Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory

For a past main page discussion of the issue see /Main Archive1

Comment

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)[reply]

Edit war

Instead of continuing this edit war why don't we reach (and discuss!) a compromise? I think the main article should not be used for discussion but should state the facts and opinions in a pro/con kind of style, also linking to uses of the phrase in articles. The talk page can then be used to discuss these opinions.

I see good faith throughout the edits and think that this suggestion would be a good solution for all involved. violet/riga (t) 21:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Main page for summary of the arguments and the talk page for discussion. zen master T 21:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When I put my comment on the main article page, it was because someone had created the article page specifically for discussion. I have no objection to changing that, and moving all discussion to this page. Wherever my comment goes, though, it should not be altered by someone else. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If your comment is inside the pro argument summary section then it's out of place isn't it? zen master T 22:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that the discussion is on the main page is my fault, as I set it up that way. My thinking was that we could use the main page until we had enough material to summarize and then move the talk here. But I agree with violetriga, zen master, and Slrubenstein that it might be best to move the discussion here now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

So should we implement this plan? (main page a short summary of the positions, talk page for discussion) zen master T 22:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Approach

I personally think that someone should refactor the project page to set forth the controversy and the arguments on all sides. Turning the project page into an argument is not going to help us reach consensus.

I am willing to volunteer to do this, either this evening or next evening. I am "on the fence" on the question at issue, but I think a consensus resolution is important to Wikipedia and would like to get this resolved as quickly as we can without stomping on anyone's opinion.

What I think would be useful are proposed guidelines on when to use and when not to use the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title of an article. Please do NOT edit anyone else's proposed guidelines; if you wish to comment on, endorse, or oppose someone's proposal, please add a comment subsection with your comments and/or propose your own guidelines in a separate section. I would ask that statements of support or opposition, and the proposals themselves, have reasoning backing them, so that everyone can understand the points of view involved. Meanwhile, I'll make an effort to refactor the project page and maybe throw out some synthesized suggestions as this goes along. Kelly Martin 22:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Total waste of time

This is not a constructive dialog seeking a compromies, it is a war of attrition being waged by Obstructionist POV warriors who want to push the idea that there is no such thing as the concept "conspiracy theory." No books, no essays, apparently it is a plot concocted by some secret power that they refuse to name. Enough. Go to a vote. The attempt to find a fair and balanced compromise for several pages in need of editing has been stalled for two months now by this charade. Go to a vote. The evidence is on the main page. Go to a vote. --Cberlet 00:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite examples of obstructionism, POV warriorism and "conspiracy theory" concept denial from the discussion? The issue as I brought it up is simply fixing non-neutral titles. zen master T 00:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people reading the main page and checking out your attempts to reframe the discussion--even editng other people's text--and your refusal to actually have a discussion but merely repeat the same point over and over and over and over and over...will reach a different conclusion. I have withdrawn my attempt at a compromise. I look forward to a vote one way or another. This has been a disheartening experience. Please leave me out of it in the future. I will vote when the time comes. Otherwise I think it is a huge waste of time.--Cberlet 00:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide citations for your accusations? How have I reframed the discussion? Either "conspiracy theory" is POV in a title or it isn't. zen master T 00:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not reinsert the duplicative text. I have withdrawn the compromise titles. As "evidence" it can be displayed as a diff. it has no place on the main page anymore.--Cberlet 00:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I specifically added your original debate on this issue to this article for a reason, that reason remains. zen master T 00:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a project page. I withdrew my set of compromise offers. If they are needed for reference they exist in the history. Who appointed you king of this discussion and this set of pages? I missed the news.--Cberlet 00:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, in chess this is called sacrificing the queen. :-) --Cberlet 00:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I so enjoy gambits. So, zen-master, you just reverted me three times in a row. 3RR. Going to Disney World? Why should you not be suspended for the standard vacation?--Cberlet 00:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the 3RR limits a person to 3 reverts per item per day. Zen was within his rights. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Fish in a barrel. My gambit was to smoke out the sockpuppet. Zing! Thanks. You guys really don't play chess, do you?--Cberlet 01:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Fish in a barrel. My gambit was to smoke out the sockpuppet. Zing! Thanks.": What are you talking about, Cberlet? Re: chess: I happen to be a pretty decent Chess player, I've beaten a Master before. (and I'm a 10 kyu Go player, as well) But what does Chess have anything to do with this discussion? This discussion is not a contest between persons. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:14, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I'm going to do some reading. Finish the DaVinci Code. Keep me in the same mindset until I return.--Cberlet 01:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to comment on the removal of this material. Normally, editors are not allowed to remove material from a project page or article simply because they have written it. However, editors are allowed to remove their own comments from talk pages, as I understand it, and as this was originally written on a talk page, Cberlet is probably within his rights to delete it. Having said that, my opinion is that it's not helpful to delete it, though Cberlet may want to remove his signature if he no longer agrees with what's written. Alternatively, zen master and Kevin could rewrite it, paraphrasing, so that the material becomes your own. I couldn't quite understand the disagreement about the different versions. Let me know if that's relevant, because I may have missed the point here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

