Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 9

message: I protected the page due to the fact that have a long simmering war going on. Talk things out on here and try to come up with a version people are happy with or use dispute resolution. Thanks. And by protecting this particular version I'm not taking sides. We just protect. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You just protect? :) I can feel the conspiracy floating :) →AzaToth 03:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I just added a notice. Carbonite | Talk 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the history record now shows the article was protected. zen master T 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I added the protection notice template, although Woohookitty actually protected it. article block log Carbonite | Talk 03:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better if protecting a page showed up in article history directly? zen master T 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think so, and it would also be nice if protecting a page automatically added the protection notice. Carbonite | Talk 03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry all. I think that's the first time I've forgotten to put the tag on. I wish it was all automatic, but it probably never will be. Off topic a bit, but it's a pain. To protect a page, you have to...protect the page, add the tag, add the page to the protected pages list, add a note to the RfP page and then usually leave a note on the talk page of the article or of the requestor. It's nuts. Btw, here is the protection log. It shows when the pages were actually protected, not when the tag was put on. Oh and when I say "we protect", I just mean that we do it blindly without picking a side. I have no stake in this article whatsoever or any opinion on it really. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree, "Carbonites" version is lacking at least everything the current version has, also why did you say "to the extent it needs to be done", that does not sound like something someone that is following my "we should include both presentation methods/word choices until we find a bipartite solution on the talk page" proposal would say...? zen master T 03:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Carbonite's version- it's not perfect, but it's better than the others.--Sean|Black 03:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you support the plan to go with an all inclusive intro until we come up with a succinct bipartite version here on talk? zen master T 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean specifically? zen master T 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully agree with Peter, and I tend to think that that's more or less a requirement of a respectable encyclopdia article! Therefore, the version [] was IMO not too bad; for a reason unknown to me, some people here decided after some uncoordinated tweeking occurred, to simply bulldozer it away. And please note that Carbonite's version as well as Zenmaster's version did not respect that minimal requirement. Harald88 17:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What minimal requirement? Peter has yet to explain what he means. I think your version and Carbonite's version are actually rather similar and both insufficiently explain "conspiracy theory". Until we can find a bipartite wording compromise here on the talk page I think the intro and article should be a superset of both versions. zen master T 17:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have explained that here several times, with good examples of other Wikipedia articles. If possible, one starts an article with a "catch-all" description and next one may provide particular notable uses if there are. Another example, and now I stress it by imitating this article: An automobile is not "A car, whereby the expression however may also have a literal meaning of self-contained motion and sometimes the expression is used for buses, jeeps and vans." ... Harald88 17:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the proposed "catch-all" version itself is disputed as being insufficient, apparently we need to include more info. zen master T 18:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of no such dispute, and it's a mystery to me how a "catch-all" first sentence could be "insufficient". IMO it can only be faulty or unnecessarily general. And note that compared to "An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor", "A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that explains the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence" is already extremely detailed. Harald88 18:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is that dispute. That sentence plays up the X-files angle of "conspiracy theory" too much, especially since it's equivalent to "Conspiracy theory can refer to any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together". zen master T 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Our interpretations of what is sufficient differ, so what should we do? zen master T 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Zen-master suggested on my talk page that "we should include both intro presentation methods/word choices until we find a bipartite solution on the talk page." I think Carbonite's version does this to the extent it needs to be done. 
