Template:Did you know nominations/GMO conspiracy theory


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Montanabw (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

GMO conspiracy theory

 * ... that various commentators and skeptics including Michael Shermer, Mark Lynas, and Jon Entine have identified a number of conspiracy theories promulgated by some activists opposed to the production and sale of genetically modified food?


 * ALT1: ... that certain conspiracy theories have been debunked in the context of the spread of the Zika virus?
 * ALT1a ... that a GMO conspiracy theory concerning the spread of the Zika virus has been debunked?

Created by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk). Self nominated at 22:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article is new enough and long enough. Its neutrality has been questioned and it is littered with tags. Some of the hook facts are not in the article and its creation has been attributed to Jps, but that editor's name does not appear in the article's history. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Striking hook, which is too long at 235 characters (including spacing); an ALT hook will have to be proposed. Note to Cwmhiraeth: this is actually a self-nomination, as jps is I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc's sig, but sigs aren't supposed to be used under "Created by", so I've fixed it. Also, the article was moved from "GMO conspiracy theory" to "GMO conspiracy theories", so I've also fixed that. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. When an alternative hook is proposed and the neutrality issue has been resolved, I will continue my review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what neutrality issue remains as I see none indicated on the talkpage. Seems to me the tag can be safely removed, but I'm not sure I'm the one to do it. jps (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The editor who put the tags in the article has retired, having been blocked from editing GMO-related articles, so I have removed the tags from the article. I find the article sufficiently neutral. I have rewritten the ALT1 hook as ALT1a for greater accuracy (only one GMO zika virus conspiracy theory is mentioned). Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The neutrality issue has resurfaced. User Tsavage has put the associated tag back with the comment "placed POV/neutrality tag - article promotes idea of GMO conspiracy theories without clearly establishing any, and relies on anti-conspiracy theory/debunk sources - see Talk "Neutrality issue". This article is therefore not ready to move on to the main page. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  14:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a very good argument and said as much on the talkpage, but outside opinions on the matter would be welcome. There seem to me to be a lot of sources, but I acknowledge that some of them seem to have been removed for reasons that seem in violation of WP:PARITY. I commented on the talkpage, but as this is a sensitive issue, it would be good to get some neutral editors to read through and offer their third opinions. jps (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left some additional sources on the talk page. Sunrise (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The discussion about this article's neutrality on its talk page is still ongoing and seems to be evolving into a perpetual brawl. We really need some sort of consensus and conclusion on this in the upcoming few days. If not, I may have to throw a DYKno in here :/  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  13:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg With the POV issues not being solved in a timely manner (and no end in sight either), I feel it's time to close this.. unfortunately so. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  12:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)