My point here has been to show that there is a tag team of editors who are not interested in actual compromise. Evidence includes Kevin_baas stepping in to help out zen-master from a 3RR rule violation; and then Kevin_baas just reverted an edit I made without reading it. The text I had removed was put back into the text in the version I edited--thus the reversion was not needed. It was made without reading my edit. Kevin_baas simply assumed I had removed the material that zen-master was reverting back in. Actually, I jugled it a bit, but it was there. See this diff --Cberlet 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now there is a big block of duplicate text...dare I fix it?--Cberlet 01:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being totally confused about why material is being deleted, moved, and repeated. Chip, can I ask: is there material you want taken off the page, and if so, why? Yes, please do fix the repetition at least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to SlimVirgin above, basically it comes down to tone and the change in tone, Cberlet's original post portrayed me as a "lone wolf" POV pusher that did not have any support for my non-neutral title criticism. Cberlet seemingly was subtly attacking me personaly and portraying the issue as lacking any support, I am basically trying to prevent such original claims from being swept under the rug. Contrast cberlet's original section with the subsequent section, the subsequent section gives Cberlet all the appearances of being neutral (after the fact). There is no mention of his uncited earlier subtle claims. This and some of my other points are only relevant against Cberlet's original post, it's evidence, perhaps it should be blockquoted? Or more importantly perhaps we should all just get back to discussing the original issue? I support Kelly Martin's plan for organizing the main page as a summary of the arguments/positions and this talk page for debate and discussion. zen master T 01:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks, that's clearer. Chip is within his rights to remove anything that might look like a personal attack, whether he wrote it or not. If he's leaving up a more neutral version, or more neutral tone, that's a good thing. There's nothing to stop you from making a note on the page that a personal attack was removed, but I'd advise against it, as it keeps the thing going. Far better, as you say zen master, to concentrate on the topic. I also think Kelly Martin's offer to reorganize the page would be a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

He can remove it even if it was I that created the section that contained his original post? How should we go about morphing these two pages into the Kelly Martin proposal? zen master T 01:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks can be removed, and if Chip has written something that he feels came close to one and wants to remove it, that's a good thing, because it makes the page more reasonable looking. ;-) I don't have time right now to look at the refactoring issue, but I suppose it would be good to sum up the debate so far for the project page, and then move the discussion here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not just personal attacks but an initial attempt to completely mischaracterize my position and mischaracterize the debate so any third parties that venture here and who don't have much time to really think about the issue are convinced (tricked perhaps) into thinking his position is the correct one (by claiming there is no support for my position among other subtle claims). Or are you saying evidence of someone "not playing fair" is only relevant on an arbitration page? I will further note that cberlet titled this talk page section as "A total waste of time". I agree we should move the historic debate here and succinctly summarize the different positions on this issue there while continuing the debate here. Should someone neutral do it or can/should I? zen master T 02:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the material that was posted on this page originally because I thought it would be nice to not have a bunch of contentious comments to start off a new discussion. I was seeking a neutral tone, as an examination of the early page history clearly demonstrates: I say "Let's start over and debate these issues with a mind to finding a constructive compromise." I cut out all the comments after the original title compromise proposal.