I see the page is protected until we can agree on an intro. I suggest this one. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, "Carbonites" version is lacking at least everything the current version has, also why did you say "to the extent it needs to be done", that does not sound like something someone that is following my "we should include both presentation methods/word choices until we find a bipartite solution on the talk page" proposal would say...? zen master T 03:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Carbonite's version- it's not perfect, but it's better than the others.--Sean|Black 03:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you support the plan to go with an all inclusive intro until we come up with a succinct bipartite version here on talk? zen master T 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean specifically? zen master T 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully agree with Peter, and I tend to think that that's more or less a requirement of a respectable encyclopdia article! Therefore, the version [] was IMO not too bad; for a reason unknown to me, some people here decided after some uncoordinated tweeking occurred, to simply bulldozer it away. And please note that Carbonite's version as well as Zenmaster's version did not respect that minimal requirement. Harald88 17:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What minimal requirement? Peter has yet to explain what he means. I think your version and Carbonite's version are actually rather similar and both insufficiently explain "conspiracy theory". Until we can find a bipartite wording compromise here on the talk page I think the intro and article should be a superset of both versions. zen master T 17:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have explained that here several times, with good examples of other Wikipedia articles. If possible, one starts an article with a "catch-all" description and next one may provide particular notable uses if there are. Another example, and now I stress it by imitating this article: An automobile is not "A car, whereby the expression however may also have a literal meaning of self-contained motion and sometimes the expression is used for buses, jeeps and vans." ... Harald88 17:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the proposed "catch-all" version itself is disputed as being insufficient, apparently we need to include more info. zen master T 18:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of no such dispute, and it's a mystery to me how a "catch-all" first sentence could be "insufficient". IMO it can only be faulty or unnecessarily general. And note that compared to "An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor", "A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that explains the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence" is already extremely detailed. Harald88 18:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is that dispute. That sentence plays up the X-files angle of "conspiracy theory" too much, especially since it's equivalent to "Conspiracy theory can refer to any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together". zen master T 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Our interpretations of what is sufficient differ, so what should we do? zen master T 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for intro

message: I guess it depends on the context, but to me, Conspiracy theory is a derogatory term that is non-neutral.  I think that it should be used when suggesting a conspiracy, i.e. some detailed plot.  But when describing just another version of events from what the official story is, then I think that Alternate theory is a better term to use.
For example: the Backpacker murders is one case where virtually nobody believes the official story.  It makes zero sense.  The idea that someone killed 7 people at different times in entirely different methods, with no link between the 7 ways that they were murdered, or between the 7 people (they were not all backpackers - only 4 were), and burying them in different ways over 100 kms apart from each other suggests that they were without question NOT done all by one person.  Not only that, but there were 32 people who went missing, yet we only say that 7 were killed.  The "Alternate theory" is far more believable - this is a very simple run of the mill organised crime syndicate killing people indiscriminantly and ordering a cleanup crew - just that the police felt powerless to stop the might of the organised crime syndicate.  Pretty simple really.  And pretty freaking obvious.  So calling that a "conspiracy theory" in my mind is just a ridiculous way of describing it.
Another case was the recently concluded case of Peter Falconio, where the official story was totally absurd and nobody believes it.  Officially, a guy went to a remote area, near to the town of Barrow Creek, Northern Territory, population 11, where cars go past 5 per day, and stopped someone randomly to kill him and rape her - and yet, in spite of having 5 hours to stop her, he failed to find her and kill her, did not shoot a single bullet out and didn't go for her.  Ridiculous theory.  Absolutely absurd theory.  The "alternate theory" is pretty simple - Joanne Lees killed him.  A huge amount of people believe that.  Much simpler, much more obvious, much more believable.  Sure, he was found guilty, but nobody in the court believed the official story.  They believed any one of a million other tiny little slightly believable theories as to how he might have killed her.  Yet we call theories such as her killing him a conspiracy theory.  Come off it.  Which is more believable?  A girl gets in a fight with her boyfriend and accidentally kills him?  Or that someone comes from out of nowhere with no motive to kill him and yet allows her to live?  Absurd.
I could keep going with examples like this, but I think that you get my point here.
Is it really appropriate to talk about things like this as conspiracy theories?
However, I'll give an example of what is a conspiracy theory: the idea that s11 conducted the September 11, 2001 attacks so as to protest against globalisation.  That's a conspiracy theory, because for it to be true implies a huge amount of assumptions and its really a huge stretch.  Probably less than 10,000 people worldwide believe that s11 are responsible.  They just had an unfortunate name.
So that's what I think there.  Believable, easy to understand, logical theories should be called alternate theories, while complicated stretch of the imagination theories should be called conspiracy theories.
