Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 8

message: I changed the intro to be have the literal definition/argument type that basically just points to theory and conspiracy which is admittedly insufficient, going forward I think we should try to get a succinct clear amalgamated definition for "conspiracy theory" from those two articles. What do others think about that? And what do you think about my other intro changes? Perhaps much confusion exists here because "conspiracy" and "theory" are individually somewhat ambiguous (especially theory). zen master T 19:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen-m, you have finally eradicated everything that you sought to eradicate from the intro, against significant and sustained editorial opposition. What does this achieve, beyond undermining the credibility of Wikipedia? It certainly can't artifically bestow credibility on your POV. Adhib 20:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically do you have a problem with? I agree the argument type is insufficient now, but "conspiracy theory" is basically a literal definition and separately a type of fiction. What about the other changes? Feel free to revert my change, or if you want I can revert my own change? Do you think conspiracy and theory can help us here? zen master T 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as we finally have a reasonably brief and NPOV intro that everyone seems to agree with, you unilaterally re-write it into something quite different.  This is unacceptable behaviour. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote it because a few editors agreed the story type was missing. Feel free to revert my change if you haven't already. zen master T 21:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a good idea; work out, and get complete agreement to, any change in Talk first. Then have someone else put the change in.  That should help resolve the issues you've run up against in the past. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, improvements to an article are made by people being bold. Were any parts of my edit an improvement in your opinion, what do you like better about Carbonite's version? Though I agree we have indeed made significant progress improving the intro of this article by discussing the issues on talk and discussion should always be encouraged and preferred, however, it was generally noted the definition was/is incomplete which is an indication of a time for being bold. Though, Jayjg I haven't seen you discussing the issues on talk much? Please join in. zen master T 21:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Conspiracy theory is an ambiguous and often confusing term with multiple meanings. Literally it means any theory that alleges a specific event or series of events was caused by a conspiracy. The term is also used in popular culture and entertainment to indicate a type of fiction that generally takes the form of first person accounts and narratives which include a wide variety of allegedly false, eccentric or paranoid arguments each describing the existence of vast conspiracy. The term is often used pejoratively to dismiss, ridicule or stigmatize an allegation which may discourage a careful analysis of its claims.
What do people think? Are any individual specific changes good? zen master T 21:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with the existing intro - why do you think there is? Your re-write introduces the exact same POV you continually try to introduce into this article, and it's full of unsourced claims (e.g. that the term is "ambiguous and often confusing") and overly wordy.  I can't see anything it contributes. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jay.--Sean|Black 22:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV do you think I am trying to introduce? The terrorism article states it has multiple definitions or meanings, which is also true in this case, how is that "POV" or original research? The current version doesn't mention the story type/genre at all, why? zen master T 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you enjoy this, others really don't.  Given your singular lack of success to date in co-operatively editing certain articles (including this one), it really makes more sense if you source all your proposed changes, gain consensus for them in Talk: first, and then ask others to enter them in the article. That should ensure no edit conflicts in the future. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incorrect statement, numerous content I've contributed remains in various articles and intros including Nuclear power, Hubbert peak theory, Killian documents, and Ward Churchill to name a few. I accept that we disagree, but please don't mischaracterize, misinterpret or down play the issues. So in your view we will just be stuck with an intro that is incomplete? Many have noted the story type is missing, and my new version of the intro was based upon a recent version of the intro, that was seemingly supported by a few people, before Carbonite arbitrarily reverted it a few days ago, so, your portrayal of me as some sort of "lone" editor is also mistaken. zen master T 22:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone agrees with your POV, or that the introduction is lacking these items, I'm sure they'll speak up for themselves. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Other users, such as Cberlet  were also unhappy with the state of the intro. The intro I changed it to is very close if not identical to the way it was a few days ago. Carbonite | Talk 22:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the one that added "logical argument" but I did support the argument type vs popular culture disassociation that is now non-existent. zen master T 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And your point is? Given Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and now Wikipedia:Title Neutrality it makes sense that I have made the most edits given the fact that my interpretation is admittedly not the same interpretation as the "majority"'s. zen master T 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't see what "stigmatized" adds other than POV. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It further clarifies what "dismiss" and "ridicule" are trying to say. zen master T 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It seems to be an attempt to give weight against the use of the term as a perjorative.--Sean|Black 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how it could be read that way, but we should try to find some way of including "stigmitizing" because that is exactly how the phrase's pejorative use works, it taints something as being associated with the popular culture definition. How about something to the effect of "illegitimately stigmatizing"? What about my other suggestions? zen master T 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the perjorative deifintion is covered by "dismiss" and "ridicule", personally.--Sean|Black 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "dismiss" and "ridicule" are very good but perhaps insufficient, "stigmatizes" conveys the subtle or indirect method of discrediting/categorization but I agree there is the potential for being read the wrong way. zen master T 02:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What good is an article about conspiracy theory without a good ol' NPOV dispute?  I say we leave the NPOV tag regardless of the content!  Better yet, slap an accuracy tag, too! Uly 07:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a tag that says, "That's what the cabal wants you to think." Of course the tag would have to be recursive, and that might slow down page-loads. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about using [[conspiracy]] and [[theory]] to help define? 

message: Here is my proposed intro until we come up with specific help from conspiracy and theory:
:Conspiracy theory is an ambiguous and often confusing term with multiple meanings. Literally it means any theory that alleges a specific event or series of events was caused by a conspiracy. The term is also used in popular culture and entertainment to indicate a type of fiction that generally takes the form of first person accounts and narratives which include a wide variety of allegedly false, eccentric or paranoid arguments each describing the existence of vast conspiracy. The term is often used pejoratively to dismiss, ridicule or stigmatize an allegation which may discourage a careful analysis of its claims.
What do people think? Are any individual specific changes good? zen master T 21:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with the existing intro - why do you think there is? Your re-write introduces the exact same POV you continually try to introduce into this article, and it's full of unsourced claims (e.g. that the term is "ambiguous and often confusing") and overly wordy.  I can't see anything it contributes. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jay.--Sean|Black 22:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What POV do you think I am trying to introduce? The terrorism article states it has multiple definitions or meanings, which is also true in this case, how is that "POV" or original research? The current version doesn't mention the story type/genre at all, why? zen master T 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you enjoy this, others really don't.  Given your singular lack of success to date in co-operatively editing certain articles (including this one), it really makes more sense if you source all your proposed changes, gain consensus for them in Talk: first, and then ask others to enter them in the article. That should ensure no edit conflicts in the future. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an incorrect statement, numerous content I've contributed remains in various articles and intros including Nuclear power, Hubbert peak theory, Killian documents, and Ward Churchill to name a few. I accept that we disagree, but please don't mischaracterize, misinterpret or down play the issues. So in your view we will just be stuck with an intro that is incomplete? Many have noted the story type is missing, and my new version of the intro was based upon a recent version of the intro, that was seemingly supported by a few people, before Carbonite arbitrarily reverted it a few days ago, so, your portrayal of me as some sort of "lone" editor is also mistaken. zen master T 22:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone agrees with your POV, or that the introduction is lacking these items, I'm sure they'll speak up for themselves. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Other users, such as Cberlet  were also unhappy with the state of the intro. The intro I changed it to is very close if not identical to the way it was a few days ago. Carbonite | Talk 22:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not the one that added "logical argument" but I did support the argument type vs popular culture disassociation that is now non-existent. zen master T 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative intro proposal 

message: Maybe off-topic, but this link to the historical editing statistics is interesting. Search for Conspiracy theory. Zen-master has made more edits to this page than anyone else, and has a mean time between edits of about sixteen hours. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? Given Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and now Wikipedia:Title Neutrality it makes sense that I have made the most edits given the fact that my interpretation is admittedly not the same interpretation as the "majority"'s. zen master T 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic 

message: Can we add "stigmatized" to your version of the intro's last sentence at least? Shouldn't we link conspiracy and theory at the top somewhere given they are the highly relevant constituent parts of any definition of "conspiracy theory"? If people don't like "allegation" we can go with "theory" or "hypothesis" instead or "explanation" which sounds weasle wordy and untheoretical. zen master T 23:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see what "stigmatized" adds other than POV. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It further clarifies what "dismiss" and "ridicule" are trying to say. zen master T 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It seems to be an attempt to give weight against the use of the term as a perjorative.--Sean|Black 01:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how it could be read that way, but we should try to find some way of including "stigmitizing" because that is exactly how the phrase's pejorative use works, it taints something as being associated with the popular culture definition. How about something to the effect of "illegitimately stigmatizing"? What about my other suggestions? zen master T 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the perjorative deifintion is covered by "dismiss" and "ridicule", personally.--Sean|Black 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "dismiss" and "ridicule" are very good but perhaps insufficient, "stigmatizes" conveys the subtle or indirect method of discrediting/categorization but I agree there is the potential for being read the wrong way. zen master T 02:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What good is an article about conspiracy theory without a good ol' NPOV dispute?  I say we leave the NPOV tag regardless of the content!  Better yet, slap an accuracy tag, too! Uly 07:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a tag that says, "That's what the cabal wants you to think." Of course the tag would have to be recursive, and that might slow down page-loads. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-topic 

message: I hope you like it. Zen-m didn't think much of the first version, so I copperbottomed the second paragraph. It seems to me now to set out all the basic parameters that absolutely have to be introduced above the menu, and none of the extraneous claims that more properly belong below. I also think this version might provide a better balance between the definition itself, and the various usage caveats which previously accounted for half the wordage here. Adhib 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the intro's neutrality is regressing, I went with a modified version of my intro from a few days ago. Your version uses loaded or ambiguous words without necessary caveats like "skeptical", "academically", "paranoid", "disproven rumors", "urban legend". Also, your version doesn't mention the fact there are many so called "conspiracy theories" that have turned out to be true. Most importantly though is the fact your intro fails to disassociate between the literal/argument type definition and the popular culture and entertainment usage. I repeat my question from above, what criteria are you proposing for trying to determine whether a particular theory should be labeled dismissively as a "conspiracy theory"? Shouldn't we disassociate between when the label is applied to a theory and when the label is applied to fiction? If something is a true theory in the scientific sense should it ever be presented or categorized as fiction? It's certainly true that many "fictional" stories include alternative or non-mainstream theories but that doesn't mean the theories themselves should be labeled dismissively using "conspiracy theory". zen master T 23:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We can't state definitively that all arguments within the "conspiracy theory" fiction category are false, eccentric or paranoid, which is why I included the "allegedly" caveat. Your version also doesn't mention directly the literal or argument type definition, what you have that comes close to that uses words that are too evocative of the story type, please do a much better job of disassociation. The fiction type is used by academics, really? I still find it suspiciously coincidental there is one phrase in the english language that refers to both any specific theory that alleges a conspriacy and also an allegedly eccentric or paranoid type of fiction. Inside a neutral encyclopedia theories should not be categorized as "beliefs" or "fiction", if someone claims they are alleging or theorizing something we should take them at their word and not unquestioningly accept the counter critics's categorization. A theory is obviously cited as being categorized as coming from the person or group alleging it, attempted categorization of something as being within the "conspiracy theory" fiction story type is non-obvious as to who counter claims that. It would be much more scientific if counter critics of a theory used facts and made a logic argument why a particular theory is incorrect instead of attempting to dismiss something through categorization presented using absolute language. Additionally, I think "common usage" is less accurate that "popular culture and entertainment" as far as the story type usage goes. Perhaps we should include "conspiracy theory" related info from psychology, though I suspect it may not be neutral.  zen master T 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agre with pretty much everything you're saying, Adhib. I appreciate Zen-master's desire for neutrality, but I think that he's automatically assuming that the use of certain words is POV, and that those who are using them are pushing a POV, and that's not assuming good faith. I like the intro as it is, and I think skeptic is a fine word to use in this context (indeed, I believe that I used it in one my previous intro proposals).--Sean|Black 00:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the fact I am not in the mood to play your game tonight I will respond (though I thought it worth noting I detect game playing). When a word like "paranoid" is wikilinked, that is POV, especially when you fail to caveat it to clearly convey the point a theory's accuracy should be judged scientifically on the basis of a factual analysis rather than unquestioningly accept someone else's constructed language that classifies, without specific evidence, a specific theory as folklore. It only matters that a specific theory is indeed folklore after that theory has been scientifically disproven, we have to start with a scientific (or otherwise neutral) presentation. My "beliefs" point wasn't about your beliefs, it was about your version needlessly confusing theory vs belief in the multiple definitions of "conspiracy theory" at a word choice level. Your changes ignore the lengthy debate that led to the other version of the intro, where have you been the last few days/weeks? How does "my" openening sentence launch into terminological disputes? After Willmcw cleaned up "my" version of the intro we only note in the first sentence the term has more than one meaning or usage, which is true. What do you mean by "misleading 'literally' claim is circumvented"? How can you possibly say you've gotten rid of confusion when you have completely eliminated multiple distinct definitions or usages, to the point of zero clarity? If there is confusion surrounding "fiction" we should add clarity rather than remove info. At this point I feel the {npov} template is warranted but I will probably just wait for this recent game within the game to be over, let me know. zen master T 02:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only person playing a game here is you. You're the one who refuses to accomodate any other editors while we vainly attempt to accomodate you. You're the one who keeps insisting that everybody else is pushing a POV. This is really too much.--Sean|Black 02:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok. zen master T 02:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a good compromise might be to let Adhib define this article and let Zen Master take the phrase "Conspiracy theory" from the titles of articles that really shouldn't have them there in the first place. --Peter McConaughey 05:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, as long as neutrality overall is increasing I will welcome it. zen master T 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adhib's new intro 

message: I like the one Harald88 did on 18:47, 2 December 2005 best. --Peter McConaughey 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that one too but I think it is incomplete. We should specifically mention the phrase has more than one meaning or common use. We should include the fact the phrase is ambiguous when used to label a theory (that coincidentally alleges a conspiracy). It seems the phrase's definition has been confused between any theory that alleges a conspiracy and some sort of categorization in or example of the eccentric type of fiction. How about Harold's plus mentioning the literal usage, and plus: The phrase is ambiguous and pejorative when someone uses it, often subtly, to dismissively categorize an actual theory, that coincidentally alleges a conspiracy, as an example of "conspiracy theory" fiction. It may be considered improper to classify a theory or competing viewpoint as fiction as that may discourage a scientific and factual analysis.  What do you think? zen master T 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it distorts the meaning of the term by grossly exaggerating one aspect of its use; It says the phrase is pejorative when used pejoratively; It uses the passive voice to assert something that is unsupported by citation; It makes the implicit assumption that identifying a narrative as conspiracy theory categorizes it as fiction; And I think the first sentence is too long. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Sean|Black 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we all agree to let the intro sit as is for a few days, let the dust clear a bit? If Zen-m insists on reimposing his preferred prose, please at least drop this nonsense about fiction. Fiction is not an antonym of fact. Adhib 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not constructive. Please stop wasting our time.--Cberlet 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Our interpretations differ as to whether this discussion is constructive, feel free to disengage if you consider this a waste of time. 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this posted by zen-master, or someone posing as zen-master? Did zen-master not sign it on purpose? Or is it possible that what I just wrote "does not sufficiently disassociate between when the phrase is applied discreditingly" or when it is meant to be comedic? And for that matter, what is constructive--or time itself? Or do we construct time ourselves? Or is it a conspiracy to make us think that we construct time ourselves, when there is really no time left? Or is this Zen? And have we mastered it with bait for the philosophy fish swimming upsteam koi-ly?--Cberlet 01:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is your favorite intro?

message: "The explanation often involves a deliberate attempt to deceive the public, typically with the motive of partisan gain at the expense of the wider society." This seems confusing and redundant. Is the conspiracy theorist trying to deceive the public, or is he making a statement that someone else is trying to deceive the public? I don't get a clear picture in this sentence. Also, the first sentence says that the explanation involves a "secret plot." Wouldn't a "secret plot" always be deceptive? Can't we combine both of these ideas into one sentence and make the idea sharper at the same time? --Peter McConaughey 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some changes per your suggestions, what do you think? Still a little clunky, but it's more explicit.--Sean|Black 00:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but don't you think we could combine the two lines? When I put them through the infonometer, the first sentence registers just as much information as both the first and the second sentences combined (almost: a score of 64 vs. 66). --Peter McConaughey 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *I like it, but I think the article still had redundancy, so I combined some of the sentences. --Peter McConaughey 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret Plot

message: Here is my suggestion of how to eliminate the superfluous "casual use", at the same time making the logical connection to pejorative use:
Academics use the term "Conspiracy theory" to identify a type of folklore with misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors, similar in many respects to an urban legend.
The term may also be used pejoratively to ridicule or dismiss a conspiracy allegation.
In almost all cases, believers in a particular account vigorously reject the classification of their belief as a conspiracy theory, leading to controversy over legitimate uses of the term. Harald88 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  eliminating "casual use" 

message: It's an interesting language coincidence that any actual theory that alleges a conspiracy can be stigmatized and therefore dismissed with nothing more than the phrase "conspiracy theory". I think the intro of this article should mention "stigmatizing" or "stigmatizing categorization" of theory as fiction/rumor, though it is rather subtle. zen master T 03:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatically stigmatizing when applied to a theory that alleges a conspiracy 

message: IMO part of the text before the introduction is unnecessarily outside of the introduction. As seeing the result is simpler than to explain it, I shifted the fourth paragraph to inside the introduction (near the end), with some modifications, because it simply expands on what is already stated in the second sentence of the article and it fits perfectly with the discussion in the introduction. If people disagree, just revert. Harald88 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is some redundancy, but that is because what is there now isn't sufficiently clear. I moved back the "It may be considered improper" sentence to the pre-intro, what do you think?  Perhaps we should rename the current "Introduction" subjection to "Overview" or some such? We can make the pre-intro an actual subsection to be able to use section editing, and then also use the _TOC_ tag below it. zen master T 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree as it makes it too much inessential blah blah that dilutes the contents. But I don't mind your suggestion to give it a paragraph name. If someone else wants to see my suggestion, revert twice back or go [here] Harald88 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version is just the current version minus the one sentence I added back? zen master T 22:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  too long intro 

message: In the 48 hours since I last had a moment to contribute to this discussion, the intense fretting away at the intro has produced two or three screenfuls of revisions on the page history listing. Just what is the beef, here? Why are specific, focused enquiries aimed at clarifying the differences between us ignored, buried in blizzards of loop-tape statements? Could we manage to have a systematic conversation about the differences? Adhib 23:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: huh? We are working towards reducing redundancy and increasing clarity, Though Tom and I seem to directly disagree on some points. zen master T 23:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have to point out that it's quite unlikely anyone would ever pay you for your unique approach to that task. Simplicity and clarity require straightforward grammar, and concrete statements. Can you find a single Featured Article which indulges in the kind of grammatical acrobatics you have introduced to every sentence in the last paragraph of the intro? Adhib 23:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my interpretation your goal is to deny clarity surrounding the phrase "conspiracy theory". You constantly seem to misdirect away from the literally true fact any theory that allges a conspiracy can be labeled as a "conspiracy theory", which I hope you will agree can be very confusing and ambiguous given the eccentric story type, coincidentally with the name "conspiracy theory"? Your definitions all play up the eccentric story type angle presumably for the purpose of retaining the phrase's discrediting usefulness. zen master T 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm finding this version to be a bit too confusing. The lead ("Conspiracy theory has multiple meanings, see theory and conspiracy.") conveys very little information. I also think this intro spends far too much space describing the perjorative nature of the term. I support using this version as the working version of the article. I think it's a stronger intro and better summarizes the article. Carbonite | Talk 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. Zen-master, we were working together relatively well by the standards of this page, until you did another wholesale rewrite of the intro. Those have never worked well in the past. Carbonite's suggestion is reasonable. Certainly it's not the version I like best; it's a compromise product with room for improvement. Maybe getting consensus before making small changes (and editing only once a day) would be a better way to improve the page. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your interpretations on multiple levels, I think your version(s) are intentionally subtly unclear, incomplete, misleading, and undermine or dowplay the attempt to explain how the phrase's duplicitious discrediting works. It's of uttmost importance to note the phrase has more than one meaning and common usage at the start. Note for posterity: I have not been having fun playing your games, whoever you are. zen master T 02:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen-master, your most recent edit of the lead is an outrageous POV vivisection of the article. It is an assault on the discussion that has been happening on this page. You should be ashamed of yourself. It is a slap in the face of collaborative collective editing. it is an outrage.--Cberlet 02:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I likewise interpret the same about your version, given that we strongly disagree how about we include both possible presentation methods until we come up with bipartite solution here on the talk page? What POV am I adding to the article exactly, in your view? zen master T 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What the deal with this edit ? Your edit summary says "some npov clean ups, added in the missing meanings, missing clarity and missing disassociation", yet you added a  tag. Why? Also, I think this intro again places far too much emphasis on the pejorative nature of the term. The intro is a summary and we certainly don't need redundant information contained in it. Carbonite | Talk 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the {npov} tag because I still have a problem with some of the previous wording but for the sake of potentially not censoring anything I left that text there, but thought it should be flagged as potentially POV. I am not in favor of putting "extra" emphasis on the pejorative nature of the term, just as long as the pejorative nature is sufficiently clear and disassociated. "Theory" and "folklore" or "fiction" really aught to be mentioned in the same sentence to properly disassociate the phrase's ambiguous nature. We also strongly disagree on whether "term" or "phrase" is appropriate. I earlier tried to succinctly combine things and otherwise reduce redudancy but that was reverted so at this point I think both presentation methods and word choices should be included until we find a bipartite version here on the talk page, what do you think? zen master T 03:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion