Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 1

message: Unless somebody can provide a good reason not to, I will move this article to the wikipedia namespace. --maveric149, Saturday, April 6, 2002
:wikipedia or meta?  Seems to me that this kind of debate is all over meta, and needs to be, e.g. as part of discussion of vocabulary and governance. 
::You're probably right about meta - lets see what everyone else thinks. --maveric149
::Yes, move to meta. jheijmans
::No, don't move to meta. English-specific. Deco 02:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (untitled)

message: The below was written at "Words that should not be used in Wikipedia" or something like that:
Why the title of this page might be misguided:
* Even very loaded words can be used carefully to achieve NPOV discussions of controversial topics. See profanity for a perfect example (that I've worked on) of how even touchy words can be used wisely.
* It is better to discuss how to use words appropriately, rather than to advocate the word not be used at all - since no one listens to us about that in the larger/real world.
:I agree, on the basis that words such as "linked (to)" are necessary in a work in progress. One should be able to state that things are related, despite not having a source to specify that relationship. See: Wikipedia:Words to use. Hyacinth 02:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Words to use

message: (about Boston Tea Party): What on earth are you talking about?? Did they kill any civilians by any chance?  By this logic you'll be calling a pickpocket a terrorist soon. I urge you to show any real evidence to the claim that labels of "terrorist" often depend on whether the terrorists were successful in their efforts. --AV
:::user:Lee M re: Boston Tea Party "terrorists": facetious reply: They probably poisoned a few innocent fish....
:Attacks on property, without killing or injuring anyone, could still be considered terrorism. Suppose instead of flying planes into the WTC, they had placed a massive bomb in the basement, set up in such a way that it would go off in two days, and no one could possibly remove or disable it without setting it off. They then tell the authorities. The authorities evacuate the WTC and surrounding buildings. The bombs go off two days later, destroying completely the WTC, but no one gets killed or injured, but billions of dollars of economic damage are caused. The terrorists release a communique saying "this is payback for [insert your favourite U.S. misdeed here]". Wouldn't that be terrorism? -- SJK
::The Earth Liberation Front does stuff like that on a small scale, and they "are terrorists" according to the FBI, but clearly not according to the DOD, who is interested only in groups that do bodily harm.  Presumably if the "economic damage" (whatever that is) was extreme, it could be argued to have done bodily harm, e.g. people shooting themselves for losing jobs, etc., but by that logic so did the Enron collapse, and the DOD would have to go bomb office towers in Houston or Chicago.  Definitions of "terrorism" that don't require direct bodily harm to non-combatants are simply broken - the Boston Tea Party and the Earth Liberation Front don't qualify.
Wanted ? Here it is: do you know a single person who calls Resistance Movement during WWII "terrorists" ? Taw
:Sorry I don't have a hard cite on this, but I seem to recall that the Nazis actually did call the resistance fighters terrorists. The Nazis lost. Therefore we say that the resistance fighters were "freedom fighters" not "terrorists". 
::correct.
::Sorry, all wrong. First, we don't call them freedom fighters, we call them resistance fighters. Second, we don't call them terrorists not because they won, but because they weren't. If Nazis called them terrorists (and that is yet to be shown), they were simply wrong. --AV
:::Sorry again, terrorists are the ones who use terror. Very simple, so why not use that word when it fits? 
:::: all governments use terror by definition - terror of law enforcement and covert action by the military, even-handed or otherwise, which is also used against civilians, and may well terrify them, and be intended to do so.  The issue is legal vs. illegal terror, not terror vs. not, when the word "terror" is used by governments.  But governments can't comprehend a world where they aren't doling out the terror.
:::Reagan called the "Contra" characters "freedom fighters", but they were arguably terrorists. - 24
----
"It's a legitimate word with well-defined meaning. Dictionaries, encyclopaedias, textbooks on political science, etc. will readily provide definitions. So will most governments, who tend to see it as something like "doing bodily harm for political reasons without actually being a government." When governments accuse each other of "[state terror]?" you are over the line into political science and no definition will help you."
To describe this as utterly ridiculous would be to severly understate.  This definition would say that a guerrila war conducted exclusively against military targets would be, on the part of the rebels, terrorism, and on the part of the government, a war.  Even if the rebels attacked non-military targets in an illegal way you would have to say they are guilty of war crimes, not terrorism, and the law is very clear on this point.  If you do not see how this word has been corrupted by political interests, if you are not aware of how the U.S. has come up with lists of terrorist organisations based in chief on its own political interests, even including groups such as the CSRP, which is purely involved in advocacy (of course, it mostly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the Fujimori regime the PCP was battling in that time), you are guilty of overwhelming naivete.  -- Daniel C. Boyer
The definition of terrorism is "the use of force or destruction of property to advance a political or religious cause." The Boston Tea Party was definitely this. I say this against most of my fellow Americans' views, only because I want to get this out of the way. Davidizer13 16:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be someone's definition of terrorism, but there is no agreement on the definition of terrorism. I would point out that your definition is so broad that Matthew 21:19 would arguably make Jesus a terrorist, assuming someone owned the fig tree. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorism

message: The word 'cult' is very loosely used in today's society. The media frequently refers to the 'cult' of fashion, the 'cult' of Star Trek and so on. General usage seems to be for any group or thing or idea that inspires a dedicated following among a smallish subsection of the population, rather than reserving the term for religion/s. Karen Johnson
The text page mentions the Sc word, so I'm inclined to comment. There exist neutral and well working definitions of cult that do not involve the cult's belief systems but its methods of operation and its relation to and the way it sees and treats members and outsiders. Of course such definitions rightly include the Cult of Sc, so given your level of fear from the ligitious cult you might shy away from those definitions altoghether. 
Full discclosure: I personally consider the Cult of Sc a dangerous, morally reperensible and occasionally criminal organization. YMMV - but explicitely calling them "not a cult" in your article is taking sides already. Tom Cruise notwithstanding they are anything but a well respected religious organization. Wefa
Maybe there should be a disambiguation page that splits the definition of religious cult from the things with "cult" following. It's a suggestion... Davidizer13 16:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult 

message: "30% of British households have pets; 1.5 million of these are dogs"
I found a similar construction in Newsweek.
"Nazi Germany had set up 300 concentration camps or prisons"
I found this exact phrase in the Holocaust exhibition of the Imperial War Museum, except that it was referring only to Poland and had a date. I decided that was irrelevant.
"2,000 civilians killed or injured"
This was said by a journalist about some long-past disaster - probably not 2,000 though. There was in fact 1 killed and the rest injured, though. r3m0t 12:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  statistics 

message: I am seriously questioning the wisdom of always folding debates into the narrative.  The classic example that I will use to illustrate my concern is the separate criticism and support sections in the alternative medicine article.  I believe that this article should be an allowed exception to this guideline.  The advantage of using separate sections allows other editors to directly link to these sections in other articles as a type of HTML bookmark.  An example of this would be as follows.
:(See criticisms of alternative medicine for details.)
I used this bookmark link in Terms and concepts in alternative medicine. Thus, I am thinking about changing this guideline by providing for some exceptions.  What is your take on this issue? -- John Gohde 19:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I support not only providing for exceptions, but maybe taking this section out altogether. I have seen several articles where editors antagonistic to the subject matter begin taking shots at it in the first sentence, even before the topic is properly introduced, and never let up. Sneaky POV can be very effectively inserted by where you say it as well as by what you say. Specifically, the first paragraph should be reserved for contextualizing and establishing, and should be sacrosanct from controversy and negative views, except perhaps for a mention of "controversial." Then, while it is possible that negative views may flow smoothly into multiple points in the narrative, it is far better to corral criticisms into a separate section if they would otherwise interfere with the main narrative. The purpose of the article is to explain, and it is certainly no endorsement of a controversial topic to explain it fully without injecting venom, even attributed venom, at regular intervals. It is virtue, not vice, to hold off from the criticism until the reader has understood fully what is being criticized. --Gary D 02:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy - Questioning the wisdom of folding debates into the narrative 

message: Shouldn't we avoid the term "related" too? This is also vague. Not only linked. What kind of relation is important. Causal or just a correlation, spurious relationship etcetera. Andries 21:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked and related

message: I am moving the comments included below from the Wikipedia: namespace article to the Wikipedia Talk: namespace.  Charm ©† 01:27, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
=== Naturally ===
Use naturally for "in a natural manner," such as:
*Plutonium may occur naturally.
*Obsidian is a type of naturally occurring glass.
*Cultural anthropologists assume that human beings are naturally social.
or to indicate an artificial but convenient conceptualization:
*Machiavelli's life falls naturally into three periods.
::That sounds like the first meaning to me and quite acceptable. --zero
::No, it implies that dividing Machiavelli's life into three periods is the only acceptable way to look at things.  What if someone believes that Machiavelli's life had four major periods?  Is that 'unnatural'? --Egomaniac
:::I don't think there is any presumption of exclusiveness when one says a particular way of looking at something is natural: one simply means it is not contrived.  There may be several natural ways of looking at Machiavelli's life, alongside a tremendous number of needlessly complex ways. ---- Charles Stewart 09:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this one is bad. --zero
I can see times when it would be ok: "naturally, he was delighted to be awarded the Nobel Prize" ;) -- Tarquin 09:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Care to run that by Sinclair Lewis or Marlon Brando? --Calieber 13:28, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: But in that sentence naturally doesn't add any information, clarify anything, or make the article easier to read. It just makes it sound chatty, (much like 'of course'). --Townmouse 00:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments regarding use of the word ''naturally''

message: Use naturally for "in a natural manner," such as:
*Plutonium may occur naturally.
*Obsidian is a type of naturally occurring glass.
*Cultural anthropologists assume that human beings are naturally social.
or to indicate an artificial but convenient conceptualization:
*Machiavelli's life falls naturally into three periods.
::That sounds like the first meaning to me and quite acceptable. --zero
::No, it implies that dividing Machiavelli's life into three periods is the only acceptable way to look at things.  What if someone believes that Machiavelli's life had four major periods?  Is that 'unnatural'? --Egomaniac
:::I don't think there is any presumption of exclusiveness when one says a particular way of looking at something is natural: one simply means it is not contrived.  There may be several natural ways of looking at Machiavelli's life, alongside a tremendous number of needlessly complex ways. ---- Charles Stewart 09:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this one is bad. --zero
I can see times when it would be ok: "naturally, he was delighted to be awarded the Nobel Prize" ;) -- Tarquin 09:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Care to run that by Sinclair Lewis or Marlon Brando? --Calieber 13:28, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: But in that sentence naturally doesn't add any information, clarify anything, or make the article easier to read. It just makes it sound chatty, (much like 'of course'). --Townmouse 00:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naturally 

message: The text on the page is doubled up weirdly. Could someone a bit more familiar with the contents please remove the duplicated text? —Ashley Y 09:26, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
:: It looks like in an effort to solve the doubling, User:Vacuum (whom I don't know) removed the section on the word terrorism, with what ended up being a totally misleading edit summary. I presume this was accidental. I have restored it. (It looks like no other material was lost, but someone may want to double check my work.) -- Jmabel | Talk 22:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::I made my own attempt.  In the end, it differed little from yours. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page damage 

