Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

how about using conspiracy and theory to help define?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Alternative intro proposal

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)

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)
Agree with Jay.--Sean|Black 22:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Other users, such as Cberlet [1] 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)
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)

Off-topic

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)

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)

On-topic

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)

Don't see what "stigmatized" adds other than POV. Jayjg (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It further clarifies what "dismiss" and "ridicule" are trying to say. zen master T 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think the perjorative deifintion is covered by "dismiss" and "ridicule", personally.--Sean|Black 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Appropriate in titles if pejorative, ridiculing, and dismissive?

Given that we seem to agree now that "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and ridiculing does Wikipedia:Title Neutrality make more sense? If a term or phrase is perjorative does it belong in the title of a neutral encyclopedia article? zen master T 02:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No. It's sometimes perjorative and dismissive. This has been discussed ad nasuem, and consensus ruled that "conspiracy theory" can be a neutral descriptor.--Sean|Black 02:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Heh, ok, now I understand the game you are playing. So, to paraphrase your argument, potentially pejorative terms/phrases are ok in an allegedly neutral encyclopedic article's title? Would it make sense and/or be more neutral to use "terms" that have no potential for being pejorative? What criteria do you propose for determining when "conspiracy theory" is pejorative or not? Off the top of your head would you say that allegations from a nobel peace prize winning scientist deserve to be presented as a "conspiracy theory" or not? Sean, I didn't notice you in discussion or your vote over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, but you seem to be very familiar with it, how did that happen? When you say "neutral descriptor" what do you mean exactly, this article currently doesn't really define that aspect of "conspiracy theory" at all? zen master T 02:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I read through the debate at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. I'd say that "conspiracy theory" is only a perjorative if the person using it intends for it it to be a perjorative. Someone may laugh a theory or an idea off as such if they're not presented with hard evidence. that person would probably be described as a skeptic. The phrase has connotations of tinfoil hats and the like, but the term itself is perfectly neutral. Wikipedia has a passive voice, therefore it can't intend to use a perjorative.--Sean|Black 03:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be more evidence the phrase is inappropriate in a title of an allegedly neutral encyclopedia article. If a phrase even slightly connotes tin foil hat how is it neutral? Why should anything be labeled with "conspiracy theory" even if we ignore the issue of whether the "term" is or isn't pejorative, why do any labeling at all? See for example Flat Earth. zen master T 03:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Read connotation. It depends on tone, context, etc.., none of which can be exist in an encyclopedia with a passive voice.--Sean|Black 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like the right avenue of investigation to go down when the issue is neutrality, that technique is also known by the name of "tangent" but maybe my interpretive engine is broken today, or some such. In case you care I will repeat myself hopefully more clearly, why do we have to label or categorize theory X in a title at all, what is your requirement or impetus for not titling that article as simply X theory? zen master T 03:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, perhaps you don't get what it is to write an encyclopedia article. It's all about classification. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, we call it a duck ... without reservation. You insist that we reserve judgement on whether or not it is actually a duck, or whether or not something deserves to be considered a duck given the status of ducks in the popular imagination. In doing so, you give NPOV#Undue_weight to those freaks who deny the legitimacy of duckness, yourself included. Adhib 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this discussion is over now.--Sean|Black 21:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
