems to me to be better, for brevity's sake, to use the abbreviation would be in the ones about the European Union and Switzerland. I can't put my finger on why, but somehow the abbreviation makes sense to me for this page, kind of like "GMO conspiracy theories" is better than "Conspiracy theories about genetically modified organisms" is better, in turn, than "Conspiracy theories about GMOs".

But in any case, it would be useful to have redirects (if they don't already exist) for each title with GM, with GMO, and spelled out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I standardised many titles years ago, but that was mainly merging and redirecting "transgenic ..." to "genetically modified ...". As a rule I generally like to spell things out. GM has a few meanings and it could be argued that genetically modified is not even the main one. GMO is redundant when talking about organisms (i.e GMO fish = genetically modified organism fish). I am happy with spelling out all the titles above (although I have been thinking recently the release one should read commercialisation to remove its tongue twisting nature). If a requested move was made I would probably !vote for Genetically modified organism conspiracy theories, but I am not too bothered by consistency for consistencies sake anymore to push hard for it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've actually always had the perception that the abbreviation "GMO" was most often used by opponents, and was therefore non-neutral (associated with negative emotional reactions, etc). This might just be unique to what I was aware of before I started editing here, but it would be a bit less of a problem for this article because it's part of documenting that opposition - Tryptofish, maybe that's a reason why it seems more suitable to you? For the other articles, I'd oppose attempts to move them to "GMO" (also "GM" per Aircorn's comment), but for this one I think the difference probably isn't a big deal.

Either way, though, I agree that redirects should exist for all these articles if they don't already, and I'd also support a move of the "Regulation of the release" article to a better title. Sunrise (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Re your question to me, maybe that's it, but I'm not really sure. (Not a big deal, in any case.) Somehow, it feels to me like conspiracy theories tend to refer to subjects colloquially, as in an abbreviation instead of the technical term, so something about that fits well with my subconscious perceptions, even though I still can't quite put my finger on exactly why. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions

This article seems to have improved substantially compared to early revisions, particularly through the addition of academic sources. I would suggest however that further removal or de-emphasizing of blogs and other marginal sources would further strengthen the article. It is not that these sources are impermissible, but their inclusion diminishes the article's credibility while not adding indispensable information. The better sources can stand on their own. Finally, the article relies too much on block quotation, and that material should be summarized. Rhoark (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the WP:USERG blogs and material from GMO proponents, like Lynas and Entine should be removed. However, I do not agree that they are permissible which is why I removed them (see above). When that material was restored, I took the issue to WP:AE. Can you please explain why you think these kinds of sources are permissible in this article? These kinds of sources have not been permitted in the other GMO articles for good reason. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If I may offer my own take on that issue, I think that WP:USERG offers some useful guidance about the differences between some kinds of blogs, and other kinds. If it's just a personal blog set up by someone who is otherwise a nobody, then of course it is not a reliable source. But blogs written by persons who have been recognized as experts in the subject can be reliable sources. (If, hypothetically, Stephen Hawking had a blog about astrophysics, we would not reject that out-of-hand as a source for pages about dark holes.) Blog sources need to be used with great care, and when possible should be replaced by non-self-published sources, but they need not be automatically thrown out solely on the basis of being blogs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there are a few exceptions allowed under WP:USERG rule, but they don't apply here. If either of you contend they do, I would like to see an argument and/or evidence to support this claim. So much of the critical information on GMOs that comes up on Google are from entities like these: Independent Science News, GM Watch, EcoWatch, www.naturalnews.com/ Natural News], Food & Water Watch, Alternet, Monsanto Mafia, katehon.com, etc. Attempts to use any of these kinds of sources is nearly (if not always) strongly opposed, so why would we allow similar sources that are Pro-GMO? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The examples you give are all examples of anti-GMO blogs, and I agree with you about all of those specific examples. And certainly there are some similarly flawed sources on the pro-GMO or pro-science side, but not all such sources are like that. To take a specific example of a source that is currently on the page, this is nothing like the blogs that you just listed. A non-self-published source by PZ Myers would be preferable, but the blog source is a good example of what I was talking about. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Context matters. Have a look through WP:RS/N and you will find the most common answer to the simple question "is this source reliable?" is "what is it used to reference?". It even asks for this information at the top of the page. This is because in essence every verifiable source is reliable. A blog by me is just as reliable for what I am saying as a blog from you, Tryptofish or Hawkings. The more important issue is how we present this information and how much weight we give it. I personally don't think that blogs should ever be written in wikipedias voice, so it should be presented as "according to the blogs author". How much coverage to give the person writing the blog is probably the most important aspect to consider. Often the correct amount of weight to give is none, for experts in their field then giving some weight is permissible. AIRcorn (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is on conspiracy theories and so some blogs seem like they ought to show up. One of the blogs included on this page references a fascinating claim that the author (very anti-GMO) acknowledges having her views identified as conspiracy theories and goes on to accuse Monsanto of the same. It's this sort of content that belongs in here because it gives context for how the conversation occurs. I have not really found much in the way of discussion of conspiracy theories from the blogs David mentions, but if he can find one, I'd be thrilled to work it in. jps (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Part of the reason so many blockquotes are included here is that I know that it can be controversial to summarize a source. Blockquotes allow us to include content without having to argue over summaries. At some point, these quotes will become unwieldy, though, and ought to be incorporated in another way. I'm not 100% sure we're at that point yet, but options for summarizing the blockquotes currently included should be discussed, and this seems as good a place to do it as any. So offer your suggestions here!