message: In the Statistics section, an example is given of not using "2,000 killed or injured" due to the ambiguity of how many were killed and how many injured. For the same reason, I wonder if special mention should be made of the word "casualties" (which normally refers to the number of dead and injured). For such an ambiguous word, I find it used very commonly in most forms of media often without further clarification of the proportions of dead/injured. Any thoughts? Cheers. TigerShark 13:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: I think that the words "Eastern" and "Western" are generalizing, vague and inaccurate and should be specified as much as possible though I admit that they can not always be avoided. For example Eastern can be with regards to culture Hindu (incl. Tantra, Vaishnava, Saiva, Agama etc.), Buddhist, Confucius, Japanese, Sikh (incl. Sant Mat), etc. Western culture can be scientific, secular, Christian, Jewish etc. But Chinese, Indians, Japanse can be and are often scientific, secular etc. With regards to geography Eastern can mean Japan, India, China, Taiwanese, Singapore. Western can also include Japan, Taiwan etc. How confusing and vague can we get. Andries 16:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern and Western 

message: The word "caucasian" to indicate the race of a person is very strange for non-Americans. Please take into account that this an international encyclopedia. Andries 19:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm British and I understand the term. I don't really think it is a US v The Rest divide - but I do think it's not as common a word as the easily understood alternative of "white", which should be preferred, jguk 22:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also British, and I concur.  It isn't unheard-of, but it is still far less common.  White is almost universally used, with "of European descent" (whether technically correct or not) the only alternative. smoddy 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucasian

message: I am aware of Slim et al's claimed argument that "conspiracy theory" has benign uses but given that illegitimately uses also exist the word is not neutral.  I have also considered the possibility Slim's dichotomy is an highly advanced way of beffuddling the issue, especially since she and others never acknowledge that the phrase is not neutral.  Given that the phrase isn't neutral it should not be used, especially considering there are other and better ways of phrasing what you claim to be trying to do. zen master T 22:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a term can be used wrongly doesn't mean it can never be used correctly. The term "convicted rapist" is pejorative, and is capable of being misapplied (as are all words), but sometimes it's just an accurate description. I apologize if I'm continuing to befuddle the issue in my highly advanced way. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Did you ever read the definition I left above of "conspiracy theory"? One crucial characteristic is that they appear not to be falsifiable. It is a central feature, something that should be present (in some form) before labeling something a conspiracy theory. The difficulty is bad labeling here, not the label itself. I have to say, Zen-master, you appear not to have read anything about this. You just keep making the same points, which have been addressed time and again. I don't just mean reading here. I mean reading about the genre. You don't seem at all knowledgeable about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let me ask this: is there anything in the world that you would call a conspiracy theory? If so, why? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read your definition and it's not applicable for determining neutrality and ignores the danger of truth obfuscation. Did you read my responses, why "conspiracy theory" specifically? I don't see how it could be neutral to allow any direct or uncaveatted use of "conspiracy theory", I am open to determining "conspiracy theories"'s use on a case by case basis in the future but all current titles that use it on wikipedia are wrong (even if the underlying theories are dubious or in need of prescription). Neutrality and truth burying ease concerns trump your claimed deprogramming motivation. zen master T 02:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are both "liberal" and "conservative" conspiracy theories, I think that conspiracy theories are balanced for the most part. It's when you get into individual theories that it becomes biased.Davidizer13 16:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two NPOV violations don't magically make a neutrality. If someone has a cited/in good faith theory or allegation it would be unfair to use someone else's words to present or describe it. zen master T 16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "conspiracy" neutral? 

message: Note to zen master and FuelWagon: to continue to unilaterally write policy text on the main page while we are having a lengthy and serious discussion on this page with no clear agreement is not a sign of good faith. Please stop it, or there is no reason to continue to have a serious discussion here.--Cberlet 22:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To continue to have you and your POV gang bully people and not take neutrality concerns seriously shows a much worse type of bad faith on your part, not to mention POV gang propaganda implications.  Please assume good faith that an in good faith neutrality dispute exists. zen master T 01:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let the dispute be conducted on this talk page. You're trying to pre-empt it by editing your POV into the page itself. And stop insulting people; it's getting really tiresome. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really sorry, Zen-master, but I really cannot make sense of your last post. Perhaps you were typing too fast. I was under the impression that discussion on contested text should continue before text is inserted into the main page. I was also under the impression that when an obvious majority held a certain position, that was considered a rough form of consensus. Can you point me to the Wike policy pages on "POV gang propaganda" and "POV gang bully," since I cannot seem to find them. Thanks.--Cberlet 02:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was talking about the methods you and your friends, without any obvious communication amongst yourself, are employing to thwart discussion and defend the status quo.  Why use admin powers to roll back without explanation?  Why cite talk page discussion days after the issue started? "Conspiracy theory" has been shown to be non neutral for months now, if you want to just have tyranny by the majority then at least admit it. You do not appear to be assuming good faith when dealing with this lack of neutrality complaint. zen master T 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are doing is articulating a conspiracy theory about us, but you do not want to call it that?  Why isn't that deceptive?--Cberlet 03:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to avoid the word "conspiracy," Chip. It's a Wikipedia talk page cabal complicity theory. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It hasn't been shown to be non-neutral for months. You lost the poll. And read what you've written because you're right: there is no communication about this issue (that I'm aware of) between the people opposing you, except what you see here. What you're seeing is majority agreement, which has gone against you, and so now you have to explain it away with reference to the very type of conspiracy theories we're discussing. Yet I think you miss the irony of it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A majority vote does not magically make something neutral, though a majority can choose to ignore or misdirect away from neutrality concerns however.  Wikipedia works off of consensus which means you should assume good faith for my and others' lack of presentation neutrality complaint. zen master T 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please show good faith and stop writing text on policy page