If someone is proposing a theory then it would violate various Wikipedia neutrality policies to directly classify that theory inside a stigmatizing category. The "conspiracy theory" category is needlessly unscientific and appears to exist only to discredit politically sensitive theories and topics. Any classification is potentially pushing a particular point of view and definitely is if anyone else disputes that act of categorization. When there is even the smallest chance a categorization is disputed a neutral encyclopedia is required to cite exactly who is trying to classify something a certain way. To follow Adhib's analogy, if say a bird watcher proposes a theory that argues a particular duck is really a flamingo and they call their theory the "Flamingo theory", it would be unscientifically inappropriate, and a violation of neutrality, to present it as the "Flamingo conspiracy theory" or as the "Duck conspiracy theory". Any proposed "debunking" of a subject should be established from neutrally presented facts, observations and a logical argument, not from language that induces people to unquestioningly accept someone else's categorization. Abstract conceptualization has been co-opted by presumption inducing language. Of all the article titles on wikipedia that utilize "conspiracy theory" none are undisputed. zen master T 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Zen-m, you have read the Undue weight paragraphs in the NPOV policy statement, haven't you? "When there is even the smallest chance" is specifically not the case. If you don't like the policy here, build your own 'pedia. Adhib.
How is my interpretation giving undue weight to anything? Cited theories and critiques should not be presented as associated with ostensibly dubious folklore. Have you read wikipedia's cite sources policy, the citations for who has determined whether a particular theory is a "conspiracy theory" are notably missing in each case. Also, it is worth noting that you (or whomever is doing the categorizing) have not provided any case by case analysis or criteria that you use to apply the discrediting "conspiracy theory" label to a specific theory. The inconsistent application of the discrediting "conspiracy theory" label, among certain politically sensitive subjects, is obvious. zen master T 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you read it, but you didn't agree with it? Adhib 22:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The undue weight is actually happening in the opposite direction from what you seem to be implying -- a theory from a cited source does not deserve to be presented dismissively and stigmatizingly as an allegedly dubious type of fiction. It would be more appropriate if you (and anyone else that uses the "conspiracy theory" label) chose to logically argue a particular theory or allegation is incorrect, intead of trying to indirectly discredit the theory through implied categorization as fiction. Why try to discredit something indirectly using nothing but carefully constructed language if you can disprove it with facts and an argument presented neutrally and straightforwardly? If you are trying to argue a majority of the public or "experts" believe something to be appropriately labeled as a "conspiracy theory" you still have to cite a source for that claim, and regardless it is inappropriate to use a label in a title that implies some sort of categorization. The job of a title is to neutrally describe the subject rather than to judge or determine conclusiveness, a good example is the Flat Earth article which is not titled "Flat Earth false theory" or "Flat Earth conspiracy theory", which is how that article would be titled using your point of view. zen master T 23:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong and thrice wrong. Even if I were in the business of classifying certain accounts as conspiracy theories (which, please note, I have not done in the article) I no more have to present cites in settled cases than I do to establish the claim that the Earth is round. We state that the Earth is roughly spherical, without having to present proofs against those rare folk who dispute it, because merely taking their views seriously enough to present the counter-argument is in itself to grant their nincompoopery undue weight. It corrupts the pedia, and destroys any shred of credibility it might hope to achieve. Honestly, Zen-m, it would save my aching fingertips so much wear and tear if you would consent to read the NPOV paragraphs on undue weight.Adhib 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To all the einsteins here who would have us believe, against all common sense, that the term conspiracy theory bears any neutrality whatsoever in any context, and who are continuously quoting some shadowy majority consensus over past talk pages, i would kindly ask them to from hereon refer to the 9/11 bin laden terrorism attack against the u.s. as the 9/11 conspiracy theory against the u.s., in an all neutral or even (according to them) positive light of course, since as the u.s. gonverment alleges a certain group of people conspired against the united states of america. If the views of zen master to clear this article up are not met -clearing it up from people who would (not that they would have any reason to...) deliberately obfuscate it using dismissive rhetoric instead of npov- I or any wikipedia user would then be justified in editing any page refering to the 9/11 attacks, adding a "conspiracy theory" modifier to any mention of the bin ladens implications in the attacks. Because what we ve got here, is an article covering dismisively the "conspiracy theories" of the attack and several others refering to the official theory without the conspiracy title attached to it, and in all fairness i don't see any reason why, in a very neutral and positive manner, this shouldn't be titled a conspiracy theory too, as it is the very definition of a group of people conspiring against another. Bob. --posted by anon ip 87.202.20.229

