Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 7

message: The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.
The reason the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is logically self-contradictory is because everyone with an I.Q. high enough to tie their shoes is a believer in conspiracies. Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.
Thus, those making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" are also believers and/or promulgators of notions regarding conspiracies--often far more so than the person being accused as being a "conspiracy theorist."
A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate a plan which involves doing something untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component of conspiracy).
It certainly says something regarding the intellectual blinders one making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is wearing that they don't even stop to realize the logically self-contradictory nature of this charge, as going by the literal meaning of the two words in the phrase "conspiracy theorist." For the one making this charge is himself a believer in conspiracies.
And so it is here where we come to the real meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" as it is used by those making the charge. What they mean by this charge is that the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which have not been offically sanctioned by the accuser's government--whereas the accuser making this charge believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which his government has deemed appropriate for the public to believe in. The difference between the two is that the accuser believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are statist in their implications, in that they merely reiterate the offical government line--whereas the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are anti-statist in their implications, in that they go against what the accuser's government would have the public believe.
Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so? 209.208.77.208 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations 

message: The following passage is not accurate: "The believer [in a conspiracy theory] is then excused any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance." This totally disregards the social justice movements that are often strongly linked with and based on conspiracy theories. It is totally inaccurate to accuse conspiracy theorists of excusing themselves from moral political action when, for example, the 9/11 Truth Movement actively seeks to identify, expose and bring to justice those who they believe perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. These are not lunatics huddling in a smoke-filled basement afraid of the outside world; they are actually doing everything in their power to reverse the perceived injustice of 9/11 as they see it. -- James
:It's an accurate account of some academic work, which I will provide reference for as soon as I have time to go back to notes. The basic thesis is that, having explained a complex phenomenon as orchestrated by baddies, all one has to do is to convince people that those baddies are baddies, and bingo, the crisis is solved (whereas, of course, if those complex phenomena are due to complex causes, working out and applying the necessary complex solution requires a much more serious and committed engagement with politics in general). Adhib 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (For the time being, I have incorporated James's point into that paragraph). Adhib 09:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "baddies" such as al-Qaeda? It's good that you're taking this critical view of the U.S. government's promulgation of conspiracy theories. But to add to James' above point--and this is also from an academic--as Prof. Murray N. Rothbard wrote: "It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any 'conspiracy theory of history'; for a search for 'conspiracies' means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane 'social forces,' or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ('We Are All Murderers,' proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on 'conspiracy theories' means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the 'general welfare' reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A 'conspiracy theory' can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda." (From the article "The Anatomy of the State" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24.)209.208.77.74 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Murray sounds like just the kind of guy who should be quoted in the controversies section and referenced in the article's notes - care to put him there? Adhib 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Socio-political origins section

message: That antisemitism article from the 1911 Britannica seems interesting, but it's horribly garbled. Does anyone have a "clean" version of it? Bastie 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica 1(911!) 

message: It seems to me that another feature of a CT is that it never gets any closer to being proven.  They can go for decades and never amass any evidence in their favor.  Bubba73 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other features 

message: I think my intro sufficiently disassociates between allegations and the genre (though the entire article still needs work), what are Tom's "redundancy" reasons for reverting my changes?  Do you acknowledge the need to disassociate between a specific allegation and the dubious genre? zen master T 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundancy vs need to disassociate between allegation and "genre" 

message: That's an enormous number of quotes. Should those go in Wikiquote, or should they be pruned back? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the quotes - and "ameliorated" some text. Massive POV selection of quotes not appropriate for this page.  Feel free to create a page Quotes selected by those favoring a conspiracy theory of history. --Cberlet 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anonymous poster, please join us on the discussion page. Most of the quotes you post do not appear to have anything to do with the topic of this page. Your editing appears to be highly POV. Please discuss here.--Cberlet 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have reported User:209.208.77.224 for violating the three-revert rule Tom Harrison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: To anyone who might be following the discussion, let me say that things like the recent attack on the page accomplish nothing. They divert people's time away from actually working on articles, and they poison the atmosphere. Surely we would all rather spend our time in some other way. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of quotes 

message: :::I've removed Jeremiah Duggan from the list of celebrity deaths, because I don't think the circumstances surrounding his death amount to a conspiracy theory. The German police believe he killed himself and have investigated no further. His mother, backed by the British government, wants the Germans to investigate further because she believes he was distraught when he died after the LaRouche movement tried to recruit him. It's not clear where the conspiracy theory lies in any of this. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the circumstances around his death that make it a conspiracy theory -- conspiracy theories are subjective, in the eye of the beholder. The simple fact is that, like the death of Vince Foster, there have not been and will never be criminal charges filed, but the allegations of foul play are made through the press and the internet, for political reasons. "A conspiracy theory is a type of argument suggesting alternative explanation, hidden information, secret coordination and sinister motive behind what is commonly considered a straightforward historic or current event."--HK 15:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duggan

message: It has been asserted here in several places that the only people who use the term "conspiracy theory" are those who want to discredit the beliefs of others.  This is just not the case.  In looking through Google, I have found countless examples of self-styled "conspiracy theory" websites written by and for people who are fans of conspiracy theories. People who think that conspiracy theories are stupid might use the term pejoratively but that doesn't make it a pejorative term.  (By the way, a "term" can be either a single word or a group of words.  See Wiktionary.) –Shoaler (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, well made, Shoaler. Hence my insistence on what might appear to be weasel words in the introduction, to dilute any claim that use of the term proves pejorative intent - it ain't so. You might equally raise the academic usage of the term, which has puposes completely divorced from settling the validity of particular stories, either way. Adhib 22:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But I don't want to say "theory X is dubious because it looks like a conspiracy theory."  I don't want to classify theories at all.  I just want to report how the term "conspiracy theory" is most commonly being used and give examples of theories which are being called conspiracy theories.  I do not presume to decide, from the definition of "conspiracy theory", whether any particular theory is itself a conspiracy theory.  That would be original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. –Shoaler (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since "conspiracy theory" does classify things do you consider it inappropriate in article titles?  See Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 15:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  A conspiracy theory does not classify things.  Some people may try to classify explanations for events by saying that one or more are "conspiracy theories" but such categorization does not belong in an NPOV article.  The article may report that certain explanations are widely considered conspiracy theories (if it can back it up with references) but not assert that itself. –Shoaler (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So not appropriate in titles at all? In my interpretation the phrase "conspiracy theory" is tainted and non neutral beyond any hope of repair. In any descriptive context where it is used to present a subject (whether from purported proponents or subtle detractors) it is unscientific and biasing. zen master T 17:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I meant just the opposite.  I consider "conspiracy theory" appropriate in titles.  I do not view it as tainted and hopelessly POV.  Only when it is used to present a subject would I agree with you.  I would not say "x is a conspiracy theory" because whether something is considered a conspiracy theory or not is a matter of opinion. –Shoaler (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How is use in a title not presentation? If it's a matter of opinion how is opinion appropriate in titles? In the best case "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous language and an encyclopedia should avoid ambiguous language (worst case it is extremely tainting language). zen master T 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really a Zen Master? –Shoaler (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More of a zen journeyman actually. What does that have to do with "conspiracy theory" being unscientifically biasing in descriptive contexts? zen master T 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, really.  Just curious.  Look, I don't think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds on this thing.  We don't seem to use English in the same way.  It's been interesting, though. –Shoaler (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please compare and contrast exactly how we are using english differently rather than just ending with rhetoric. "Conspiracy theory" is confusing language that discourages an objective analysis, descriptive use of it does not belong in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. This is basic NPOV policy here, we are required to cite exactly who is counter claiming a theory is dubious. zen master T 20:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Huh? You actually need to come up with an argument in favor of "conspiracy theory" being neutral (good luck). zen master T 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip, but I think I'm done for now, thanks. Adhib 19:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory as a pejorative term 