message: Replying to this
:I agree with FuelWagon here, "conspiracy theory" violates basic NPOV policy. FW, you mean to say above that the majority's view can be reported as saying that the others' claim is a conspiracy theory? (no one would self label their theory a conspiracy theory, minority or not...). Though, if the majority was really trying to fairly disprove or logically debunk a theory would they really resort to the word "conspiracy theory"?  And doesn't NPOV policy state alternative word choices should be considered when there are neutrality concerns over certain words and phrases?  Why does the majority have to use the exact phrase "conspiracy theory" specifically, if the counter claim of "conspiracy theory" is cited then that is ok, but why not "unfounded" or "non mainstream" or "false" or "self rationalizing theory with no basis in fact"? zen master T 21:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um - ZenMaster...didn't FuelWagon just ask you to not respond in this section?--Cberlet 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So? He thought I disagreed with him but I do not, though I do question his, Slim's and most everyone's rationale. And actually, he didn't ask me specifically not to post there, he seeems to be portraying my posts elsewhere as tangential or he will ignore them or he just wanted to start a new section or maybe I have been offending the propaganda gods or some such. Cberlet, isn't moving someone else's talk page comments super taboo? Please don't do that. Anyway, I look forward to any movement towards increased presentation neutrality, as well as looking forward to reading the debate on the issue in FuelWagon's new NPOV section at the very bottom... zen master T 05:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm--ZenMaster--I did not move your comments, FuelWagon did. You might have checked that before charging me with a WikiCrime, but then that would have required actual research...  --Cberlet 13:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, sorry. Though you seemed to construe an even stronger form of talk page censorship than what fuel stated/asked for but I digress. Anyway, I like how everyone is downplaying the implications and usefulness of "conspiracy theory" but I am enjoying the NPOV debate below so far. When are slim, jay, willmcw, and others going to comment in the section below, they have historically been highly interested in this issue...?  zen master T 15:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Fuel Wagon

message: Here is an example of when not to use the word "conspiracy theory". In the Terri Schiavo artile, there is a section that reports on Carla Iyer's affidavit. Iyer says a number of things about Michael wanting Terri dead, about the hospital staff helping him, about the police ignoring her complaint. She says that they were all working together, the police did nothing, and her boss fired her.  One could argue that her affidavit would qualify as a conspiracy theory. But none of the major people involved in the case use those specific words. The article instead reports: 
::(Judge) Greer wrote that they (Iyer's claims) were "incredible to say the least" and that "Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up". 
An editor should not introduce the term "conspiracy theory" to describe Iyer's affidavit except if it were to report some source's point of view of the affidavit. Calling her affidavit a conspiracy theory would certainly be disputed. Reporting what Judge Greer said is indisputable. FuelWagon 17:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: example of when not to use conspiracy theory

message: The phrase "conspiracy theory" should never be allowed in Wikipedia articles because it is inherently pejorative and no view should be dismissed out of hand.
:I don't think anyone was saying "never" user the phrase conspiracy theory. If so, I missed it. FuelWagon 15:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Against allowing the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia articles

message: The phrase "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia articles should be used with caution. When describing a particular claim, the term should be cited to a reputable published source. It should be avoided when used merely as a perjorative description of a claim. In titles it should be used only when the page text describes specific claims of a conspiracy in which it is asserted that significant events were caused by powerful actors colluding in secret behind the scenes. --Cberlet 15:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with this. And it probably gets under the word limit as well. longer explanation below. FuelWagon 12:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence is worded verbosely and contradicts the previous two sentences: "Its use in titles should be used only when the page text describes specific claims of a conspiracy in which it is asserted that significant events were caused by powerful actors colluding in secret behind the scenes". How does that jive with the requirement that use of the term is cited from a reputable published source? Descriptive use of "conspiracy" is really side B unfairly characterizing side A's allegation in a summary of a debate which shouldn't be allowed for multiple reasons. I like Cberlet's first three sentences otherwise. zen master T 15:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate text proposal 1

message: There is an existing wikipedia policy ("theory" being a word to avoid) that already supports the avoidance of "conspiracy theory".  Though, I am sure the POV gang will disagree but their inconsistencies against wikipedia policy are obvious, "conspiracy theory" apparently has some value left to someone.  If "theory" already should be avoided, and "conspiracy" is less neutral that it, it's rather obvious that the even less neutral than the sum of its parts phrase "conspiracy theory" itself should be avoided too.   zen master T 17:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy theory" already should be avoided because of "theory" 

message: What, specifically, is the downside to, instead of saying definitively that something "is" a conspiracy theory -- saying that X group **holds it to be** a conspiracy theory? Why, if I may ask for specifics, is that a negative? BrandonYusufToropov 14:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, because "conspiracy theory" has the connotation that the theory is crackpot, untrue, to be disbelieved, to not be taken seriously. It is not for wikipedia to make that call. FuelWagon 17:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the three of us are in agreement here that "conspiracy theory" isn't neutral though there may be some confusion.  FW, I interpret BYT to be asking what is wrong with stating exactly who is counter claiming that a theory is a "conspiracy theory"? He's asking the pro "conspiracy theory" side the question. zen master T 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FW, you can strike through your own comments if you've changed your mind, but please don't delete them, or delete zen-master's. I reverted your deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, thank you for your continued presence here. Obviously it would have been a heinous crime to delete my own comment or Zen master's reply to it, especially when it turned out that zen and I were in agreement that my original comment was mistaken. Oh, it is so important to keep that around though, and I rest easy at night knowing that editors such as yourself are on guard for the abuses that would surely occur if an editor were allowed to delete his own post on a talk page. FuelWagon 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we address this directly? 