I regret that the article as it stands is not clear for Bob to grasp the distinction it draws between a well-evidenced account of a conspiracy, on the one hand, and a catastrophically badly-evidenced one, on the other. Adhib 22:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia often avoids terms that appear POV or may appear so, even if technically they aren't, if a more obviously neutral wording can be found. "Conspiracy theory" to describe a belief that the official story of X is incorrect, would be one such case. FT2 13:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. Perhaps it's time to move Wikipedia:Title Neutrality into the voting phase. zen master T 18:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Adhib's new intro

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)

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)

So many points, all running together in a jumble. Let's try to distinguish them and deal with them in an orderly fashion:

  • (a) The examples Zen-m gives us of 'loaded' and 'ambiguous' words are not self-evidently flawed. I'll need to see an explanation of what it is about them that Zen-m thinks necessitates caveats.
  • (b) The 'fact' my intro fails to mention, that "there are many so called conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true", has yet to be established by Zen-m or any other contributor, despite my repeated requests for cites. Note: This is not a request for evidence that there truly have been conspiracies, which no-one here disputes. It is a request for evidence that true conspiracies were suspected, and those suspicions were suppressed (or attempts were made to suppress them) by labelling them conspiracy theories. The best anyone's come up with so far is Blair's dismissal of the 'UK plotted to bomb al-Jazeera' story as a conspiracy theory - ie, a single case, in which the truth of the accusation is yet to be established, so far as I'm aware. This doesn't answer the evidential demand.
  • (c) On the criteria the article sets out for making judgements about what is and is not a conspiracy, see features, and the paragraph immediately above.
  • (d) I have no idea whatsoever what Zen-m is trying to get us to consider with his last three sentences. Adhib 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
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)

I note that Zen-m declines to engage in the point-by-point debate I offer. I think he's becoming overly sensitized to the great wide circle of possible meanings and associations that every single word in the English language inherently carries; this gives him potentially infinite ways to couch his reservations about what is a straightforward statement of fact. For example, all items we hold in our minds are beliefs of one sort or another - calling something a belief is in no sense prejudicial to its truth value. I propose that the first sentence I provide is an improvement on Zen-m's in the following respects: (a) The opening sentence should be an attempt to describe the entity, not an immediate launch into terminological disputes. (b) The misleading 'literally' claim is circumvented. (c) Mine gets rid of the fiction red herring, which is clearly causing additional (!) confusion. (d) It makes for relatively simple, smooth reading, without too many dizzying qualifications. Adhib 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Does 'sceptical' have dodgy connotations for you, too, Sean? I thought it was a useful contextualizing device, giving the reader a quick link into the deeper issues of belief, justification and enquiry that the philosophy around scepticism has to offer. Is that such a bad thing? Adhib 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
ok. zen master T 02:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
I dunno, as long as neutrality overall is increasing I will welcome it. zen master T 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

why is the quality going down?!