message: Should wikipedia article titles take a chance at being pejorative?  Why not use unambiguous language instead of taking a chance of being pejorative? zen-master User talk:Zen-master 16:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question. I wonder if anyone here wants to address this. BrandonYusufToropov 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking if conspiracy theory is appropriate for use in article titles? Tom Harrison (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, various discussions on that migrated here, changes were made to the article that seemingly downplayed the obviousness of the phrases unscientific usage. So is anyone here interested in discussing this? zen master T 16:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Title Neutrality for version 2.0 of the remove "conspiracy theory" from titles proposal. zen master T 18:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy was proposed and rejected; see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2. Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence "Proposal 2.0". zen master T 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conspiracy theory" have become a pejorative term. "Alternative theories" is neutral. "Allegations of conspiracies" is in between. --Striver 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Striver. zen master T 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: You may not have noticed Willmcw but discussion elsewhere on the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in titles moved here, this is actually one of the best centrally located places to discuss this issue. Read the talk page sections above too. zen master T 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: He's starting this up again??  This has been discussed, voted on, decided. The use of "conspiracy theory" is acceptable, and this page is for discussion of the article only. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, numerous editors on other article talk pages disagree with you, the discussion was intentionally moved here, but we can move it to Wikipedia:Title Neutrality perhaps. I think we need more and new people involved in version 2.0 of the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in titles proposal, though if the pro "conspiracy theory" in title folks have nothing new to add there won't be much discussion there, so perhaps discussion here is good, or anywhere. zen master T 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of ''Conspiracy theory'' in Wikipedia article titles