message: What, specifically, is the downside to, instead of saying definitively that something "is" a conspiracy theory -- saying that X group **holds it to be** a conspiracy theory? Why, if I may ask for specifics, is that a negative? BrandonYusufToropov 14:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no downside, Brandon. Of course those who wish to label certain claims as fact to be "conspiracy theories", rather than rely on the words of notable sources, have not yet given their opinion on the matter.  FuelWagon 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we address this directly? Still unanswered

message: ... (arguments roughly equivalent to:) "the definition you have proposed suggests careful use of the word, rather than complete prohibition of the word in WP articles..."
Friends, this is mystifying to me. Are we also going to remove "cult" from this page because the text advocates careful, limited usage? Specific answers, please. BrandonYusufToropov 18:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did a pretty good job of summarizing my reasoning; I won't presume to speak for anyone else. "Conspiracy theory" is not to be avoided, but instead to be used carefully. Therefore, it is not appropriate to list it on a page titled "Words to avoid". Whether "cult" is listed on this page is a separate discussion. Carbonite | Talk 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's begin that separate discussion now. Do people want to delete cult given what we have apparently decided about conspiracy theory? BrandonYusufToropov 20:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's the right question to ask. It seems to me that everything on this page under the header "Categories" should be better on a separate page, e.g. Wikipedia:Attribute controversial classifications.--Eloquence* 09:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This business about ''conspiracy theory'' not belonging on this page because ... 

message: In the discussion above, Eloquence doesn't like the idea of "Conspiracy Theory" being here because it isn't "to be avoided" and would prefer to simply have "usage notes".  Well, the same is true for many words here, and some we didn't put here.  Maybe we should move this page (or most of it's content) to Wikipedia:Usage notes for words or something like that. DanKeshet 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a very good idea to me. BrandonYusufToropov 21:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably be a more accurate title for the article rather than "Words to avoid". Perhaps we could rename the article "POV phrases and words". "Cult" is a pov term and should only be reported from someone's point of view, rather than calling some group a cult as fact. Or we could rename it "Biased phrases and words". In any event, "conspiracy theory" should only be used in an article as reported from someone's point of view. FuelWagon 03:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "usage notes" 

message: I am interested in hearing what people think about adding just the word "conspiracy" to the words to avoid page?  The word seems fraught with non neutral danger to me. zen master T 21:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make it kind of hard to talk about what Tom DeLay was just indicted for, wouldn't it? --PHenry 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy is a word with a clear descriptive meaning. There's only a problem with it if it's misused, but most words are problematic if misused. Please drop it, Zen-master. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying it should be completely avoided, I support the change of this policy to "words to be careful with". However, when used in a descriptive sense the word "conspiracy" is problematic. If someone is charged with "conspiracy" in a legal context then that is definitely ok to use. But generally I don't think "conspiracy" is neutral in titles, what do others think? zen master T 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been agreed that conspiracy theory is fine in titles, so by implication people seem to feel conspiracy is okay so long as it's used correctly. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, you're the funny one Slim, where did we agree above that it was "ok in titles"? Is it ok if I disagree here while you folks continue running wikipedia? zen master T 04:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, it hasn't been agreed that "conspiracy theory" isn't OK for article titles. -Willmcw 20:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But by what criteria are you arguing it is ok?  We've established the phrase isn't neutral and no one has refuted that evidence/argument (everyone needs to disassociate disagreement from [in this case lack of] refutation). You can certainly disagree and control content all you want but you can't (successfully) argue the phrase is neutral. And now that I think about it, the only thing you can do is just ignore the issue and try to butress the status quo without arguing any details (that only digs the hole deeper), but this issue concerns neutrality which is something that an assuming good faith [or otherwise untainted] editor would take much more seriously than you folks are, in my interpretation. zen master T 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The prime directive of wikipedia is neutrality. I mean't "we" in the sense of all users not committing acts of beffudlement/misdirection and are genuinely interested in working towards consensus. It is highly curiosity inducing that no one is willing to defend wikipedia's honor against charges of lack of neutrality to greater degrees on multiple levels. zen master T 22:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So now you're presuming to speak for all editors everywhere who haven't explicitly weighed in against you? --PHenry 22:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr, no, I am saying the "editors" who have weighed in against me do not assume good faith and they seem to be beholden to a god other than neutrality which gives them away (to paraphrase it in religious terms just for fun). zen master T 22:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We use many potentially non-neutral words in titles. "Black", "yellow", "green", "Nazi", "theory", etc. Have we established that "conspiracy" is anything more than a potentially non-neutral word?  Why treat it differently than "black"? Does this mean that, if we wanted to to, we couldn't have an article on "Tom Delay's conspiracy indictment"? -Willmcw 22:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing "potential" about it, cited allegations from nobel prize winning scientists do not deserve to be titled in a discrediting way to begin with. On another level readers should be allowed to form conclusions after weighing facts themselves, language misuse should not be utilized in an allegedly neutral free as in freedom encyclopedia. Your example is somewhat contrived and I've already stated previously that "conspiracy" in a legal context is ok (it's usually written "criminal conspiracy"). Today I am referring to the generic "conspiracy theory" plus "conspiracy" issues and everything and the methods employed by "conspiracy theory's" defenders. The key question is why do we have to use exactly the word "conspiracy" and/or the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the controversial places they are curently being used? zen master T 22:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We are mostly in agreement here FW. While "conspiracy" is much less a problem than "conspiracy theory" it does not pass the pristine clarity/neutrality test in some situations. zen master T 18:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy" is also a word to avoid? 

