" 

  
 === conspiracy theory === 
 for people who keep moving this page against the consensus, see Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2.   

 :Kevin, to simply assume that the vote you mention applies in this case is ridiculous, especially after a brief read of the comments there.  It's you who are moving this page against the consensus - the earlier vote here was 6:2 in favor of the current title.  But hey, let's have another vote, why not - I think this would be the third or fourth title vote - precipitated by you moving the page multiple times without any prior discussion.  That's very disruptive behaviour.    

 : Now that I think about it, there's actually a very interesting paradox inherent in the use of the term ""conspiracy theory"" to refer to any claims that people in the Bush administration might have made or implied about connections between SH and AQ. One of the hallmarks of the classic conspiracy theory is that the proponents of it deeply believe in it. So, in calling any such claims by members of the BA a ""conspiracy theory"", those so naming it are inherently stating that those BA members really believed their claims. Which would seem to me to be directly in contradiction with another classic claim of those who oppose Bush, to wit, that BA people knew the whole thing was bogus, and deliberately lied/misled people about it, in order to drum up support for the invasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways: either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic ""conspiracy theory"".    

 ::To ""conspire"" is to work together (literally, to breathe together).  A conspiracy occurs when different people or forces join together to do something.  This page is about a theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda.  I don't know whether or not the Bushevics belived this junk but my sense is that some of them - the neocons - actually did.  Whether or not they did though they certainly manipulated the public to the point where many believe it.  Either way though to me it is a classic conspiracy theory (confirmed by the fact that such believers are impervious to logic or facts that dispute their claims - witness much of the discussion on the other page that someone made (I forget the title right now but it is discussed above) or even some of the comments on this page.  

 ::""either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic ""conspiracy theory"". (User:Jnc|Noel)  wah?  tom delay loves calling democrats ""conspiracy theorists"" whenever they state verifiable facts that are not conveninent for republicans.  Now certainly these so-called ""conspiracy theorists"" believed what they're saying.  cerainly radicals who think ""the democrats are conspiring against bush"" and the like believe what they're saying, and that is exactly why their theories are ""conspiracy theories"".  if they didn't believe what they were saying, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would simply be agitprop.  (agitation and propaganda) Now if you think it should rather be called agitprop, well that's much stronger and than ""conspiracy theory"" - it's a very serious allegation, and I don't think anyone in this discussion is prepared to take the position that that would comply with the NPOV policy.  new  

 If there is such an article, I think it should be combined with this one.   

 ===Get Out the Vote=== 

 I am alleging no wrongdoing here. However, it is noteworthy that Obsidian Order put out about a dozen plus invitations to his colleagues here on Wikipedia to vote on the name change issue: 

 :Nobs, Porphyria, Klonimus, Grue, Jnc, Daniel11, Klonimus, WehrWolf, Austin Hair, MONGO, Silverback, Jayjg, Harry491, RonCram 

 As far as I can tell, all those he contacted who have voted have voted 'No', the same vote he himself makes. Now, voting is only a method of reaching consensus - not a determinant in and of itself for all issues - but this vote is important, and a stacked vote by those brought in by the original poster is not exactly community consensus. 

 For this important vote to be a truly fair examination of the issue and not just a stacked majority, I suggest each of those voting '