IMO (and no doubt I'm not alone) the last proposal in your edit war was the worst proposal I've seen until now, even completely flushing the dictionary meaning down the toilet. Also the foregoing one to which I reverted is definitley less good than some older versions. It should be noted that several of those clearer, less biased, and less POV versions were not of the hand of Zen-master... How come that it gets worse and worse? Harald88 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • A conspiracy theory is a theory that claims an event or series of events is the result of secret manipulations by two or more individuals or an organization, rather than the result of a single perpetrator or natural occurrence. Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events, and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic.
  • Colloquially, a "conspiracy theory" is any non-mainstream theory about current or historical events, often with the connotation that that theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration.
That's what the article said back in August. I can't say we've improved it substantially. -Willmcw 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
That's also not so bad, at first sight. However, the "genre" meaning is completely absent and may be added as second or third point. Moreover, it gives the impression to deny the (appropriate) labeling of "Axes of evil" as Conspiracy theory, while that one was likely rather mainstream; also Hitler's anti Jew campaign was definitely a form of Conspiracy Theory as well as mainstream, although only locally. Probably that impression was meant to be avoided by "colloquially", but I had to look that word up in the dictionary and a mainstream phobia is in my vocabulary certainly not excluded. And "and proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic" belongs with the seond meaning, it biases the first one. Still, only a little fixing seems to be needed instead of a never-ending series of complete rewrites... Harald88 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place…" Tom Harrison (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Is that proverb by any chance from Zen buddhism? :)) Harald88 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And to get up-to-date, in which archive is the motivation for the apparently useless phrase: "that generally take the form of first person accounts and arguments"? As its usefulness is doubtful and its meaning is obscure, I propose to delete that part. Harald88 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Now the introduction is just factually inaccurate, and is contradicted later in the article itself. Conspiracy theory is not a theory about a conspiracy. The other two statements, about its use as a topic of fiction and use as a pejorative, grossly exggerate their importance, to the point of changing the meaning of the term. There is no mention at all of current academic use, completely ignoring the dozen cited references at the end of the article. Tom Harrison (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom, the intro looks to me very close to that of an authorative source: "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act." - The American Heritage® Dictionary. Thus, if it happens that the article "later contradicts" that, then the article does not obey Wikipedia guidelines and is by definition POV.
Apart of that, apparently, someone replaced "academic use" by "popular media and entertainment"(?!). Using Sean Black's phrasing "The term is also used by academics to identify a type of folklore " I suggest to remake the second sentence (trying not to step on a land mine, and close to what was there recently):
"The term is also used by academics to identify a type of folklore that includes allegedly paranoid, eccentric and outlandish stories that generally describe vast cover-ups."
Harald88 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't its academic and legal use also be built on a foundation of theories about conspiracies? --Peter McConaughey 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
No; or for a suitable understanding of "built on a foundation of," maybe. Please refer to the references and talk page archives. Legal use is another page altogether. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, how about "A Conspiracy theory is an allegation that people are secretly working together to achieve an aim that might otherwise be considered a natural occurrence or the work of one person?" --Peter McConaughey 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Which references are you relying on for that definfition? Tom Harrison (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the common denominator of all references - the basis for all use of the term. --Peter McConaughey 15:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
See here above, the American Heritage Dictionary for an example(but regretfully we may not, it seems, literally copy it). Harald88 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see "Conspiracy Theory" (not a conspiracy theory) being used as classification such as "Game Theory" or "Queuing Theory" rather than the more common usage where an explanation or story is referred to as "a conspiracy theory". Is this an academic field of study or genre? Is there a reference to this kind of use? –Shoaler (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

