Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive4

message: Someone cut my comment and put part of it in another section.  Do not do this.  It is a violation of Wikietiquette.  Moreover, I wrote the comment I wrote to make the points I wanted to make, together.  You do not have to agree withe them.  You do not have to like them.  But to separate one part from another is to change them, and you cannot do that.  Do not change what I wrote when I am expressing my own view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  21:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: It is my impression that the first proposal does not describe a policy on when the phrase conspiracy theory can be used in a Wikipedia article without violating WP:NPOV.  Would the proponents of this proposed policy please revise their proposal so that it describes an editorial policy?  At the moment it appears to be an essay on conspiracy theories, which might be useful as an addition to Conspiracy theory but is not of any value as an editorial policy.  Kelly Martin 18:19, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with Kelly Martin's points here, are there any keep as is folks that are going to address them?  zen master    T  18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. BrandonYusufToropov 18:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment(2) 

message: I've added a fourth proposal in which I am attempting to capture the thoughts that SlimVirgin has put forth on the talk page.  Please make suggestions as to how this might more accurately represent this point of view, or tell me if I'm totally off base here.
Also, I would remind participants not to edit proposals that you didn't propose without the consent of the proponents of that proposal.  Do not delete a proposal until it is clear that nobody is supporting it.  I would encourage people to endorse (by signature) whichever proposal (or proposals) they support on the project page so that it is easier for people to gauge which proposals have support and which don't.  Kelly Martin 19:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:The problem with the idea that it's not a conspiracy theory if the proponents are willing to admit that it might be incorrect is that the proponents are always willing to admit, in theory, that it might be incorrect.  In fact, they regularly challenge you to prove them wrong, they insist they'd loved to be proven wrong.  It's just that whenever evidence is presented proving them wrong, it turns out never to be good enough. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth proposal 

message: I've added my signature to the keep proposal. If any of the other keep supporters want to edit the keep summary I added, or expand it, please feel free. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Can we move any voting to the talk page please? zen master    T  00:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep proposal

message: FYI: In his most recent weekly usage column in the New York Times, William Safire contends that "ism" is an often a derogatory usage. "On Language Isms and Phobias"  May 15, 2005
:Adding ist or ism to a word usually colors it negatively, as can be seen in secularist.
:Therapists (a neutral term -- indeed, masseurs like to upgrade their job description to massage therapist) won't like therapism, which is intended to be disparaging.
:Let the listener or reader beware: -ist and -phobe, more often than not these days, are suffixes tacked on to words to turn them into fierce derogations.
This seems like a comparable issue. -Willmcw 08:42, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
:William Safire vacillates between being incredibly insightful and an absolute putz. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:47, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
:How do "Judaism" and "Zionism" fit in with that notion? :-O Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially POV 

message: I changed AIDS conspiracy theories to Alternative theories about the origin of AIDS. Unfortunately, some POV pusher decided to change it back. thoughts? Revolución 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they aren't the POV pusher in this situation. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, you seem to be arguing we should title and present alternative AIDS origin theories pejoratively, why? How is titling the article "alternative theories" about the origins AIDS POV pushing?  If the theories are of a dubious nature then why not let the article conclude that factually and scientifically, rather than taint all conclusions and implied conclusions because of the non neutral method of presentation? Either someone supports neutral language and neutral presentation or they want to trick third parties with presumption inducing language. All language trickery is wrong (unscientific, non neutral), regardless of the multiple/competing POVs that use it. zen master T 02:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's time for a new vote on this proposal. zen master T 13:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible solution