jps (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

who is user jps?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I'm trying to begin reading this article, and I would like some help from the user jps who seems to have answered most questions about it. But when I look for the user or talk page, the link goes to a message saying that there is no such user as I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

Can someone explain to me what is going on. Who is I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc and why has this person become so involved in the article? I thought it was a slightly strange article only in the notion that I thought it is established that gmo's are untested on large time scales and for this reason a concern especially wild species.

Very roughly, for instance, I might expect an article about the conspiracy theories saying the moon landing was faked, but I would be sort of surprised to find a Wikipedia article about conspiracy theories which claim that the moon landing was real or that the moon exists, for the simple reason that I thought it is just obvious that the moon is a real thing and really exists.

So I was just really really confused, but is there anyone who is as focussed as jps was about the formulation of the article, who actually exists as an actual editor who can help me get started understanding this article in rough outline? Createangelos (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

JPS was a dedicated user that specialised in making sure fringe topics and statements were presented according to our policies. I do not know what has happened to him. His editing style rubbed some the wrong way and led to more than a few complaints. I hope he hasn't left the project for good as his contributions were valuable. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

jps and I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc are previous names of User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS, per User:9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS/Previous Account Names. TFD (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I have to change my username from time-to-time due to off-wiki harassment. That's all I'm going to say about that since I try to comply with WP:UNAME policy.

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources and the reliable sources about this subject all indicate that the view that GMOs are risky has been associated with conspiracy theory ideation.

As far as the idea you're proposing is concerned (that it is uncontroversial that GMOs are untested on large time scales and thus that is enough reason for concern) there are lots of excellent resources outlining why such an argument is specious when it comes to genetic engineering. The basic point is that if you're going to allow for agricultural innovation at all (which seems to be on the table for every group opposed to GMOs), then there is no reason to single out GMOs. "Large time scale" testing necessarily never occurs on any new hybrid plant. "GMOs", as it were, are probably some of the most tested crops ever developed both in terms of number of studies and longitudinally (some strains are looked at for decades before being brought to market). The oft-cited precautionary principle is exposed as a ruse when you look at the fact that those advocating it be applied to only genetically engineered plants do not also argue for similar safeguards on novel agricultural products produced by other means. "Grandfathering in" all agricultural innovation from the past is especially problematic if the concern is about "large time scales".