HaraldHH & Peter are both offering us versions of Zen-m's "literal definition" of the term, attempting to rescue and distinguish a technical term from a term which connotes folklore. This is a goose chase, I think: those allegations of conspiracy which are well-formed, substantially researched, fact-checked, reliably sourced, and so through hard investigation proven true, are never - to my knowledge - categorized as conspiracy theories: rather, they are investigative journalism, good detective work, etc. Conspiracy theory as a term is reserved for allegations exhibiting many or most of the features the article recounts. I'd welcome some evidence from anyone to the contrary, as repeatedly requested, but I ain't holdin' my breath. Adhib 20:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Adhib, in discussions over the last month I have given you several such examples, please don't pretend not to have seen them. In addition, your remark implicitly denies that a well known dictionary is notable enough to take into account. Harald88 21:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
PS or do you mean that already definitely proven conspiracies are never called conspiracy theories? Of course not: such are called conspiracies! Harald88 23:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There are subtle distinctions here which repay patience. Conspiracy theory is fairly constantly used and understood as a term ranging over stories which are constructed in a certain way - a way which is alien to the normally accepted procedures of proof (in journalism, law, etc), and which fails the test of authority that such professions demand. I have certainly missed Harald's several examples of true conspiracies being concealed by dismissals of the accusers as conspiracists. The one I have seen him offer - the Blair v. "bombing Al-Jazeera" one - does not meet the evidentiary demand, as I already explained. Does Harald88 need a more exhaustive explanation of why? Adhib 00:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
There certainly are many subtleties involved: I don't remember me claiming any "dismissals of the accusers". Examples to be reckoned with and which I gave are JFK and Rasputin; and since conspiracy theory is an existing language expression, of course dictionaries are sources to be reckoned with.
Harald, if your memory is flagging (and I wouldn't blame you for that on this marathon topic) scan back for evidentiary demand, and you'll re-read my careful explanation of what types of evidence are needed to prove that the term conspiracy theory has been used to dismiss valid accusations. JFK and Rasputin ain't it, because the truth of any one conspiracy theory involving either event is not established. Do you recognise the problem? Adhib 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, what really matters: I think that the current introduction is not too bad. Let's hope that Adhib, Peter and Zenmaster agree. Cheers Harald88 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I can accept the compromise it represents. I just hope Zen-m doesn't insist on reinserting the convoluted apologies for conspiracism he's rehearsing below. Adhib 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Investigative journalism" and "good detective work" do not mean the same thing as "a credible theory involving conspiracy." They are not specific enough to convey a distinct idea. Beyond the pejorative use of "conspiracy theory," the term also has a real meaning. Not everything in this world is used to convey symbols of good and evil. Reducing words to their Hollywood version weakens our ability to effectively communicate and form complex ideas. Weakening a language to derisive and complimentary terms is cited as the underlying cause of the failure of many societies, including Palestine. When we can no longer communicate effectively, our civilization loses the infrastructure necessary to survive. --Peter McConaughey 21:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

first sentence

About the first sentence, does anyone have an argument against "is a secret plot by a powerful covert alliance" as we also had in the recent past? I only found that one back now, and I like it better (clearer and more to-the-point than "is a theory which alleges clandestine and conspiratorial activities by individuals or groups"). Harald88 23:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a good sentence.--Sean|Black 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
A conspiracy theory doesn't necessarily involve "powerful" covert alliances. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and a theory can't be a plot, or an allegation, it must be a theory. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
True, but most conspiracy theories involve covert plots and such. In any case, I like your recent edit, Jay.--Sean|Black 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You are right Jayig, I now also saw that; the sentence didn't originate with me. But for style it's nice to avoid twice the same word (reason for optimism? we're discussing the less important issue of style!). Then how about (with more good old stuff, that pops up when looking at the history):
- "A Conspiracy theory is a hypothesis of a secret plot by a covert alliance, rather than people acting publicly or by natural means."
(hypothesis suggests a weak form of "theory", which is correct) Harald88 23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

At the same time that he removed the NPOV banner, Tom Harrison has added quite a lot of stuff to the first paragraph, and notably to the first sentence. At first sight it looks acceptable to me (after a little tweeking), but it's far from obvious to me that everyone will agree. Cross your fingers! ;-) Harald88 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And as was to be expected: apparently in an attempt to compensate for Tom's expansion, now Zen-master added a "literal" interpretation (which in principle should fall inside the essence of the first sentence, if both are warranted). The dictionary is somewhere in the middle...

Note: both actions were commented only by me on the talk page, simply to leave a report of and commentary on what's happening. Good luck guys! Harald88 21:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything in the first sentence, except I think it's too long a sentence. I also am not crazy about the "theory is a theory" beginning. What do you think of something like this?
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event attributing it to a secret plot by a covert alliance rather than people acting publicly or a natural occurence. There is commonly a deliberate attempt to deceive public opinion in connection with it and frequently with a motive of partisan gain at the expense of the wider society.
–Shoaler (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"...people acting publicly..." is weak. "...has multiple meanings and uses..." is weak. "It can refer to..." is weak. "...with certain regular features" is weak. Overall, the intro is so convoluted, it seems silly. Have we given up trying to make a strong article? WP:Be Bold means don't hit that Save page button until we're sure that we've made the article stronger. If we're following that, why does it appear that the intro is a patchwork of concessions? --Peter McConaughey 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's weak but I thought I'd let proponents of "conspiracy theory" clean that part up, with my recent change I tried not to remove info that was already there, just add info (I did remove some redundancy). At this point I think an intro that is all over the place (includes everyone's definition) is better than the alternative, which is a lack of comprehension for a complicated and often confusing phrase. zen master T 20:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your favorite intro?