The difference between a personal attack and a criticism of process is a vital difference here on Wiki. Saying an idea is stupid is a personal attack. Saying someone is not seriously trying to find a constructive compromise is a process criticism. For two months I have tried to find a compromise position in this matter. For two months others have come up with creative suggestions and been ready to agree to a compromise. There are only a tiny handful of people who refuse to budge one iota off their original position--zen-master and his handful of allies. Some recent posts from this band of editors suggest that I am now part of some sinister conspiracy. The irony of trying to find a compromise on a question of language about "conspiracy theories" -- and to be charged with being part of a conspiracy -- is too much for me. I think I have clearly demonstrated in the past few hours that at last two editors have shown a lack of serious intent to compromise and to play fair. Enough paranoia.

I will now go onto the page and remove the duplicated paragraphs, leaving the one Zen-master seems to think shows I am part of a plot. Fine. He can have it. There is no need to have part of the section twice. If he would like to post a long essay about my sinister and duplicitous nature, that's fine. He can go ahead. I am going to go and read a book. If the material I object to is still there tomorrow, I will post a note that it remains posted over my objections. That is my perogative, and I do not want others to delete me comments. I will protest. --Cberlet 02:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in continuing debate on the original issue further? You did label this section as "A total waste of time"? Could you clean that up as well? Have you been following Jayjg, BrandonYusufToropov and to a lesser extent my recent debate from today in the article? Brandon pointed out Jayjg used the phrase "conspiracy theory" to discredit, since it can be used to discredit that should preclude it's use in a title shouldn't it (if neutrality is the goal)? zen master T 02:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon made that claim, which is something else entirely. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you claim you used the phrase "that's conspiracy theory thinking" as a compliment? BrandonYusufToropov 18:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I do not believe you are acting in an appropriate manner. I have tried not to say this outright, but you keep insisting on pretending that your actions are in the spirit of compromise. I see no evidence that this is true. The concept of passive-aggressive comes to mind. Your actions on these pages alone demonstrate an aggressive and patronizing approach. You have edited other editors' text, seized control of the page, and then you pour on the sugary prose of wounded passivity. I am trying to clean this up. I am criticizing your process. I am suggesting that there is no point in continuing wasting time actually pretending this is a serious attempt to have a discussion. Just like the seige of Leningrad was not a serious attempt at seeking peace. After 900 days we will still be here, and you will not have budged an inch. What's the point? You are relentless. And your buddy Kevin_baas just reverted me without even reading the text which contained the material you wanted included. Where is the integrity in that? Where is the integrity in your actions? Please feel free to continue on without me. Other than waiting to add a note about material being posted over my objections (up to you) I will wait for the vote.--Cberlet 02:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant summary, and logical conclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in continuing discussion on the core title neutraily issue? Again, would you be so kind as to clean up the title of this section "total waste of time"? Or are you saying you are done with discussion? Is the fact that "conspiracy theory" is used to discredit a subject relevant to this discussion? What did you think of Mirror Vax's point about "not using loaded words"? Do you support moving the main page's discussion here, keeping just a succinct summary of the positions there on the main page, and then only debating here on the talk page? zen master T 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new beginning

I have completed the proposed reformating, someone needs to come up wit the "Pro" argument on the main page again. I am open to suggestions on how to modify the summaries or the format further. What do people think? zen master T 03:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, but I would like to consider revising so as to allow Conspiracy theory itself to remain unchanged. (And prohibiting the words "conspiracy theory" from other article titles as POV.) What do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 18:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major flaw with "keep" argument presented on project page

It deserves to be an article unto itself -- one that argues (rightly or wrongly) about what a conspiracy theory is.