What do you think? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the documented reference and removed the undocumented reference that was added. I also removed the description of pejorative use, since that's already been addressed at length. In reference to the comments above, I do not support calling a conspiracy theory anything other than a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate theory 

message: Hello everyone: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, a mediator from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. User:Kim Bruning made a request some time ago for us to provide mediation assistance regarding NPOV issues about this article back in November; I am very sorry for the severe delays in handling cases, which has been caused by a number of issues, and it seems this particular case was overlooked. Does anyone still think that mediation assistance is required? I would be grateful if people would comment at the Mediation Cabal page for this issue, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/30 November 2005/Conspiracy theory, if they feel that we could assist in this page in any respect. Thank you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, take a look at the details of the dispute(s) here on the talk page and the different versions of the article and let us know if you think you can be of some assistance. Karmafist is a mediator? He seems to have already prejudiced this mediation against me by saying on the mediation page this about me "Take anything with him and that article with a grain of salt". That doesn't seem like a very neutral thing for a mediator to say, especially at the request stage. Karmafist must be following the Conspiracy theory disagreement very closely to be able to take sides so strongly, which is separately a rather odd thing for a mediator to do at any point in time regardless. zen master T 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request made on the Mediation Cabal page for assistance 

message: Perhaps this article needs to distinguish between "conspiracy theories" according to the prevelant usage and theories invoking conspiracies.
First, I would like to add my opinion on the matter of stigmatization regaurding the phrase "conspiracy theory."  The fact of the matter is, in the English language, "Conspiracy Theory" suffers from a derogatory connotation.  Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot change that.  Rather, it ought be its duty to document this fact.  Further, if not by definition, then by common usage, conspiracy theories are always false.  When you speak about something that has been proven true, for example, the Black Hand's involvement in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, it is no longer called a conspiracy theory, but rather a fact.  Hence, a "conspiracy theory" by common usage refers to an inherently unsubstantiatable theory.
I hence think it would be a good idea to discuss a certain artifact of this stigmatization, which zen master noted, namely, that any theory which discusses a conspiracy, even one which could be proven true via evidence, and hence cannot be labeled as a "conspiracy theory" by the common definition, can be dismissed simply by labelling it as a "conspiracy theory."  Therefore, there are two types of conspiracy theories: "conspiracy theories" (the pejorative variety) and theories alleging a conspiracy, which, like the Gavrilo Princip example, may turn out to be true.
--Adam (http://www.ifobos.com) 18:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Adam (and Zordrac), apparently we already have consensus about that: it's common to all words that are also used perjoratively and I think that all recent proposals take it inito account. IOW, I think that's not the problem. And note that nothing that has been proven true is ever called a "theory"; also, it's a common error to think that what can't be proved must be false. For you newcomers it may be interesting to look at this month's versions. Harald88 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigma 

message: Here follows as a reminder, roughly the intro's from the featured articles (with Babelfish + a little polishing) which should serve as a guideline; and note that they both align well with the kind of intro which we had until a few days ago and which I here above motivated as the right kind of intro.
German:
:Conspiracy theory one calls the attempt, to explain events, conditions or developments by a secret conspiracy; thus by purposeful, conspiratorial working of two or more persons for a hidden, illegal or illegitimate purpose.
Italian:
:A conspiracy theory is a theory that eludes the common understanding of the historical events or puts into them into doubt, supporting that these are the result of manipulation from part of one or more hidden powers or conspiracies. 
:"conspiracy Theory" (or also complottismo) is a colloquial term used in order to refer to unconventional theories, regarding historical events or puts them in doubt, that infondate can appear, bizarre or irrational. In a generalized manner, conspiracy theories support rather that a particular event - like a murder, a revolution, or quite the failure of an event - has not only resulted of the visible actions of the political forces or event, but hidden operations. Since the classic theories of the conspiracy are often simple presumptons of undercover operations, and since these stretch to be based on little or no testing, the expression "conspiracy" theory, in the common language is used to refer to accusations of collusions that are thought to be untested, improbable or false.
This week we had several variants that compare well with the above featured German and Italian examples; here two examples:
* 12 dec []:
:A Conspiracy theory is a theory which alleges clandestine and conspiratorial activities by individuals or groups in order to achieve an outcome that might otherwise be considered to have occurred by conventional or natural means.