I like the one Harald88 did on 18:47, 2 December 2005 best. --Peter McConaughey 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
Agreed.--Sean|Black 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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)

In my interpretation the current intro goes into way too much detail about the "conspiracy theory" story type to the exclusion of other meanings and uses of the phrase. It is true that fiction is not an antonym of fact, but is also true that the phrase "conspiracy theory" needlessly confuses and dismissively categorizes many actual theories as a type of fiction in many examples of usage. The "conspiracy theory" genre or story type is ostensibly fictional right, why should I drop "this nonsense about 'fiction'"? I am merely trying to disassociate concepts using unambiguous language. Also, the current intro uses excessive wikilining of evocative words apparently for the purpose of increased yet still subtle emphasis, it does not sufficiently disassociate between when the phrase is applied discreditingly to a theory and when it is applied to fiction. The intro and article should mention the convenient (for the purposes of disinformation) fact that any actual theory that coincidentally alleges a conspiracy can be labeled dismisisvely as "conspiracy theory". Perhaps we should rename the Conspiracy theories (fictional) article to Conspiracy fiction to sufficiently disambiguate between the applicability of "conspiracy theory" to theory and fiction (and likewise rewrite this article to disambiguate the concepts)?

For a separate yet seemingly related example of presumption inducing language ambiguity and subtly exclusive one sided framing of an issue check out the race and intelligence article, it seemingly perpetuates an unscientific dichotomy so readers will only think about an abstract issue exclusively in terms of "race". In my interpretation, that article's method of presentation is beyond racist, it is inducing racism in others and fabricating an "IQ" based caste system society for some undetermined political purpose (IQ tests are themselves highly disptued). zen master T 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not constructive. Please stop wasting our time.--Cberlet 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)

I quite like the existing intro, although it's not yet optimal -- twice mention of "like urban legend" is not nice and I think that "respects " should be "aspects". And I strongly disagree with Zen-master, the first sentence is now sufficiently broad to include all notable uses of the term, and thanks to careful phrasing, none of hte following sentences takes that away. It's almost like a patent application ;-) Harald88 23:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PS. However, looking at the version of 2 December, I must agree with Peter that it was in some ways better: stronger, directer, more compact. Harald88 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

PS PS (It hit me when I was sleeping): "Casual use" is nothing really, I think that this "casual" use is either academic, or pejorative, and that explaines why it "doubled". The pejorative use is a logical consequence of the casually applied academic use. Thus it will be easy to compact it. Harald88 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Secret Plot

"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)

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)
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)
  • "In casual usage, "conspiracy theory" refers to misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors, similar in many respects to an urban legend." By calling something an urban legend, you are saying that it is not true. Even in its most pejorative sense, however, calling something a conspiracy theory means just to question it, or to not take its claims at face value. --Peter McConaughey 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I've attempted another wording change. Take a look.--Sean|Black 01:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 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)
        • Good job on that- intro's nice and concise.--Sean|Black 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

eliminating "casual use"

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)