It has nothing to do, as far as I can see, with how anyone actually, currently uses the term conspiracy theory when speaking or reading in the real world. Instead, it espouses a thesis-like argument for what we should consider a conspiracy theory to be.

What does the definition proposed have to do with whether or not the term should show up in a WP headline?

The question is whether the words conspiracy theory are pejorative in actual use by the vast majority of real human beings who have no interest in academic theories. I say they are.

Because:

When people say a certain idea is "only a conspiracy theory"...

... or belittle someone else by saying, "That's conspiracy theory thinking"...

... they probably aren't doing so because they agree with the points this article makes about epistemology.

To the contrary. They are doing so, I maintain, because they are eager to dismiss or discredit the idea in question.

And whether or not that intention is formulated clearly enough for them to recognize it on a conscious level, the pejorative character remains.

Representative citations of "conspiracy theory" as a marker for "condition contrary to fact, put forward by dubious sources" WHICH IS NOW THE PRACTICAL, REAL-WORLD MEANING OF THIS TERM:

* "Here, courtesy of Turn Left you can come up with a Wacko Right Wing Conspiracy Theory of your very own."

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/conspiracy.html

* "Want to come up with your own conspiracy theory about Bush? Don't let Al Franken, Michael Moore, and MoveOn.org have all the fun! Use this handy George W. Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator to come up with your own conspiracy theory!"

http://www.buttafly.com/bush/index.php

* "Those who rejected the resurrection of Messiah came up with a Conspiracy Theory to explain the empty tomb and His many appearances."

http://www.acts17-11.com/conspire.html

"...an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm

Are these writers endorsing a specific definition of the term conspiracy theory involving closed systems and epistemological distinctions?

Or are they broadcasting to their readers the unspoken message, "I do not believe in the idea I am about to reference, and neither should you, because it is not trustworthy"? BrandonYusufToropov 16:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the keep summary is precisely how people use the term, and if conspiracy theories are seen to be inherently perjorative, it's for the reasons outlined in that description, namely that conspiracy theories don't conform to the usual rules of evidence; that they are matters of ideology, not fact; that nothing, it seems, is able to convince their adherents that they're wrong; that the goalposts keep shifting in order to neutralize or incorporate evidence that contradicts the theory. This is a descriptive term, not simply an insult. Paedophile is a descriptive term, though it also has negative connotations because people don't like paedophiles, but ought that to mean we're not allowed to use that word in Wikipedia? In the same way, "conspiracy theory" is a descriptive term, and if it has negative connotations, it's because most people don't respect conspiracy theories. The important thing is to make sure that stories included in conspiracy-theory pages really are conspiracy theories, and not simply alternative theories, or controversies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a descriptive term. So is insanity and paranoia. I'm not saying WP should not have titles that are descriptive. I am saying that the descriptive terms we use in titles should not manifest POV towards the content.

For instance, this particular descriptive term should not be applied to the article currently bearing it as a predudicial, neon-brilliant "Don't take any of the content on this page seriously" sign, namely 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. BrandonYusufToropov 18:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Third branch?

The third argument on the main page is very similar to the "Against" argument, except that it proposes to not rename the Conspiracy theory article. However, I'm not sure that anyone is actually in favor of renaming this particular article. I propose that this third branch be deleted or merged. Carbonite | Talk 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that that wasn't clear in the second alternative offered on the main page. If the proponents do not intend to include Conspiracy theory itself within the ambit of their "ban" of the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", they should state so. I also think it's important to reference back to WP:NPOV to ground this policy in existing, well-defined Wikipedia policy. In my opinion, every Wikipedia policy should be clearly related back to one of the three policies in WP:TRI, and I don't see the first policy proposal relating back WP policy at all and the second one does not do so clearly. Kelly Martin 18:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the term conspiracy theory itself should be left intact as a separate article by that title (perhaps incorporating much of the text from option #1) and that editors should be disouraged from linking to it to disparage articles with which they disagree. BrandonYusufToropov

Comment(2)

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)