message: Are there any guidelines for using the Totally Disputed template? Tom Harrison (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There really aren't any formal guidelines for the tag, but I'd agree with letting it remain for a short period of time to give zen-master or others a chance to explain why the article is totally disputed. Specific phrases or sentences would be ideal. Carbonite | Talk 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you arguing {npov} would be better in some way? I could support changing it to {npov}, though {totallydisputed} is a superset of {npov} and the factual accuracy is disputed template which I actually think is appropriate for this article. How can we work toward resolving this dispute? I think we may need to go through a diff between an early October version of this article and current line by line. zen master T 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: {NPOV} might be justified had Zen-m been able to present his perspective as anything more substantial than his own perspective. NPOV policy specifies that NPOV must not be abused by cranks to claim undue weight for their barmy notions. The 'pedia's founder goes as far as to state: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Zen-m may kvetch against this settled principle till the cows come home, but needs to offer clear reasons if he seeks to overturn it. Adhib 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again Adhib you've gone misdirected way from the key criteria, seems like disinformation tactics in my interpretation. The issue is not notability of the alternative theories, the issue is whether the alternative theories are given a fair presentation or not. I agree these alternative theories are non-mainstream and should be presented as such, however, utilizing "conspiracy theory" taints even understanding the details of these alternative theories which is a no-no in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia and is at odds with the scientific method. We need to disassociate discrediting from description. zen master T 22:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you get to define the issue, here, Zen-m? On what authority? Where are the cites, the peer-reviewed studies, the statistics to back up your personal viewpoint? All I'm pointing out here is that your arguments are your arguments. Show us who else argues them and you've proved that you're not alone. Better yet, show us that some people with relevant analytical credentials agree with you, and you've gone some ways towards making your viewpoint credible enough to deserve inclusion in a 'pedia. Adhib 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An allegedly neutral encyclopedia defines the issue as one of neutrality. You don't need citations to see that "conspiracy theory" obviously presents subjects unscientifically. zen master T 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need citations if you want to keep the totally-disputed tag. To retain this there has to be more to it than 'Zen-master disagrees.' Tom Harrison (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has justified the circa October 15th massive changes. No one has acknowledged the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title debate as it moved here from other talk page locations. I have listed numerous points of criticism against "conspiracy theory" that no one has responded to directly, you can be the first. zen master T 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you took the time to checkout the talk and article histories you will see I've been trying to salvage the mid October changes toward NPOV for a couple of weeks now, to little avail. The discussion and article have reached an impasse, a disputed header is perfectly appropriate. zen master T 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only impasse I see here is in Zen-m's capacity or willingness to improve his case. Let him give us cites for the various points he upholds against the article, as a search on my sig will reveal I have requesting (above) for several days. Then a healthy debate can progress. Adhib 21:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The key criteria is why use biasing language when neutral and unambiguous alternatives exist? I agree that most alternative theories should be presented as a non-mainstream view, however, that does not justify ridicule or tainting the understanding of the alternative theories (nothing does in a scientific or an allegedly neutral encyclopedic context). zen master T 22:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If all you've got is this thoroughly explored (and, according to consensus, losing) argument, then by all means stick to it, for the edification of passers-by. But if you have cites and supporting evidence, let's see 'em. Adhib 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not consensus, that was a majority imposing its will for a duplicitous purpose. Why utilize what is at best an ambiguous method of presentation? zen master T 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: By using the word duplicitous, do you mean to suggest that I have some kind of malign ulterior motive? That I and others are conspiring to do something wicked? Am I misunderstanding you? Tom Harrison (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all about language and word choices giving away true motivation, why use what is at best ambiguous language (and is at worst pscyhologically tricky POV pushing) when clear unambiguous alternatives exist? A neutral person or true scientist would not use such language. There has to be a reason why you and your highly coordinated gang so feverently defend the exact phrase "conspiracy theory", the answer is it has to be exactly the to be effective (to discourage an objective analysis, if you said "dubioud theory" that would obviously be POV but "conspiracy theory" is subtle at operates at the level of literal language confusion). The phrase's neutrality violation goes against basic NPOV policy, other editors have even pointed that out (but then they moved on apparently). Maybe it's time to start posting on numerous people's talk pages and see what happens. zen master T 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the heads-up, J - if we reach 100, I may review my tactics!  Adhib 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm does not become highly coordinated POV pushers. zen master T 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If the proponents of "conspiracy theory" refuse to debate then remain the tag shall. zen master T 07:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we vote on it?  -Willmcw 07:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, where in the NPOV policy is a mere POV gang majority sufficient criteria for removing a neutrality dispute header placed there in good faith? zen master T 07:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is funny that the NPOV policy makes no reference to "POV gangs". But if consensus is difficult to gauge then a survey or straw poll is called for.Wikipedia:Resolving disputes The consensus seems to be to remove the POV tag. If you doubt that then we should have a straw poll. -Willmcw 10:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria for the NPOV policy is not majority, it is whether an in good faith dispute exists. zen master T 16:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's clear to me that an in-good-faith dispute does not exist. Tom Harrison (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ignore the other side in the debate I can see how it might be easy and soothing for you to think that. zen master T 16:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only active dispute I see on this page is whether to remove the tag. -Willmcw 17:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate is inactive apparently because the POV bot gang has the status quo they like. Whenever you want to start debating the issue let me know. zen master T 17:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The POV tag is for active disputes only. Since there is no active dispute, the tag should come down. The supposition that there would be a dispute if you could find somebody to argue with you is not sufficient. -Willmcw 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, if there is a dispute over whether the dispute is active then clearly there is a dispute. Also note proponents of "conspiracy theory" (aka propagandists) have so far refused to debate. zen master T 01:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Refused to debate"? How many debates have you gotten into already, across how many pages, regarding the term "conspiracy theory"? It seems like every time the editors of one page form a consensus you move to a new page and start it up all over again. It is hard to regard your efforts as being in good faith when you appear more concerned with debating than with editing.  -Willmcw 04:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proponents of "conspiracy theory" have yet to come up with an argument that successfully defends the phrase from a charge of non neutral presentation, all we have going on here is a popularity contest (mis)framed by a highly coordinated group of editors (disinformation artists perhaps?). It is ok that you choose not to debate, however, such a situation is insufficient evidence that a dispute doesn't exist. zen master T 07:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Right.  That's why the tag will have to go soon.  We've been through this "holding articles hostage with a NPOV tag" before, it's not acceptable. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed? 

message: Here's one possible source of the ongoing controversy: belief in "grand conspiracies" as opposed to belief in common conspiracies.  Grand conspiracies are extremely rare because they must involve large numbers of people and astronomical security measures in order to preserve secrecy (both of which must be driven by powerful organizers with major interest in the success of the conspiracy, and both of which take significant resources to accomplish.)
For example, if the government is out to get you, and your neighbors and the local police are in on the plot, and the CIA is reading your mind with satellite technology, :) that is a grand conspiracy.  Obviously the belief in grand conspiracies is one symptom of paranoid delusion.  Yet even though rare, grand conspiracies are possible.  The Manhattan project (secret US atomic bomb org.) is one example of a genuine grand conspiracy.
"Conspiracy theorist" is used as a perjorative because it's referring to belief in Grand Conspiracies rather than to conspiracies.  When used in this way, conspiracy theorist does not mean "believes in conspiracies."   Instead we take it to mean "suffers paranoid delusions."--Wjbeaty 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that ignores the last ten years of scholarly work on conspiracy theory as a sociological worldview by academics such as Barkun, Fenster, and Goldberg. Nice try.--Cberlet 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Wjbeaty, please provide some recent published cites to your claims about clinical paranoia?  Some cites exist for isolated individuals, but when it becomes a sociological trope, it is not the aggregate of mentally ill persons.--Cberlet 04:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John George and Laird Wilcox look at extremists as persons psychologically prone to extremism, regardless of political affiliation (American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1996: supra note 30, at 66.32. Id. at 54).  The Public Eye maintains for sale a document purporting to show that the Reagan Administration was infiltrated by Nazis.  The publication, Old Nazis, the New Right and the Reagan Administration is listed for sale on their website .  As George & Wilcox demonstrate, this extreme anti-governement conspiracism is strangely reminiscent of Timothy McVeigh.  nobs 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple definitions of the term "conspiracy"

message: Anyone here read German? The German Conspiracy Theory page (which had featured article status) looks like it has some useful academic references (Hofstadter? Zizek?). I ran Google's translator over the page, but it only handles the first few pars, and the translation is, um, unsympathetic. I'd like to salvage the best references from that article, at least. Adhib 23:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German sister article 

message: Just so this isn't lost by the two suspiciously tangential talk page sections added just above this one, here is a minor sample of the current NPOV dispute over this article. In my interpretation, the early October version of this article was rewritten with a load of weasle words which downplay criticm of the phrase's usage, and subtly play up the dubious narrative genre. More mention of the possibility that the narrative genre is disinformation is needed. The article should be explicitly clear that labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt at dubiousness through association with the narrative genre. Also, "generally and "commonly considered" in the intro are incomplete and need to be fixed for NPOV. The new version of the article seems to be saying a lot less than the old version, we should go through the diff line by line. Did someone ever justify those massive changes? Though some of them were good. zen master T 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but since you haven't come up with new arguments, and since no-one else agrees with you, the tag will have to go pretty soon.  Also, just at the intro is reaching consensus, please don't completely re-write it to fill it with original research which essentially mirrors your POV that the term is "controversial", used "inappropriately", etc. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can remove the tag as long as the article contains phrases like "dubious narrative genre."  Whether something is dubious or not is strictly POV. –Shoaler (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly does it mean to say that something is a "dubious narrative genre?" What's dubious about it? Tom Harrison (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually something Zen-master keeps adding. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from Slim's argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, if you consider it unclear perhaps you should rethink the way you voted there or ask Slim to make sense out of apparent disinformation. The way "conspiracy theory" discredits is it implies dubiousness through implied association (or through literal language recursive definition confusion) with the highly dubious "conspiracy theory" narrative genre. If you are now claiming the narrative genre isn't dubious I will laugh. zen master T 06:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: Zm, I reverted your edits because they made the intro POV; for example, by adding "controversially." Also, the sentence "Additionally, within popular culture 'conspiracy theory' is separately a dubious narrative genre" is odd writing, and it's not clear what a "dubious narrative genre" is. The intro is better as it is, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Controversially" is a perfectly acceptable word when describing the usage of "conspiracy theory". To put things simply, anyone using "conspiracy theory" in a scientific or encyclopedic context is trying to trick people, not trying to advance science neutrally. Funny you should say it's "not clear what a dubious narrative genre is" since that was your argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Another thing I find funny is this unclear dubious narrative genre can somehow be used to defend a phrase from a charge of non neutral presentation. In my opinion we should completely rewrite "narrative genre" but since your argument passed (for now) over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory we are stuck with it, sorry. zen master T 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted 

message: Ok, as a newcomer on this page, it looks particularly POV to have a long story about the popular negative "genre" interpretation (almost a conspiracy itself) of "conspiracy theory". However, further on there seems to be a rather general, balanced view, in paragraph 4. Have you discussed changing the sequence to elaborate on the more general, face-value meaning and only thereafter the "genre" meaning (with "genre" added in the title)? Morover, there can be little doubt that in a discussion where the label is used in a degrading way, "those using the term are manipulating their audience to disregard the topic under discussion". To label such an obviously correct conclusion also "conspiracy theory" looks like a strawman tactic to me, and I therefore think that it should be reformulated. - Harald88
:At one point in the past I suggested we have two articles to sufficiently disambig the concepts, say Conspiracy theory  (allegation) and Conspiracy theory (genre) or some such, but I suppose we can try to just make that distinction  clear within one article.  I think the current definition of the argument type is more than a little too evocative of the dubious genre (using words like "secret" and "sinister" which I changed to "nefarious" etc). And we also should explicitly note the usage of the phrase is controversial. Basically, in my interpretation the intro, like the rest of the article as new guy points out, still doesn't sufficiently disambig/disassociate between the two concepts (perhaps because they are hopelessly intertwined [that means the phrase is even less neutral/more tainting]). The problem is at a literal language definition level any theory that alleges a conspiracy is technically a "conspiracy theory". zen master T 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  to see an example of my proposal to put paragraph 4 up-front: Creationism. First they give the technical, non-restrictive definition, and only next they give the special meaning that it has for many. Harald88 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The present version of the page is the result of extensive discussion and careful development, which is documented on this talk page and in its archives. I would oppose any large-scale rewrites at this time. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As here I proposed no large scale rewrite at all, I must suppose that you don't disagree. Harald88 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure -- that was implied with my suggestion to follow the Creationism article's example. Harald88 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sequence change to give it NPOV? 

message: "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage that are often confused. Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy. In popular culture, "conspiracy theory" is the name given to a narrative genre involving eccentric stories that are associated with or include allegations of ostensibly dubious validity.
The phrase is sometimes used by critics to ridicule or dismiss a specific theory by labeling it a "conspiracy theory" which implies that the theory is a example from the ostensibly dubious genre and unworthy of serious consideration. If a specific theory meets the literal definition, by alleging a conspiracy, that is insufficient evidence that the theory should be categorized in the ostensibly dubious genre. The phrase is often used by detractors of a theory."
I've restored yesterday's intro instead; Zen-master's re-write used convoluted language (e.g. "ostenibly dubious validity", "ostensibly dubious genre" [twice!]) and was filled with unsourced POV claims (e.g. "that are often confused", "If a specific theory meets the literal definition, by alleging a conspiracy, that is insufficient evidence that the theory should be categorized in the ostensibly dubious genre." Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Jayjg you didn't! Instead you wiped away my improvements that gave it an undisputed start and less biased introduction, as discussed here above. I revert accordingly. Harald88 22:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen-master's latest intro re-write 

message: In my interpretation this article can not be considered neutral until it properly disassociates between the literal definition or argument type and the ostensibly dubious genre (plus all disputed points above from myself and others). Also, when such NPOV disputes exist the {npov} template is generally added to the disputed article but I guess I will just have to accept the majority's unwavering insistence on not signifying a dispute here. zen master T 22:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now some motion has come into it; regretfully the only way to strongly involve people into the editing process is to just "be bold" in the article space, discussions on the Talk page are evidenly mostly ineffective. Let's wait and see if, after the dust settles, you or someone else still considers the article POV in one way or another. Harald88 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I formally dispute the Neutrality of this article 

message: Folks, this matter has been discussed endlessly.  The overwhelming consensus here is that the term "conspiracy theory" is an appropriate entry title and concept. Please stop wasting all of our time with a debate that only goes in circles and has less than a dozen supporters in a community of thousands. zen master has so worn out many of us that there is currently a serious discussion about banning him from editing any article having to do with conspiracy. We understand that your beliefs are sincere. Please understand that you are a tiny minority, and your views are ALREADY over-represented on this page out of fairness and a desire to achieve NPOV.--Cberlet 20:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone has a problem with the title of this article, if that's what you're getting at. Tacking "conspiracy theory" onto another term to create a title, however, is obviously POV. Anyone with scruples, of course, would never give up the fight for NPOV articles. I don't mean to drop names, but I've seen Jimbo fight for NPOV even when he is the only one doing so. --Peter McConaughey 21:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, the Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal is not applicable to generically titled articles that don't use the phrase to describe another subject. I think for those that are confused about "conspiracy theory" the discrediting is subtle/unconscious, to those that are aware of the effect language itself can have the discrediting is obvious. In my interpretation, "conspiracy theory" as a label is biasing and non neutral on many different levels. zen master T 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If it were obvious, I think more people would have found it obvious. Instead: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2, Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive01. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either I did a poor job of explaining version 1.0 of the proposal, or editors were persuaded by Slim's argument (but that doesn't mean the discrediting is non-existant). I am open to suggestions on how to more directly indicate the phrase's discrediting is obvious. zen master T 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a third alternative: your case is wrong. It's worth considering. Adhib 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but there seems to be some agreement that the phrase is, at least partially, pejorative, so the question then becomes why use a phrase in a title that has a (strong) possibility of bias? This question is especially pertinent given the additional fact that many simple and direct possible alternative titles already exists (why does the title have to be exactly "conspiracy theory", couldn't we say exactly what you want to say in the title but use other words to do it?). Though, this all doesn't matter until I can convince enough wikipedia editors of my interpretation. zen master T 23:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any theory that involves collusion between two or more people could accurately be described as a conspiracy theory. By the same logic, we should rename the "Creator God" article to be "Creator God conspiracy theory" and the "Evolution" article to be "Evolution conspiracy theory." --Peter McConaughey 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wake up Call

message: Is "Conspiracy theory" most often used to mean something pejorative? --Peter McConaughey 01:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we find sources to support "often" instead of the milder "sometimes"? -Willmcw 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just throw this in "it is not easy to distinguish a disparaging gesture from a dismissive or merely skeptical one, however.", from .  Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't quite seem like calling it "pea-brained" to me.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What was (and still is) missing: that it's often used to indicate a narrative genre, which may (or necessarily?!) lead to pejorative use. Anyone disagrees with that it's often used to indicate a narrative genre, making the logical link to pejorative use? IMO that's more basic than other additions of the last day (plan was to keep it short, right?). Harald88 07:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I would agree indicating the "narrative genre" necessarily leads to/is pejorative use. zen master T 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does any theory have to be called that though? zen master T 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't iunderstand your question.  You seem to be asking "why does a theory have to be called a theory?" Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does a theory/allegation have to be labeled a conspiracy theory? Why don't you just say exactly what you want to say but don't use "conspiracy theory"? zen master T 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every theory involves a supposed conspiracy.  "Conspiracy theory" is only used where it applies.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That application/categorization (and improper method of doing so) is disputed. Again, why don't you just say exactly what you want to say but don't use "conspiracy theory"? Could it be that "conspiracy theory's" discrediting only works if the phrase is literally true yet the implied categorization is often not? Isn't it very coincidental that an ostensibly dubious or fictional narrative genre has the same name as any theory that merely alleges a conspiracy? Side note: "Often" vs "Sometimes" sure is a dramatic discussion page dichotomy, it sure does point people right to the core of the major dispute over the article, doesn't it? (sarcasm) Pointing people away from the essence of understanding is a bad habit for the majority to get into. zen master T 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Waht's your point - that real conspiracies could also be called a "conspiracy theory"?  I've never heard a real conspiracy called a CT.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bubba that happens now and then: plausible examples are JFK and Olof Palme. (Or do you claim to know that they did not involve real conspiracies, contrary to the conclusions of official investigators?!) Harald88 21:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The point or question is: why does anything have to be labeled with the exact phrase "conspiracy theory"? zen master T 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Often'' or ''Sometimes''?

message: Please post your suggestions for the intro here. Thanks.--Sean|Black 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "eccentric or paranoid arguments" or "fiction" needs a caveat like "allegedly. zen master T 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be the moment to go back to the lead at ; ask that the page be locked by an admin, and discuss the need to collectively take zen-master to arbitration. This has been going on for months.--Cberlet 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? zen master T 01:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't pretend it isn't an issue. Don't pretend it is not already being discussed by other editors. Don't pretend you have not been at this for months. Don't pretend that this same conversation over the term conspiracy theory has not taken place-over and over-on multiple pages. Just don't. It is tacky, if nothing else.--Cberlet 13:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working for the last 2 days with other editors, in general agrement I might add, so I still don't know what your specific complaint is here. zen master T 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your long history of disruptive editing until you get your way. See: --Cberlet 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dare say a post by Kelly Martin (her opinion) is not evidence nor an example of any disruption on my part, please elaborate. zen master T 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revising the intro