Nested plots

This guy told me his hypothesis is that the members of the cabal are secretly creating convolutions of this article in order to promote their abolition of the WP:CT proposal. Is this true, or a conspiracy theory? --Peter McConaughey 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm... Are you asking a serious question? if not, I advise you to read WP:POINT.--Sean|Black 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's a serious question. --Peter McConaughey 02:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, then I'd say it's not true (clarification: Is the "cabal" sysops, or... ?), and that it's a "conspiracy theory" because it's a theory that involves a conspiracy among a group ("cabal" in your words).--Sean|Black 02:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's both a conspiracy theory and true. --Jesus of Wikipedia 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess "questionable," would be a better term to use in my sentence than "conspiracy theory." --Peter McConaughey 02:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Conspiracy theory#Features, I would say it is not a conspiracy theory. As our new collegue above points out, that does not mean it is false. There is a cabal if you want there to be one. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes a conspiracy theory is a purposefully rediculous obfuscation of the real conspiracy. Take the X-Files for instance. It mixed government conspiracies, many of which later turned out to have substantial validity, with theories about intergalactic war and werewolf cover-ups. The idea was to promote a perception that government conspiracies are as rediculous as vampires and swamp-things.
Another example might be above, Tom Harrison says that "there's a cabal if you want there to be one," and Jesus asserts that a Cabal exists. Wonder if Jesus really wants for there to be a Cabal, and is promoting its creation by insisting that we already have one? --Peter McConaughey 03:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Automatically stigmatizing when applied to a theory that alleges a conspiracy

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)

too long intro

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)

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)
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)
Your version is just the current version minus the one sentence I added back? zen master T 22:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The literal usage should be mentioned

I think some mention of the literal use, that the phrase can be applied to any theory that coincidentally alleges a conspiracy should be mentioned. Tom, how is the following redundant, it's true and accurate:

The term can refer to any actual theory or conjecture that alleges a conspiracy or group secretly working together

Also, your recurring re-introduction of the phrase "may be used" errantly implies permission as in "it's ok to use" which would be the wrong thing to say, right? I think "vast conspiracy" is better in an abstract sense than "grand conspiracies".

The term is ambiguous and pejorative when used to dismissively categorize an actual theory or competing viewpoint, that coincidentally alleges a conspiracy, as an example of "conspiracy theory" fiction or rumor.

Tom, that wasn't even in the intro any more so how could it have been redundant? It explains the mechanics of the pejorative use, why did you remove it? Also, I think we should add back in the "when somebody uses it" because readers probably won't consider the possibility someone else could and would use the ambiguous phrase "conspiracy theory" much more duplicitously and nefariously than they would (an important distinction to realize, i.e. how I might use language and how someone else seems to be using it could be so vastly different). I am starting to wonder if people honestly believe, perhaps subconsciously, that "intelligent design" means reality was "design[ed] intelligently" merely because that is titled so literally. It is almost as if someone is manipulating people's subconscious and instinctual interpretation of language to get them to subconsciously and unquestioningly accept anything presented literally. zen master T 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The "literal" usage is already mentioned in the first paragraph.
I can't see any point in saying, in effect, that the term is pejorative when used pejoratively.
I don't understand your remarks on 'intelligent design'. Are you suggesting it has a primary meaning beyond the "literal" meaning of the two words understood in isolation? That seems at odds with your position here. You might find the article on Semiotics interesting.
"It is almost as if someone is manipulating people's subconscious..." 1) None of us is so nearly omnipotent; 2) Not to seem dismissive, but the stakes aren't that high; 3) Somebody said that conspiracism is solipsism for extroverts. There's no way to prove that we're not all just brains in vats. Dwelling on that is a waste of time.
Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The literal usage is not sufficiently mentioned in the first paragraph -- actual non-misconceived, non-paranoid, non-outlandish theories can be labeled dismissively as "conspiracy theory". This point isn't about "meaning", it's about how people use the phrase, they apply it to actual theories for the purpose of discrediting them through implied categorization as folklore or rumor. What you say is "already mentioned" does not sufficiently disassociate between the ambiguous application of the phrase to theory or to alleged folklore/rumor. zen master T 19:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess we disagree; I find the "literal" use and the possible dismissive use already exaggerated. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The literal use and the dismissive use are one and the same. I've just reorged the intro to improve clarity and remove redundancy, let me know either way. I noticed your version of the intro was using needlessly absolute language, why? zen master T 20:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What the deal with this edit [2]? Your edit summary says "some npov clean ups, added in the missing meanings, missing clarity and missing disassociation", yet you added a {{NPOV}} 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)
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)