There may be some environmentalists arguing that we roll back the green revolution according to the precautionary principle, but I'm not sure that this idea is the true basis of opposition genetic engineering. Rather, the article outlines that the true motivation seems to be a kind of neoluddism which is, in turn, associated with rather wild speculation about how genetic engineering is a grand conspiracy on the scale of chemtrails and the like.

jps (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi jps, thank you for the reply. When you say "there are lots of excellent resources outlining why such an argument is specious when it comes to genetic engineering" and go on to say "then there is no reason to single out GMOs" I am a little confused. Flabbergasted, actually. I would be no more surprised if you had defended calling lunar mapping "moon existence conspiracy theories" by saying everyone knows that the existence of the moon is no more believable than astrology. I am not going to counter your argument (as I know how to do) because I'm trying to discuss the question on a neutral footing somehow. I'm really sorry, this is just so weird. I've never had this experience and don't know how to react. The things you are saying are just so odd and unusual, sorry. I do admit that you argue well and I probably just need some time to recover from the strange challenge.Createangelos (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Two points; first the username. I myself have encountered harassment in real life because of the content of our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. I can only imagine the hell anyone who edits the GMO conspiracy theories article goes through. Changing your username to avoid harassment is perfectly legitimate, and those of us who might be slightly confused or inconvenienced by the change simply need to accept it. Second, your argument that "I thought it is established that gmo's are untested on large time scales and for this reason a concern especially wild species." is a deeply flawed argument. GMO conspiracy theorists, faced with a total lack of any evidence of harm despite many millions of people eating GMO food every day, argue that maybe the harm takes centuries to occur. The problem with this line of reasoning is the existence of so many other things that haven't been around for centuries. Like radio. Staring at glowing rectangles all day. Plastic. Artificial illumination. Transportation that runs on gasoline instead of oats. Vaccines. MRI machines. Microwave ovens. Partially hydrogenated oils in food. Replacing sugar with high-fructose corn syrup. Fluoridated water. Iodized salt. Should we ban everything I just mentioned because they "are untested on large time scales and for this reason a concern"? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, re your examples such as "Partially hydrogenated oils in food" of course we reversed our decision about those edits of fats. Isn't it more or less 'par for the course,' rather than a fictitous conspiracy, to worry that, after letting industries genetically edit species in the wild whenever it fits their business model, we'd get into a situation like with the modified fats, where we'd really like to --and even find it necessary to-- reverse all those decisions and go back to how things were? But it would be impossible if the unmodified ones, in all their complicated and unknowable relationships with each other, have degenerated or gone extinct? Createangelos (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Createangelos, I see that you said that you found it "weird" how the GMO issue is being discussed here. Since you are just starting to edit in this content area, I think you'll find it useful to know that an immense amount of past discussion has gone into GMO content on Wikipedia. For a taste of the way that these discussions have gone, and also to see what is now the established consensus on Wikipedia, I suggest that you look at WP:GMORFC. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

OK ...um...I did read that page....whatever it is...I have never seen anything like it....thanks for showing it to me........but I never thought there was any issue about human consumption of GMO's as food, so I'm confused why there are so many proposals stressing this. The main issues have nothing to do with food, wouldn't they be that 1) allowing edits allows degradation of the relationship among natural genomes just the same as the elevated levels of background gamma raditation did, and was understood to have done, up til the above ground nuclear treaty. In that case mutations in animals and plants due to background gamma radiation doubled around the time of the 1960's, only to fall to a normal level based on people's agreement no longer to allow above ground nuclear reactions, secondly that 2) human intentions originate from biology just like animal intentions do. For instance, the region of the human genome known as the sickle cell gene confers malaria resistance. People not knowing about sickle cell amemia would have introduced the gene in order to increase malaria resistance, and the effects of sickle cell anemia only seen when two partners happened to pass the same gene to their offspring, not immediately but a tragic and unexpected consequence for a later generation. People do not and never could have any understanding of the 'function' of various locations of the genome beyond an understanding as biological beings, based on the relationship between wishes and those wishes being granted which had been tested throughout all of human evolution. The effects of tweaking genomes is untested by evolution and therefore 'what we want to do' in making genetic edits can make no more than transient and inconsistent sense. On this point I owe jps an explanation why editing dna is more significantly untested than introducing chemical compounds into nature. The answer may relate to how introducing chemical compounds has been done not only in historical and pre-historical time, but during evolutionary time by humans and primates, although it was not known as chemistry. Thus for example the *unexpected* adverse consequences of organophosphates ended up being of the same general type as the expected ones (neurological problems in mammals); and of neonicotinoids, neurological problems in insects. But since neither people nor any evolutionary precursor ever did genetic editing, the principle that the *unexpected* consequences will be in the same ballpark as the *expected* ones fails for the first time. Note that this *explains* why the malaria/cystic fibrosis relationship and many other such examples is surprising to humans. Crucially, that the set of those events which comprise the *expected* consequences of an action such as making a chemical change in the environment is not universally fixed, but is determined by human cognition and the human brain which itself evolved under circumstances where chemical changes, but not genetic edits, could be made. Finally that 3) it is not established that 'genes' make any sense at all. The concept of 'gene' refers to numerical proximity of locations in the DNA molecule, viewed as a ladder with numbered rungs. THere is a rough correspondence between positions of the bonds and position of organs, eg in flies, but there is not any real known meaning of the sequential ordering, and it is ridiculous to identify contiguous portions of the genome as 'genes' and expect that replacing one 'gene' with another would have an effect only on one organ, system, disease etc, rather than a profound and incalculable effect on things such as rates of disapperance of vestigial traits in evolutionary time, the way species migrate or react to other species.Createangelos (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serious neutrality issues

Hello all, this article has serious neutrality issues, which prompted me at first to flag it as a candidate for obvious deletion. Other editors disagreed strongly and suggested I describe the issues here. I will reproduce the descriptions of the problems I'm seeing:

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, [19], [20], [21], ), 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)

and

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)

I don't think further restatement is necessary, but I am still hoping to get a discussion going about how to address these issues. People did not seem willing to engage on the deletion discussion, but maybe they will feel more able to do so here. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for withdrawing the AfD, and for initiating the discussion here. I don't think that editors "did not seem willing to engage on the deletion discussion", but rather, that editors felt pretty overwhelmingly that the case for page deletion was insufficient. You may want to consider how WP:1AM may apply here. Myself, I am very friendly to the idea of revising this page to address some of the concerns that you raise. I'm not yet going to comment in detail, because I really would like to hear first what other editors say in response to you. But I'll make an initial point about the influence on FDA and AAAS. The fact that there has been a considerable amount of lobbying, and some of it done rather secretly, is a legitimate concern, but it is not the same thing as concluding that the lobbying actually made any difference in what FDA or AAAS believe, much less that companies deliberately conspired to create food shortages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We are at the mercy of the sources and the sources that exist are pretty clear as to what the broad outlines of GMO conspiracy theories are. I would like there to be more analysis of what constitutes a conspiracy theory and what constitutes a legitimate critique, but the problem is that mish-mashing has been the name of the game for too long. The sources we currently include in the article are remarkably -- almost radically -- neutral in rhetoric to the point of declaiming a sympathy for the conspiracy theorists in some cases! So I have a very hard time thinking that the problem with this article is that it has "serious neutrality issues". Rather, I think what is clear is that there are serious conspiracy theory ideations that have been incorporated into anti-GMO activism and that makes it difficult to see what may or may not be legitimate critique.

I think the concern over astroturfing and lobbying is one that can be made independent of any conspiracy theory context. But as a member of the AAAS myself, I find it laughable to think that the invectives that are hurled against its rather measured critique of anti-GMO activism are really legitimate, for example. Conspiracy theory strikes me as just about right. It, in fact, seems to me that the criticism of the article itself is further evidence for the points that are made by the sources in the article.

jps (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge Monsanto GMO cannabis hoax to here

I came across Monsanto GMO cannabis hoax recently and it seems like it will always be a WP:Permastub. I am not sure where to merge it, or if it needs merging, but this seems like a reasonable target. What do others think? AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My first reaction was to groan and want to suggest AfD instead, but yes, I think a very brief paragraph here, with a redirect, seems OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Two votes for a merge. It's an easy copy pasta to do it and is justifiable in my opinion. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done for an initial merge at least. I'd like to see some pruning too, but I'll leave the text be for now until I can get back to it unless someone gets to it first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)