message: *A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. 
::::--Winston Churchill
Clearly, Churchill was an agent of the Fabian Society, and George Bernard Shaw was his control agent. Therefore, since this is a conspiracy theory, the word fanatic should be avoided.--Cberlet 01:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, cited quotations are ok. Descriptively, fanatic is a word we should be careful with, but not necessarily avoid. zen master T 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fanatic is a word to avoid

message: ... and the one I am trying to focus on, Chip, is that there seem to be divergent answers to this question:
* Does a word or phrase requiring careful thought concerning its use, rather than complete prohibition of the term or omission of the term in the vast majority of cases, belong on Wikipedia:Words to avoid?
We seem to be sending mixed signals on this. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 15:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this goes to the heart of the issue--which in my mind is the inability to see nuance, ambiguity, or shades of gray. Clearly, from the context of the entire page, the title should be "Words to avoid...unless you can justify as follows." I would argue that 99% of Wiki editors understand this implicitly. Most editors can live with ambiguity.--Cberlet 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you live with a lack of neutrality?  What if the prescriptive diagnosis is wrong? zen master T 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: To clarify, the section titled "categories" could be renamed something like "POV terms", with a one-sentence instruction added to say "The following terms should be used in an article only from the point of view of some outside source: Cult, Terrorist, Hard/Far, Conspiracy theory, etc. The point is not to not use the word, the point is to get these are perjorative labels and should be used only when reporting that "so-and-so called blah a cult" or "so-and-so considers blah to be an unfounded conspiracy theory". I don't think anyone is suggesting that the phrase can never be used in an article. I haven't. And I've pointed out the Elders of Zion article as a good example of how to use the phrase. FuelWagon 17:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A larger issue... 