message: FYI, there is a proposal to require an article state exactly who is counter claiming/pointing out that an allegation is a "conspiracy theory" over on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. zen master T 16:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposal has now moved back here, anyone care to discuss it? zen master T 04:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, thank you for not being offensive, for a second I was worried if you'd be, so soothing are your kind words, it sets my mind at ease (is the sarcasm too thick?). You must have quickly noticed a post to this talk page in your watch list and algorithmically decided to go with the same simple non neutral status quo, but a random passerby wouldn't take the time to recount up all the old votes unless they desired to push POV.... Just in case it matters and you are for real (by any definition of real), there is new evidence that the phrase "conspiracy theory" isn't neutral and separately a new discussion sprung to life and initially/seemingly made a tiny bit of progress towards true consensus over on Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid. Basically there is a proposal to require citations or caveats about who is counter claiming/pointing out that a theory is a "conspiracy theory", what do you think about that idea specifically?  Though, given the drop off of discussion there and the recent denial of any support for fixing "conspiracy theory" in titles I bet the propaganda gods aren't currently in the mood for any changes. zen master T 04:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yowza, I'll back slowly away. I just saw a new post to an old talk page on my watchlist and checked it out, and was confused why it was re-opened.  Scrolling back a short distance resulted in the vote count, which I copied with the magic of control-c and control-v, not a lot of time involved.  Thanks for the insanely hostile greeting, though. You don't want me here, I don't need to be here, but what a nice way to start discussion. Best of luck in your future endeavors, and, seriously, you might want to chill out a bit. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't want to fix neutrality problems with wikipedia? zen master T 04:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, that actually got your attention, consider me surprised. Since you took the bait and because this amuses me I will respond. The new evidence is the recently established fact that Slim's original Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory argument in support of "conspiracy theory" being neutral has been refuted.  So either "conspiracy theory" is not neutral or someone needs to come up with a new, logical argument in defense of it -- any takers or should we instead just restart the caveat/citation proposal discussion from words to avoid here? I am game for either. As a separate question, I have been wondering if "conspiracy theory" should be categorized as an offensive or defensive "thought police" capability? I am leaning towards offensive which is why I am still worried and make a big deal about this issue. How would you categorize it? As a side note, I actually assume good faith about the real world turning out ok, eventually, despite my wiki criticism. zen master T 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give us the "diff" in which this refutation occurred? Thanks, -Willmcw 14:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do better, I can recreate the argument here.  Slim's claimed prescriptive motivation for "conspiracy theory" is refuted because the diagnosis is wrong.  Concerns over the lack of neutrality of "conspiracy theory" trump everything else. zen master T 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. So the "new evidence" appeared and "refutation" occured in your mind, then. Glad to see that you still agree with yourself. Jayjg (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By what basis are you arguing the phrase "conspiracy theory" is neutral?  Don't you care that someone is making an in good faith lack of neutrality complaint against wikipedia? zen master T 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone were actually doing that, I would indeed be concerned. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But for your position to be true you have to have a logical argument why "conspiracy theory" is neutral, and you don't. zen master T 16:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For your position to be true, you would have to have to be raising some sort of new concerns about the phrase, rather than continuously trolling these pages with the same arguments you have been making for months, and which have been rejected by consensus. Jayjg (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did "old" concerns somehow automatically become invalid? Your understanding of the word "consensus" is inaccurate. We can use different and alternative words and phrases that will get the same point across as "conspiracy theory" but do it in a fair and encyclopedic way. zen master T 17:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Good points, one more: titles are where "conspiracy theory's" neutrality abuse is the most prevalent currently. zen master T 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for "conspiracy theory" 

message: * The vote that took place about "conspiracy theory" a couple of months ago had to do with titles, not usage of the term within WP articles.
* People are falling all over themselves in these discussions to avoid acknowledging the clear, and now dominant, pejorative content of the term ...
* ...and to turn a blind eye to subjects like whether (initially) rigorous sociological, technical, theological, or academic terms ever change in their primary meaning by means of circulation in the general public. For instance: I am constantly being hit over the head about how the word jihad has in fact changed in its "practical" meaning among English speakers in recent years, thanks to the Western media's (mis)usage of it. For some reason this process of semantic shift is apparently worthy of unchallenged acceptance when it solidifies oversimplifications that demean and slander the beliefs of approximately one billion people. When it comes to "conspiracy theory," though, what matters is how people used the term forty years ago.
* This analysis  of the term features a memorable opening that reinforces the points I am trying to engage here.
I refuse to apologize for rejecting the (simplistic, to my mind) formulation, "It's a theory, it's about a conspiracy, so what the #@$%^ is it if it's not a conspiracy theory?" By the same logic, would we defend the usage of "son of a bitch" on the grounds that "Jack is a son, his mother has at least occasionally been a bitch, so what the #$&* is Jack if he's not a son of a bitch?" BrandonYusufToropov 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points, one more: titles are where "conspiracy theory's" neutrality abuse is the most prevalent currently. zen master T 20:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Points that may perhaps have been overlooked

message: Don't. -Willmcw 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: so should I create a new page for a re-submitted proposal?  Though where in the rules is there a prohibition against clarifying a proposal for an eventual re-vote on the policy?  Would Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory 2 be ok? zen master T 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either a new page or a new section of this page. -Willmcw 03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will change it to "version 2.0 of the proposal", would that be ok? zen master T 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it will not be Ok.  Zen Master, please cut it out.  No one here is buying your arguments.  You simply are making the exact same rejected argument  over and over and over.  It appears as if you are trying to make conspiracy theories sound plausible; in fact, your preferred descriptions of this topic are effectively violations of our NPOV policy.  People here simply aren't buying your pro-conspiracy theory arguments.  Please move on, and contribute in a more constructive fashion. RK 19:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there is some confusion, this proposal was modified and resubmitted as Wikipedia:Title Neutrality so this version was indeed left (mostly) unchanged. My goal is not to make anything "sound" plausible, only to strive for greater presentation neutrality. Though, if you are saying Wikipedia:Title Neutrality has no chance of ever passing then I will deal and learn to work with the majority's interpretation. zen master T 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing a proposal that has been voted on