:In common usage, Conspiracy theory loosely refers to misconceived, paranoid or disproved rumors, similar in many respects to urban legend; it is used by academics to identify a type of folklore of eccentric and outlandish stories that generally describe vast cover-ups. The term "Conspiracy theory" is also used pejoratively in an attempt to ridicule or dismiss a conspiracy allegation.
* 15 dec []:
:A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that explains the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence. Casually, it is used pejoratively to label and therefore dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.
:Academics use "conspiracy theory" as a term to identify a type of folklore similar to the urban legend, having certain regular features. 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 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incomplete, the above versions use word choices way too evocative of the X-files angle, and do not disassociate between when the phrase is applied, illegitimately, to an actual theory and when it describes what the author would agree was fiction or folklore. Those versions also don't mention the literal fact any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together can be labeled dismissively as "conspiracy theory" and deemphasizes the fact real theories are being proposed, not mere "conspiracy allegations". I consider it improper to label a proponent of a theory a "believer" as that may discourage a scientific and factual consideration of that theory. zen master T 08:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean that our versions that are close to theirs are much better because they do handle those issues, I agree! It was my purpose to show how good we are. In contrast to the featured examples, our recent summary descriptors managed to include those issues in a concise way. Harald88 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reminder: suggestions from featured articles 

message: I agree with Zen-master that there is some redundancy in the current version, and I propose to move the last sentence just before the introduction to the start of the last paragraph of the introduction (again!). The word "controversy" will therewith stand out, and that's IMO not bad either -> sometimes "Less is More"! Harald88 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Harald88 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that is a slight improvement except "identifying structural features in the story" is impossible if what is being dismissively labeled was an actual theory. We need to do a much better job of disassociating between when the phrase is applied to an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy and when it is applied to stories or folklore that coincidentally has the same "conspiracy theory" name. I propose that "arguments" should only be labeled as "conspiracy theory folklore" if the author of the argument agrees they are stories or folklore. If someone is actually theorizing something we should encourage a scientific and factual analysis, rather than unquestioningly accept someone else's sublte yet dismissive categorization. If someone is actually theorizing something we should focus on the details and evidence of that theory/allegation/conjecture rather than focusing on the mere fact that a conspiracy is alleged (which may lead to that theory being discredited as "conspiracy theory" fiction/folklore/rumor). zen master T 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zenmaster, I think you have a point there, but what you propose now is similar to proposing that a lie be only called a lie if the author agrees with that label! That doesn't sound realistic. And you seem to (still) be confused between a discussion about the phenomenon (lies, stories, ...) and particular cases (specific examples) which may be disputed. I'm afraid that if I'm right about that, then as long as you don't first disassociate those things in your own mind, your proposals will not be feasible and discussions here will be endless. Harald88 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your analogy is backwards. Arguments and theories should be proven false by a scientific analysis and should not, under any circumstances, be categorized dismissively as folklore or rumor. We need a definition in this article that sufficiently disassociates between when the phrase is applied to a theory and when it is applied to folklore or rumor so each specific usage is more clear. The way "conspiracy theory" discredits any theory that literally alleges a conspiracy most people may not be aware of the possibility of a categorization dispute. zen master T 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something else, and I think that everyone agrees on that (except for overdone disassociation: what some may regard as a rumour, others may regard as a serious theory). IMO the current lead of the article does just that in a concise manner (except for the last sentence which doesn't really belong there). Harald88 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current intro fails to mention the fact that any theory that alleges a conspiracy can be labeled a "conspiracy theory", a key point to mention is the phrase can be ambiguous due to coincidence. Since "conspiracy theory" has more than one meaning I don't think the word "term" should be used in place of it. The first sentence of the current intro is basically the literal definition excessively played up with the X-files angle. I recently noted an interesting fact: "theory" is simply replaced with "hypothesis" but "conspiracy" gets a long winded "deceptive plot" definition which is coincidentally extremely evocative of the type of folklore or rumor (that happens to have the same name "conspiracy theory", go figure), shouldn't both constituent parts of "conspiracy theory" be defined equally? It would be much more simple to define "conspiracy theory" as "a hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together" but you seem to want the long winded played up conspiracy definition in there for some political reason (the succinct and non evocative "a group secretly working together" comes from conspiracy FYI...). And I'd hardly call AIDS conspiracy theories a "casually" pejorative example of usage, we definitely should remove "Casually". Also, I think we should change "allegedly" to "what are represented as being" in reference to the the "eccentric, paranoid, or outlandish 'rumors'" because "rumors" needs a stronger caveat as that is another categorization that is likely disputed.  Additionally, "believers" needs "or proponents" and "belief" needs an "or theory" caveat. All of these are somewhat sublte yet profound NPOV violations... zen master T 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so: I prefer the first sentence shorter, as I explained before -- and at that time neither you nor anyone else responded to my request for other opinions, if I remember well. However, in a place like Wikipedia the resulting text can not be anything else than a compromise that takes into account different ideas. I find the lead as it is now a reasonable compromise that is much better than what was achieved in German and Italian. Which doesn't mean that it can't be improved more. 
IMO you have good chance of getting "casually" removed, and also "believers" may be replaced by for example "proponents". However, with other details I give you less chance -- such as to replace "allegedly" (which you had added, I think) by a long chain of words is for me an abuse of language, I doubt that many people will agree with you. Wikipedia is not only for patent attorneys... Harald88 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move sentence? 

message: :Conspiracy theory has multiple, possibly ambiguous, uses and definitions. Literally, it means any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose. In many notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was or is represented as the mainstream explanation for one or more historic or current events. Separately, within academia and popular entertainment "conspiracy theory" is the name given to a widely varied collection of eccentric folklore, similar to urban legend, which usually takes the form of first person accounts and narratives each describing the existence of vast conspiracy. 
:Frequently, the "conspiracy theory" label is used to dismiss what is represented as false, paranoid and outlandish rumor. In almost all cases, believers or proponents of a particular account reject the classification of their belief or theory as a conspiracy theory. The phrase is potentially ambiguous at an unconscious literal definition level because of the coincidental fact any individual theory that simply alleges a conspiracy, and, the eccentric folklore can share the same "conspiracy theory" label or name, respectively. Critics of the "conspiracy theory" label claim it is used, often subtly or inadvertently, to pejoratively confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore for the purpose of: obfuscation, thwarting a scientific and factual analysis, or dismissal. The label may even be considered inappropriate if used to dismiss theoretical speculation in any form.
=== Comments ===
What do people think? We may only need 2 of the 4 sentences from the second paragraph above, but I am not sure which 2 and we may actually need that extra clarity. zen master T 10:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can say much about the motive of persons who call something a conspiracy theory.  Sure, it is possible they are using the term to malign or discourage further research, but it is more likely they are simply expressing their own profound and honest skepticism. The opening paragraph of the article already says that sometimes the term is used pejoratively.  If any clarification is needed, I think it should go in the body of the article. –Shoaler (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the simple "perhaps inadvertently" or a similar caveat addresses your concerns? "Used pejoratively" is woefully insufficient. Also, in most cases, critics are specifically charging people that use "conspiracy theory" to label theoretical speculation with the specific intent of thwarting and discouraging further research. Perhaps I should write up my interpretation of "conspiracy theory" and submit it to a respectable journal for inclusion, that may be the only way to have a direct fundamentally critical source available (though someone else would then have to be the one to include it in the article but I digress). zen master T 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does our text have to include that it is "ambiguous" and "pejorative". Those are two concepts that keep being added by one editor and keep being removed by others. -Willmcw 22:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the article uses "pejorative" it's not just "my" proposal above. I think the potential for ambiguousness is obvious after you realize the label is applied to both actual theories and folklore. zen master T 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrases are not ambiguous simply because they have multiple meanings. Why does our definition have to have that and "pejorative" in the introduction? -Willmcw 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A phrase is ambiguous if it's unclear whether the subject being labeled should be thought of as a theory or as folklore, which is often the case with "conspiracy theory". I think everyone would agree that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is "pejorative" but users and proponents of "conspiracy theory" as a label would argue ridicule and dismissal of allegedly eccentric folklore and rumor is justified, however I strongly disagree that it is ever justified, especially in the context of a scientific investigation.  zen master T 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  See below for "pejorative"; and compare with for example "cult" (indeed, the word pejorative is not necessary, other words can be used to express the same). Harald88 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that this article is being edited with an eye towards substantiating positions at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, which calls the term "ambiguous" and pejorative, and which concludes that the term should not be used in titles for those reasons. Could user:Zen-Master please comment on that concern? -Willmcw 01:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we compare the current article to the mid October and other earlier versions I think the opposite case could be made, namely, that changes have been decreasing the chances of Wikipedia:Title Neutrality ever passing. The old version of the article (that I did not edit) defined conspiracy theory colloquially as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which I still maintain proves the phrase should not be used in scientific nor encyclopedic contexts. Just the fact the word "theory" is used in the name of a type of folkore should be enough to prove the high potential for ambiguity here. zen master T 01:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it correct that you have no intention of pursuing future policy changes to prevent the use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles? Or if you do, that you don't intend to refer to this article as a justification for doing so? Since your editing here comes after numerous attempts to change Wikipedia guidelines, some assurance that there is not an ulterior motive would make it easier to assume good faith in this regard. -Willmcw 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the impression that I am giving up on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? I've been doing everything I can to stop or slowdown the removal of clarity from this article. Massive changes were made starting in early to mid October that I believe dramatically decreased the comprehension and understanding of the inappropriate uses of conspiracy theory in scientific and encyclopedic contexts. Coincidentally, early to mid October also happened to be around the time when I was separately working on version 2.0 of the Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal... At the time I asked my fellow editors to explain, here on this talk page, their rationale for making all the changes, especially removal of content, but they never did. Since then I've been trying to salvage some clarity from what we have now. Hopefully I've come up with a clear and sufficiently disassociated proposed intro above. I can always refer to historical versions of this article to make a case for Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So then you are planning to continue to use this article to support your arguments at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? If that is the case there is a possibility that you may make edits here in order to further your position there, rather than to create the best possible article here.  I appreciate your desire to "slowdown the removal of clarity", but I'm afraid you are also pursuing the same ultimate goal here that you've been pursuing since the summer: removing the phrase "conspiracy theory" from the titles of articles which describe conspiracy theories. -Willmcw 04:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I wonder if this diff from conspiracy is an example of what Willmcw is talking about. Tom Harrison (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, that page errantly defined "conspiracy theory" as "a theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers" -- which doesn't really seem to be saying much of anything, and plays up the X-files angle, and is seemingly way more ambiguous and incomplete than even the current definitions used in this article. Correcting ambiguity, obfuscation and incomplete definitions should not be a crime as you seem to be implying. And also for the record I think the definition I quickly came up with is infinitely better and properly disassociated: "conspiracy theory, either any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose or a collection of folklore and rumor similar to urban legend". What exactly did you not like about my version? Your version completely and conveniently ignores the folklore, rumor, academic, popular culture, and dismissive usages of the phrase...? zen master T 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate intro proposal 

message: What do people think? We may only need 2 of the 4 sentences from the second paragraph above, but I am not sure which 2 and we may actually need that extra clarity. zen master T 10:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can say much about the motive of persons who call something a conspiracy theory.  Sure, it is possible they are using the term to malign or discourage further research, but it is more likely they are simply expressing their own profound and honest skepticism. The opening paragraph of the article already says that sometimes the term is used pejoratively.  If any clarification is needed, I think it should go in the body of the article. –Shoaler (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the simple "perhaps inadvertently" or a similar caveat addresses your concerns? "Used pejoratively" is woefully insufficient. Also, in most cases, critics are specifically charging people that use "conspiracy theory" to label theoretical speculation with the specific intent of thwarting and discouraging further research. Perhaps I should write up my interpretation of "conspiracy theory" and submit it to a respectable journal for inclusion, that may be the only way to have a direct fundamentally critical source available (though someone else would then have to be the one to include it in the article but I digress). zen master T 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why does our text have to include that it is "ambiguous" and "pejorative". Those are two concepts that keep being added by one editor and keep being removed by others. -Willmcw 22:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the article uses "pejorative" it's not just "my" proposal above. I think the potential for ambiguousness is obvious after you realize the label is applied to both actual theories and folklore. zen master T 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phrases are not ambiguous simply because they have multiple meanings. Why does our definition have to have that and "pejorative" in the introduction? -Willmcw 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A phrase is ambiguous if it's unclear whether the subject being labeled should be thought of as a theory or as folklore, which is often the case with "conspiracy theory". I think everyone would agree that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is "pejorative" but users and proponents of "conspiracy theory" as a label would argue ridicule and dismissal of allegedly eccentric folklore and rumor is justified, however I strongly disagree that it is ever justified, especially in the context of a scientific investigation.  zen master T 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  See below for "pejorative"; and compare with for example "cult" (indeed, the word pejorative is not necessary, other words can be used to express the same). Harald88 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that this article is being edited with an eye towards substantiating positions at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, which calls the term "ambiguous" and pejorative, and which concludes that the term should not be used in titles for those reasons. Could user:Zen-Master please comment on that concern? -Willmcw 01:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we compare the current article to the mid October and other earlier versions I think the opposite case could be made, namely, that changes have been decreasing the chances of Wikipedia:Title Neutrality ever passing. The old version of the article (that I did not edit) defined conspiracy theory colloquially as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which I still maintain proves the phrase should not be used in scientific nor encyclopedic contexts. Just the fact the word "theory" is used in the name of a type of folkore should be enough to prove the high potential for ambiguity here. zen master T 01:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it correct that you have no intention of pursuing future policy changes to prevent the use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles? Or if you do, that you don't intend to refer to this article as a justification for doing so? Since your editing here comes after numerous attempts to change Wikipedia guidelines, some assurance that there is not an ulterior motive would make it easier to assume good faith in this regard. -Willmcw 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the impression that I am giving up on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? I've been doing everything I can to stop or slowdown the removal of clarity from this article. Massive changes were made starting in early to mid October that I believe dramatically decreased the comprehension and understanding of the inappropriate uses of conspiracy theory in scientific and encyclopedic contexts. Coincidentally, early to mid October also happened to be around the time when I was separately working on version 2.0 of the Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal... At the time I asked my fellow editors to explain, here on this talk page, their rationale for making all the changes, especially removal of content, but they never did. Since then I've been trying to salvage some clarity from what we have now. Hopefully I've come up with a clear and sufficiently disassociated proposed intro above. I can always refer to historical versions of this article to make a case for Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So then you are planning to continue to use this article to support your arguments at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? If that is the case there is a possibility that you may make edits here in order to further your position there, rather than to create the best possible article here.  I appreciate your desire to "slowdown the removal of clarity", but I'm afraid you are also pursuing the same ultimate goal here that you've been pursuing since the summer: removing the phrase "conspiracy theory" from the titles of articles which describe conspiracy theories. -Willmcw 04:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I wonder if this diff from conspiracy is an example of what Willmcw is talking about. Tom Harrison (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, that page errantly defined "conspiracy theory" as "a theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers" -- which doesn't really seem to be saying much of anything, and plays up the X-files angle, and is seemingly way more ambiguous and incomplete than even the current definitions used in this article. Correcting ambiguity, obfuscation and incomplete definitions should not be a crime as you seem to be implying. And also for the record I think the definition I quickly came up with is infinitely better and properly disassociated: "conspiracy theory, either any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose or a collection of folklore and rumor similar to urban legend". What exactly did you not like about my version? Your version completely and conveniently ignores the folklore, rumor, academic, popular culture, and dismissive usages of the phrase...? zen master T 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: User:Shoaler says, "We are not labeling these "conspiracy theories"." I say, "Yes we are." They fit any definition in use; They have the features cited above them on the page; They are conspiracy theories. We should say so, just as a page on fossils should list representative fossils as fossils, not Alleged fossils. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  My mistake.  When I saw the link "AIDS and HIV" I thought it was the general AIDS article and not the AIDS conspiracy theories article.  I will revert. –Shoaler (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing examples 

message: I added a section, References, that is for works actually used in writing the page. The section Further reading is for related works that were not used in writing the page, if I understand WP:STYLE. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format