message: "Conspiracy theory is a label for a tangible category of narratives (with woolly edges, like any category). Any neutral researcher who made it their business to organize narratives into categories could and indeed should use Conspiracy theory as a label for certain kinds of narrative." Ah, I think this is part of the problem. A "neutral" scientist could investigate some claim of perpetual motion machine or some claim of "Intelligent Design" and place the claim into the category of "pseudoscience". It is not NPOV to ahve the article then state that "Intelligent Design" is pseudoscience. You must report that "So-and-so states that ID is pseudoscience". This is just another version of the "definition point of view" applied from the false premise that there is such a thing as a "neutral" researcher whose word we can take to be neutral and report his findings as fact. There is no such person. You cannot report that ID is pseudoscience because the proponents of ID dispute that label. Because it is disputed by the proponents, it is a label that must be attributed to some source. "NAS calls ID pseudoscience". The same approach applies to "conspiracy theory". there is no "neutral researcher" whose opinion establishes what wikipedia can report as a "conspiracy theory" and what is not. If the proponents of some claim dispute the label "conspiracy theory" to their claim, then you cannot use that label without attributing it to some source: "So-and-so calls blah a conspiracy theory". This is nothing but NPOV policy. FuelWagon 22:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I see no response here or in Zen-master's argument to my suggestion that the category, like other categories of narratives, is defined by a list of features which a narrative either exhibits, or doesn't, regardless of who is observing its narrative structure. Until someone can explain why such structural features are themselves to be made a matter of opinion, the task of matching a particular narrative with the category is a technical one, not partisan. This is what enables sociology to investigate conspiracy theories as a 'natural kind' and to make scientific observations about the processes which drive them. Adhib 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, go over to the intelligent design article and insert the phrase "ID is pseudoscience" and in your edit summary put "because neutral scientists say so". You can only pull this off if you can sufficiently kid yourself that there is some truly "neutral" outside source that can be used to reliably establish fact. For wikipedia, there is none. All are points of views. On the Terri Schiavo article, there are the pov of Terri's husband, Terri's parents that are incomplete opposition. The courts sided with her husband in almost every case. However, even the court must be treated as a point of view, reported like all the others. We cannot say "the court ruled blah, and therefore we can say blah in the article as a fact". And as for your "technical" task of matching a narrative with a category, that ignores the perjorative connotation of teh category and it ignores whether the source of teh narative disputes the application of the category. If they dispute, the category can only be reported as someone's point of view, not as fact. This is NPOV policy. There is no neutral source that establishes facts for wikipedia. And wikpedia editors cannot match a category with a narative if the source of the narative disputes the category. Many of the URL's above show that dispute is pretty much the default. FuelWagon 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, a wikipedia article can report that "Doctor Alice diagnosed Bob as paranoid delusional", but that's a sourced point of view. If Bob disputes the diagnosis, then wikipedia cannot simply state as fact "Bob was paranoid dellusional". Again, you appeal to the ideas that there is some person you can appeal to who is "reasonably sound and scientific", when no such person exists in reality. Wikipedia cannot decide that Alice is neutral if Bob disputes her diagnosis of him. This has been the center of the NPOV battle in the Terri Schiavo case. The diagnosis for Terri was something like 7 neurologists saying she was PVS and 1 neurologist and 1 radiologist saying she was minimally conscious. How would you pick which doctor was the one who was "reasonably sound and scientific" so that wikipedia could report Terri's medical condition as fact? It is impossible. FuelWagon 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, FW's argument tips us over into the impossibility of making any authoritative statements whatsoever, since there is no single or collective authority from which to draw such certainties. If you really believed such a thing, you'd battle out arguments on Usenet, not attempt to write your own prejudices into an encyclopedia. As a starting point, it's anti-encyclopaedic. Adhib 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying NPOV policy is an impossibility? If Alice calls Bob a nerfherder, and Bob disputes it, then we must report Alices point of view and Bob's point of view. If the people involved dispute the label, wikipedia cannot decide whether Bob is or is not a nerfherder. Please read up on NPOV policy. This isn't about making wikipedia a battleground, its about reporting the undisputed facts, and if "nerfherder" is disputed, then the undisputed facts we can report is that Alice said Bob is a nerfherder and Bob denies the label. For wikipedia to come out and say "Bob is a nerfherder" is what would really make wikipedia a battleground. Those who oppose this can be seen to have an investment in attaching their labels to something that is actually disputed to deserve the label. A claim cannot be labeled a conspiracy theory on wikipedia if the people making the claim dispute the label. It's that simple. Anything else is pushing Alice's POV over Bob's. FuelWagon 16:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh really? Take the word "nerfherder" and replace it with "cult" or "extremist" or similar perjorative labels. You talk as if "conspiracy theory" has nothing but a purely objective, measurable, definition, like anything between 5 and 10 pounds can be called "conspiracy theory". But the problem is that "conspiracy theory" isn't purely objective. It is a subjective term. And it has a perjorative connotation that means "what you're about to read is untrue". You are ignoring NPOV policy. If Bob disputes the label, you cannot report the label as fact. You can try and argue that the label is objective, but you ignore the perjorative meaning and you ignore the subjective interpretation required to apply the label. FuelWagon 04:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A truly neutral scientific method adhering person/encyclopedia would leave open the possibility their counter POV was incorrect. Science basically just tries to make do with the best available information, not assuming anything in any direction, "conspiracy theory" is a complete anti-thesis of that mantra. At a very basis level we have to neutrally describe what someone's cited theory is before we move on to the (hopefully) factual and logical conclusion determining process. We don't have to fix "conspiracy theory" overnight as long as there is a plan for you to wean yourselves off of it. zen master T 16:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed association with the narrative itself (separate from whether a conspiracy is literaly alleged) is what makes "conspiray theory" non neutral at a categorization level. If it is disputed whether a theory should be in category X wikipedia has to mention it as coming from someone's POV with a citation. But I repeat, a neutral researcher would not try to discourage an objective analysis of a subject which is what "conspiracy theory" does. zen master T 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear to me I've brought neither of you any closer to accepting that there might be regular features of narrative structure which are characteristic of conspiracy theories and not characteristic of other classes or types of narrative. Since every objection to my argument that has been raised here now hinges on that issue, I propose we move all further debate across to the Conspiracy theory talk page, where such debate would be most useful. Adhib 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That isn't the issue, the issue is how we describe critical allegations. If someone has a cited theory that a particular duck may be a swan you are effectively arguing we should call it the illegitimately biasing "duck swan false theory". zen master T 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Pointing out that a theory literally alleges a conspiracy is insufficient evidence that the "narrative" is applicable to it. zen master T 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. There is an entire list of structural features involved, as I have attempted to draw your attention to repeatedly above. Please refer to the talk page. Adhib 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To remain neutral and untainted you can't use unnecessary and confusingly literal language to list the "structural features" involved. zen master T 16:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: no neutral researcher

message: I think this section would be better placed under section Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Subtly advancing certain points of view and the examples of Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances should also be moved there  - and in the NPOV tutorial, this whole article should be linked to NPOV tutorial#Neutral Language --Irmgard 09:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim 

message: Many thanks for Jmabel's input. This is, I think, closer to the discussion we have been proposing: BrandonYusufToropov 10:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this section for voting? Why the weasel phrase "some people perceive"? We/I are most certainly arguing that the phrase "is pejorative" dontcha think? We should also establish some degree of unscientific tainting for counter criticisms that resort to "conspiracy theory", only duplicitous people would use unnecessarily duplicitous language. zen master T 15:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If your argument is "some people refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong" then you should state it exactly like that, ambiguously confusing and tricky language have no place in an allegedly neutral and scientific method adhering encyclopedia, the goal should be to unsheepify the masses, not to perpetuate the cycle of confusion.  The best way, long term, to convince people they are wrong is to adhere to the scientific method and neutrality, using "conspiracy theory" taints everything. Perhaps you should start a wikipsychology.org site because your (potentially fabricated) prescriptive motivation is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. zen master T 19:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is not that some people refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong: it is that some people refuse to accept that their beliefs are rightly categorized as conspiracy theories. Adhib 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, you have to have a logical/factual argument for why someone's beliefs are wrong, plus evidence they are refusing to accept it, it is wrong to start your argument with misdirection. "Conspiracy theory" may control behavior, but it most certainly doesn't free minds. zen master T 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Freeing minds'? Is this the positive principle behind your case? Can you explain what you mean by it? Adhib 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Within Slim et al's claimed prescriptive motivation for "conspiracy theory" nothing mental/astract is actually being cured or fixed, only behavior possibly being temporarily controlled. And it may perpetuate the cycle of illogical behavior because in tricking the mind you may decrease the chances someone will use their mind the next time (to put it simply). So this is either a fabricated altruistic motivation for disinfo purposes or the people supporting it are misguided. If your altruistic goal is to truly help people then at some point you have to give them some of the same tools to help themselves. As a side comment I hazard a guess that it would be accurate to rename "mind control" to "mind lobotomization equals behavior control". zen master T 17:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll take that as a 'no', then. Adhib 15:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to the claimed prescriptive motivation it is actually a yes, though my point was that the prescriptive motivation is causing more harm than good. And it is just way too easy to "debunk" the truth with "conspiracy theory", everyone's silence on this point is very telling. zen master T 17:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: While 'conspiracy theory' can be misused, whether or not it is misused can only be seen from within its context. Guidance already exists to write from a neutral point of view; Existing guidance is enough to ensure that 'conspiracy theory' is used correctly, as it is most places it appears in Wikipedia. Any disagreements about use should be resolved in the context where the words occur, through the normal give and take of discussion. Tom harrison 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a theory is dubious and/or discredited it still should not be presented with "conspiracy theory" in its title.  The true and constant misuse is any unscientific method of presentation. zen master T 17:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This would sum it up. Most of the people dispute that their claim is a "conspiracy theory", and specifically avoid using that phrase to describe their claims. That they dispute the label and that the label has perjorative meaning requires that the label "conspiracy theory" be attributed to sources. FuelWagon 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of this section insufficiently explains the "conspiracy theory" issue, "because it is perceived by many people" is weasel wordy and downplays the issue. Also, we still need to establish some degree of tainting for counter criticisms that use duplicitous/needlessly ambiguous/presumption inducing language such as "conspiracy theory". zen master T 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Summary (thanks Jmabel) 

message: The phrase conspiracy theory should be allowed without attribution to specific groups in Wikipedia articles, despite the fact that some people would erroneously refuse to accept that their beliefs are correctly so described.
:If your argument is "some people refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong" then you should state it exactly like that, ambiguously confusing and tricky language have no place in an allegedly neutral and scientific method adhering encyclopedia, the goal should be to unsheepify the masses, not to perpetuate the cycle of confusion.  The best way, long term, to convince people they are wrong is to adhere to the scientific method and neutrality, using "conspiracy theory" taints everything. Perhaps you should start a wikipsychology.org site because your (potentially fabricated) prescriptive motivation is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. zen master T 19:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument is not that some people refuse to accept that their beliefs are wrong: it is that some people refuse to accept that their beliefs are rightly categorized as conspiracy theories. Adhib 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, you have to have a logical/factual argument for why someone's beliefs are wrong, plus evidence they are refusing to accept it, it is wrong to start your argument with misdirection. "Conspiracy theory" may control behavior, but it most certainly doesn't free minds. zen master T 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Freeing minds'? Is this the positive principle behind your case? Can you explain what you mean by it? Adhib 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Within Slim et al's claimed prescriptive motivation for "conspiracy theory" nothing mental/astract is actually being cured or fixed, only behavior possibly being temporarily controlled. And it may perpetuate the cycle of illogical behavior because in tricking the mind you may decrease the chances someone will use their mind the next time (to put it simply). So this is either a fabricated altruistic motivation for disinfo purposes or the people supporting it are misguided. If your altruistic goal is to truly help people then at some point you have to give them some of the same tools to help themselves. As a side comment I hazard a guess that it would be accurate to rename "mind control" to "mind lobotomization equals behavior control". zen master T 17:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll take that as a 'no', then. Adhib 15:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to the claimed prescriptive motivation it is actually a yes, though my point was that the prescriptive motivation is causing more harm than good. And it is just way too easy to "debunk" the truth with "conspiracy theory", everyone's silence on this point is very telling. zen master T 17:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: While 'conspiracy theory' can be misused, whether or not it is misused can only be seen from within its context. Guidance already exists to write from a neutral point of view; Existing guidance is enough to ensure that 'conspiracy theory' is used correctly, as it is most places it appears in Wikipedia. Any disagreements about use should be resolved in the context where the words occur, through the normal give and take of discussion. Tom harrison 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if a theory is dubious and/or discredited it still should not be presented with "conspiracy theory" in its title.  The true and constant misuse is any unscientific method of presentation. zen master T 17:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For allowing the use of the phrase ''conspiracy theory'' in Wikipedia articles ''without'' attribution

message: The phrase "conspiracy theory" should be allowed in Wikipedia articles, but because it is perceived by many people as inherently pejorative, it should specify what group or individual considers Theory X to be a conspiracy theory.
:This would sum it up. Most of the people dispute that their claim is a "conspiracy theory", and specifically avoid using that phrase to describe their claims. That they dispute the label and that the label has perjorative meaning requires that the label "conspiracy theory" be attributed to sources. FuelWagon 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of this section insufficiently explains the "conspiracy theory" issue, "because it is perceived by many people" is weasel wordy and downplays the issue. Also, we still need to establish some degree of tainting for counter criticisms that use duplicitous/needlessly ambiguous/presumption inducing language such as "conspiracy theory". zen master T 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For allowing the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia articles ''with'' attribution

message: "Linked" is often used to describe terrorist groups, e.g. "the al-Qaeda-linked Jama'at Islamiya", but it is ambiguous and may hide lack of information. Describing two phenomena or entities as "linked" unnecessarily obfuscates their relationship - if more information is available, the relationship should be clearly spelled out; if information is tenuous this should also be made clear. "Linked" may describe a broad range of relationships between two groups, and therefore may make that relationship seem unrealistically strong.
Might there be some circumstances where space considerations mean that it's better to just say linked? For example, an article on a terrorist attack attributed to JI might mention that JI is linked to al Qaeda, but if a reader wishes to find out about the nature of the links, they should read the entry on JI itself? Andjam 15:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked