Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/Main Archive1

Copied from previous discussion:

I've set up Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory as a place to discuss this issue. I suggest we use the main page rather than the talk page, then if consensus develops, we can move the discussion to talk, and summarize the consensus for the main page for editors in future to consult (not as policy but as a guideline). But if others prefer to use the page differently, that's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of "conspiracy theory" arguments

For

Well, I am not in favor of conspiracy theories, but I am in favor of labeling certain theories "conspiracy theories." Any theory that explicitly claims a secret and deliberate act by a group of people is by definition a conspiracy theory. One of the remarkable features of conspiracy theories is that they are by definition unverifiable (lack of evidence only proves how great the conspiracy actually is). This is the very opposite of a scientific theory. Since "verifiability" is a core value of this encyclopedia, we should certainly take it into account when explaining different theories. I agree that we should allow for "alternate theories." The question is, "alternative to what?" I think we should mean "Alternative to other scientific theories" and not "alternative to any scientific theory." In other words, I see an alternative theory as alternative to the theories accepted by major institutions (e.g. CDC, WHO, or FBI) — but such theories should nevertheless be scientific theories that can generate falsafiable hypotheses. Any theory that does should be labeled "Alternative theory." But any "theory" that doesn't shouldn't be dignified with the term "alternative." The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is not political, it is epistemological. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Klonimus 18:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against

"Conspiracy theory" is a POV loaded term and it's use should be deprecated on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's own definition of "conspiracy theory" defines it as connoting that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously, which is seemingly the anti-thesis of an encyclopedia. Every subject in an encyclopedia should be presented neutrally and factually, readers should think for themselves rather than accept the assumption that a subject is unworthy of being taken seriously.

"Conspiracy theory" is also an ambiguously confusing term given its multiple definitions. Some subjects on wikipedia seemingly group together all "alternative theories" inside "conspiracy theory" articles. Are all such theories really conspiracy theories? (using the other definition of conspiracy theory). The problem with the definition of "conspiracy theory" comes into play when it does not mean people literally conspiring but when the phrase is used to discredit a subject before the reader has a chance to take it seriously. If a subject is literally about people conspiring use of "conspiracy theory" should still be deprecated because the phrase has multiple defintions and people often confuse those definitions. If there is a phrase that potentially discredits a subject by being in the title that phrase should be excluded from titles (even if its literally true under other definitions).

Re: "scientific" - firstly, you are suggesting that we label articles such as the God article a "conspiracy theory"; that the title be changed to God conspiracy theory. Secondly many of these "conspiracy theories" are falsifiable - under an investigation and a court of law they can be ruled on one way or the other, just like any other criminal conpsiracy theory.

And by all rights, by both the For & Against logic, "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" should be Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. It is a minority view and it actually a theory of a conspiracy and it doesn't have any evidence to support it, only unfalsifiable and simply false claims. However, the Against people are against using "conspiracy theory", because, as already stated, it prejudices the article.

As someone once said, Wikipdia should call a spade a spade. That is, a theory of complicity a complicity theory, etc. Titles should not be used to prejudice an article.

Seek More Complicated Discussion & Titles

People who are against the term "conspiracy theories" in Wiki titles have a point, but only up to a point. When a theory is put forward that explicitly claims a conspiracy that has not been proven or substantially documented, it remains a claim of a conspiracy. There is a whole movement of people who object to the term "conspiracy theory" claiming it is used to provide a cover for protecting the status quo. They promote terms such as "complicity" theory or "coincidence" theory. It would be naive to not be aware that this is a highly POV position that reject most "mainstream" views. But sometimes "mainstream" views deserve to be challenged. So what I have been proposing (for two months) is some language that finds a compromise. I think the term "conspiracy claims" is factually accurate and yet avoids the derision that is the baggage with the term "conspiracy theory." I have suggested some titles below.--Cberlet 20:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, this is being framed as a simple "one size fits all" debate, when it is clearly more complex, and depends on context. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually explain this context to support your position. Why doesn't Pro vs Con work exactly? zen master T 21:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because often issues have more than two sides--they are not binary. One of the hallmarks of a conspiracist mindset is dualism...the binary division into Good/Bad or Right/Wrong. This makes actual debate or compromise impossible. There is only victory for "truth." Sense the irony here?--Cberlet 22:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So there are multiple ways of "conspiracy theory" being NPOV? Do you agree "conspiracy theory" is potentially ambiguous? zen master T 22:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When did I stop beating children? Stop with the trick questions. Let's just talk. In some articles I think the term "conspiracy theory" is appropriate and accurate. In some cases I think "conspiracy claims," or "criticism," or "controversy," etc. are more accurate and less POV. I do not think one size fits all. I have proposed 6 page names where in no title does the phrase "conspiracy theory" appears.--Cberlet 23:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating the elimination of "conspiracy theory" from inside the content of articles, rather, just from titles. When an article uses "conspiracy theory" inside we just have to add who is claiming that and what specific facts support that conclusion (which is impossible in an article's title). This is necessary so the reader can understand from context that "conspiracy theory" means either people literally conspiring or it means this theory is dubious. zen master T 23:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are your objections to my 6 titles?--Cberlet 23:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"conspiracy claims" is too close to "conspiracy theory", the other 4 titles are good. Note the arguably very dubious Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article is not titled Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda claims. An article's title should not include a judgement call (if it's too dubious to be an article then it should be deleted through VfD). zen master T 23:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

additionally I don't like "misinformation" in titles either, also a POV loaded word. If the article is alleging someone is intentionally creating misinformation then any facts that support that should be presented and cited in a neutrally titled article. zen master T 23:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So when someone claims Bush was involved in a conspiracy to attack the U.S. on 9/11 -- that is not a "conspiracy claim;" and when information circulated shortly after 9/11 is proven to have been false, it is not "misinformation." That smacks of Orwellian rewriting of reality.--Cberlet 23:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one pointing out that discrepancy amonst titles, the very dubious Saddam and Al-Qaeda article gets a straightforward title whereas other titles must use "conspiracy theory", why? The 9/11 complicity theory really isn't claiming Bush was involved directly, we should remove that from the article. Alleged facts that are later proven to be false do not belong in a "conspiracy theory" article, they belong in a debunked subsection of a more generic/main article. "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" in a title prejudges any factual conclusion that something has been proven false (and many of the claims remain in dispute). zen master T 00:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so this list will cover most types of data:

and these two merged and parts redistributed onto other pages.

And it is a compromise, because a number of others have moved to accept this, while you refuse to compromise.--Cberlet 00:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who has moved to accept this since the discussion started? This discussion is a generic complaint about the appropriateness of a title that prejudges any subject. "conspiracy claims" is the same as "conspiracy theory", you haven't responded to this point? Why should these articles have "conspiracy claims" in them while at the same time the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda title exists without any caveats? It's actually more a hypocrisy than an inconsistency. zen master T 00:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that you will not accept any Wiki titles with the word "conspiracy" in them under any circumstances?--Cberlet 00:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prove to me I am wrong about "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" having multiple definitions and having been used in the past to discredit a subject and I will withdraw my complaint. "conspiracy claims" is slightly better than "conspiracy theory" but my current point is about inconsistency/hypocrisy. If "conspiracy claims" is necessary in the 9/11 articles then it must also be necessary in other articles such as Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy claims, right? If we spend a little more time I think we can come up with something better than "conspiracy claims" but the first step is to move away from "conspiracy theories". We may need some amount of article content reorganization to go along with any new titles. zen master T 00:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A second common aspect of the conspiracist worldview is insisting that others disprove a claim, rather than the logically-valid system of suggesting that people who offer an alternative explanation that challenges accepted belief need to prove their case. This reversal of proof (proving a negative) is at the core of conspiracism. Thats two.--Cberlet 01:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A third would be the belief that people act for the purpose of "covering up" their activities and hiding them from scrutiny.[1]. A fourth would be the insistence that those who oppose them are acting at the behest of secret masters (e.g. "your boss should be proud" [2]). That's four. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many conspiracy theory titled articles have the same amount of factual evidence as straightforwardly titled articles on WP. Why the glaring discrepancy? On what particular articles do the discrepancies exists? Whose sublte POV psychological word game trickery is "winning"? Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda vs AIDS conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories zen master T 21:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, whose "subtle POV psychological word game trickery" do you think is "winning"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. zen master T 21:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. You're the one who brought it up; why don't you just say things straight out, then we'll all know? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent titles exist to push POV. zen master T 22:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok, whose POV? Who is the hidden puppet-master here? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on the who. The only thing that is crystal clear to see is the POV. zen master T 22:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., which specific POV is being pushed? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The POV being pushed is either that Saddam definitely was involved with Al-Qaeda (when the links are extremely dubious) and/or that all man-made origin theories for AIDS are unworthy of being taken seriously (when there is factual evidence and citations for such allegations). And likewise with all the other "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" articles. zen master T 22:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And which specific group has that agenda? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, do you agree it's plausible there is POV being pushed by the titles in question? To answer your question a second time, I have no knowledge of who is apparently pushing the POV, I only see crystal clearly that there is POV and, for the sake of neutrality, that it should be cleaned up. zen master T 22:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible anybody could be pushing POV on any article. However, given the diverse views of the many people supporting these titles, and the apparent lack of relationship between the articles themselves, it's hard to see exactly what POV might be "being pushed" in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, you sound like Bill Gates on trial in The U.S. vs. Microsoft. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 17:38, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

First, I don't think ad hominem attacks are necessary. Second, Jayjg was quite clear in stating his point. What exactly is the agenda of this mysterious cabal that supports the use of the term "conspiracy theories"? Carbonite | Talk 17:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not meant as a personal attack. It was meant as a comparison of strategies. Jayjg is using rhetorical questions to dismiss POV-pushing claims. That is not a point, as it involves no facts or logic. Zen has a good point: under all criteria stated, "saddam hussein and al-qaeda" is as deserving of the title "conspiracy theory" as anything else, so why is this being dismissed? - there can be only one solution: there is another criteria - one unspoken, hidden. There is only one reason to hide something - fear of retribution. that's pretty solid logic. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:02, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

No, I'm using real questions to try to understand what Zen-master is talking about. He keeps insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him is not using "facts" or "logic", but rather involved in various conspiracies or has unstated POVs and agendas, without actually directly stating what those are. Now you're doing the same; insisting that those who disagree with you are also not using facts or logic, but instead have "unspoken" or "hidden" agendas which they are advancing for "fear of retribution". Neither of you will state straight out what these agendas are. That's conspiracy theory talk, and it is becoming abundantly clear why both you and Zen-master are against the notion of conspiracy theories being described as conspiracy theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're being disingenuous, Jayjg. We all have a bias, as we are all human. However, we could work towards overcoming our bias by acknowledging it and keeping it in check. You are denying your bias, and thus not acknowledging it, and thus not keeping it in check. This further supports the hypothesis that you are influenced by it. I am not insisting that those who disagree with me are not using facts or logic. I have said that I didn't see any facts or logic in your questions. If I missed them, an effective response would be to point them out to me. But that is not relevant to your accusation, as you have not disagreed with any of the facts or logic that I have presented, and you therefore do not fit into the category of "people who disagree with [me]". I have already told you the logic, in the above post: that there is a standard that you use which attributes to the minority view theory of complicity between Al-Qaeda and informed members of the Executive sector of the Bush Administration, the characterization "conspiracy theory", while at the same time you do not attribute this characterization to the minority view (both within the CIA and the general public) theory of conspiracy between saddam hussein and al-qaeda. you have not stated what this standard is. I and zen-master are for the notion of conspiracy theories being described as conspiracy theories. It is "abunduntly clear" that you are not, but instead apply a different standard, which you are mysteriously reticent about. As I have stated, and you either misread or intentionally distorted, reticence is almost always a result of fear of retribution, and this further supports the hypothesis. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Re: Your comment, "That's conspiracy theory talk," above. You do realize you're using the term as a pejorative, don't you? Doesn't that possible use of the term say something about its appropriateness in a (supposedly) NPOV article title? BrandonYusufToropov 21:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the term as a factual description of an observable phenomenon. Do you disagree with my assessment? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying the phenomenon you would be perfectly entitled to regard as factual would also be perceived by the people you're attacking, and by a fair-minded observer, as belittling or disparaging. I'm saying it is therefore a pejorative, and inappropriate for use in an article title. BrandonYusufToropov 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pe·jor·a·tive Pronunciation Key (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-)

adj.

1. Tending to make or become worse.

2. Disparaging; belittling.

A disparaging or belittling word or expression.

I'm attacking someone? I rather see it as the other way around. Anyway, let's not dance around, since on other talk pages you claimed to dislike that; do you view yourself as a "fair-minded observer", and do you see what I've described as "conspiracy theory talk" as, indeed, "conspiracy theory talk"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my point is that it's clearly an emotionally weighted term, as demonstrated by your own choice to use it as an insult. Unless of course you mean to suggest you were actually flattering them when you dismissed their positions by saying "That's conspiracy theory talk." I'm not going to get caught up in a discussion of whether or not what you said was factual. That's your issue. You were trying to put them down, and used these very words to do it. What does that say about the nature of the term? BrandonYusufToropov 01:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is increasingly surreal. Now those of us seeking a constructive compromise are said to be part of some vast plot, and when we argue this is at least ironic, the conversation goes forward into another level of hell. I like my dialog cooked al Dante, thanks. Fish anyone? Watch this space for Dali updates. [3]--Cberlet 22:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Jayjg, you can't neutrally present a phenomenon if you are using the phrase "conspiracy theory". Do you acknowledge the existence of an alternative definition of "conspiracy theory" that discredits the subject? zen master T 21:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with far more than just me; you disagree with Cberlet, Willmcw, Klonimus, SlimVirgin, etc. Please don't characterize this as a Jayjg-only position. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe all those users cited support your position to the degree you believe they do. Any conclusion of a phenomenon being "dubious" must be made by the content of an article, not by its title. zen master T 22:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because this conversation is going in circles, I withdraw my compromise titles such as "conspiracy claims," and now totally support Jayjg. This is a waste of time. No progress is being made. It is a discussion based on erosion rather than actual dialog.--Cberlet 22:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People that support "conspiracy theory" titles don't seem to be arguing that it is a neutral term, they just seem to be arguing it's literally a true statement (ignoring the alternative definition that discredits). Is this an accurate summary of the pro "conspiracy theory" title camp? So we should ignore the alternative definition of "conspiracy theory" that discredits and/or are you saying the alternative definition is just not a big deal? zen master T 21:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

firstly, you are making a generalization, and secondly, probably confusing specific evidence with abstract, general claims. For instance, Tom DeLay called people in Ohio and his fellow congresspeople "conspiracy theorists", when they siad that the number of irregularities in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election is intolerable and something must be done about it. To call people "Conspiracy theorists" is to make an abusive attack on their character. It is also an abstract general claim, in which the burden of proof is on the maker of the claim. However, those on Tom DeLay's side did not address any of the information that was brought to their attention. When they are asked to "disprove", they are asked to disprove, for example, the fact that voting machines were distrubuted in such-and-such a way, as reflected in the official state records. It's like saying in court: "the witness is lying, your honor." - you can't just say that and expect the witness to be commited of perjury, you have to prove that the witness is lying. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. So it stands with every fact and piece of evidence that people point to when they say "these things add up to something that raises valid questions regarding such-and-such". Those that object bear the burden answering such questions - that is how they make a legitimate objection, not by hiding or evading, but by shedding light on the truth. Those who contest evidence bear the burdern of substantiating their contest. Evidence has been presented that is falsifiable, and it is the task of those who accuse them of "lying", so to speak, to falsify the falsifiable - to answer questions. This is a logically valid system. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:24, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Jayjg, others, including me, have a much simpler definition for "conspiracy", and therefore "theory of conspiracy", often written "conspiracy theory" for brevity: conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. a "conspiracy theory" is thus: a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Some people have supported the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles that do not fit either this definition of "conspiracy theory", or your more narrow definition thereof, elaborated above. That is why we are having this discussion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:10, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Wonderful. Using this argument we can agree that pages that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title are appropriate when they discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Finally, a breakthrough!--Cberlet 21:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There remains the problem that the phrase has acquired a social stigma that may inappropriately prejudice the article, and thereby make for a POV title, and that this stigma and prejudice should be avoided for the sake of accuracy and neutrality (and what one might call "political correctness"). That's a tricky issue. Certainly I agree that pages that do not discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act should not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, but when it comes to logical bijection, we have to seriously consider whether we are genuinely willing to accept put the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title for all article that discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act, such as the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article, which does exactly that. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 21:47, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think it has anything to do with "political correctness." There's no sensitive constituency anyone is trying to avoid offending. It's just a matter of not prejudging article content. Building titles around a phrase most readers will strongly associate with the obsessions of insane and/or seriously unbalanced people will in fact cause the prejudging of article content. BrandonYusufToropov 21:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please post comments on the above summaries here. zen master T 20:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is not political, it is epistemological. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really object to this discussion being forced into a Pro and Con debate, when there are multiple positions with a considerable degree of nuance that will be lost. The post by Slrubenstein is a perfect example. Can we please drop the headings Pro and Against and just have a general discussion to start with? I tried to do this but was reverted by Zen-master.--Cberlet 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at how you tried to frame the debate by creating the section below is seemingly evidence you are interested only in mischaracterizing my position. By what exact basis are you against a Pro vs Con debate other than you don't like it? People can tweak the above summaries with commenting and/or discussing here. zen master T 20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, up to what point exactly? How do you respond to the argument that because "conspiracy theory" has multiple definitions, and because some of those definitions can be used to discredit a subject, such usage should be depreceated? "conspiracy claims" is too close to "conspiracy theory" in my opinion. Neutraily in titles also means least ambiguious (ambiguity leads to POV). Why state in an articles title "people X were conspiring over subject Y" when you can just state exactly what they are alleging? For example, the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article is titled very straigtforwardly (though I disagree with that article's title for different reasons). zen master T 21:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop re-factoring other people's comments, and trying to take control of the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, are you an Cberlet actually debating? When you say "take control of the page" it's really me making sure the issue is not misframed. You have done nothing but micharacterize my position and actions. How did you become an admin exactly? zen master T 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories by their nature tend to ask more questions than they answer. This is where they differ from factual information. Nobs 02:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you catch the point about "conspiracy theory" being wrong in a title because of its multiple definitions? zen master T 02:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is this page? Let's not ban phrases from Wikipedia please. The phrase "conspiracy theory" may not be appropriate in some articles, but it may be appropriate in others. Rhobite 04:22, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's original Larger Question of Titles & Conspiracy/Complicity section

Because it is relevant to the discussion above I have pasted Cberlet's original post used to try to frame the debate over the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in an article's title. Please note the differences between this section and the section above [now historic] (In my opinion Cberlet initially tried to completely mischaracterize my position and then swept that attempt under the rug but I will let everyone determine things for themselves and will assume good faith going forward) zen master T 20:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was transferred from another page. --Cberlet 02:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For months now there has been a series of discussions on how to title pages that may or may not involve Conspiracy/Complicity. A tiny handful of people have resisted attempts to find a compromise, and have unilaterally renamed pages and started title discussions on different pages. I do not think this is either useful of appropriate. The major discussion was at: this page.

Concerning 9/11, there needs to be pages on conspiracy theories that cover claims of conspiracies; and there needs to be pages on continuing controversies and unresolved questions; and there needs to be a page on early misinformation and rumors. Here is my suggestion. The first two pages would be linked to the main 9/11 table of contents:

9/11 early rumors and misinformation
9/11 controversies With the following briefly discussed and linked
Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report (including claims of cover-up)
9/11 conspiracy claims (including stock fraud, oil gambit)
9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel
9/11 domestic conspiracy claims or 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy claims (anthrax attacks and war profiteering)

This is a workable compromise plan for these pages, but there are several other pages involved. This is a complicated process being suggested. Here are some of the pages that would need to be edited with material moved around or at least relinked:

Conspiracy theory
Conspiracism as a worldview
Conspiracy theories (a collection) Collection of conspiracy theories with short discussion
List of alleged conspiracy theories Another list
Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks
Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks

Instead of running around Wiki chasing a tiny handful of editors who do not want to use the term conspiracy in titles, I think it would be useful to set up a broader discussion of these larger issues on a specific page, invite broader Wiki community input, hammer out a compromise, and then get to the really important task of cleaning up this set of pages which are a mess in general.--Cberlet 19:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be accurate to characterize your above edit as extreme POV against my position? Either there is a problem with "conspiracy theory" or there isn't, no need to grossly mischaracterize my position. The consensus suggested titles are improving so that is evidence there is/was a problem. Also note the problem I see is with "conspiracy theory" together, either word by itself is ok. zen master T 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would characterise your position as inflexible, and unwilling to engage in a constructive collective editing process. When it is clear that you have a minority position on one page, you unilaterally make edits and page name changes, jump to another page and start a new discussion, and then pretend that there is nothing wrong with that.--Cberlet 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is all entirely your errant perception I can assure you. Does wikipedia work towards a true consensus or is it merely a popularity contest? zen master T 19:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cberlet, there is nothing wrong with having multiple simultaneous discussions on different pages. everyone does it all the time. this wiki would make slow progress if each person only worked on one page at a time. However, if you look at people contributions list, you'll see that that's not the case: they "jump" from one page to the next quite frequently.

regarding constructive: zen is discussing this a lot, and making a lot of good points, which are simply being evaded - not addressed - by people with different opinions. those people that are evading are thereby being destructive, not Zen. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:29, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

"narrative genre" is generally used to describe a work of fiction. How is that applicable to describing the real world (allegations with some evidence)? At best "conspiracy theory" is confusing because it has multiple definitions, why not use phrases that are less ambiguous? zen master T 20:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories

The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description and isn't only a perjorative term, though it is also that. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret plot by powerful conspirators. One of the distinguishing features of a conspiracy theory is that it tends not to be falsifiable in the minds of believers. In other words, if the claim is made that 4,000 Israelis were warned not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11, and it's later established that only 10 Israelis were, in fact, ever employed there, the conspiracy theory evolves to include the claim that the Mossad and USG conspired to alter the records, and that the names of 3,990 Israeli employees have now disappeared. That is, the conspiracy theory represents a closed system, not amenable to the standard rules of evidence (similar to psychoanalysis, for example). This evolutionary growth in the face of evidence disproving the theory is one of the things that distinguishes a conspiracy theory from a matter of simple controversy that surrounds the subject. A controversy or unresolved issue is simply a matter of a debate about the facts, but a conspiracy theory is ideology. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

True, but I don't think that is a defining, necessary or exclusive characteristic of conspriacy theories. It is more of an expression of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in general. The ultimate example of people irrationally believing in something unfalsifiable, and moving the goalposts in order to be able to continue believing in it, is not conspiracy theories but religion. On the other hand, many people believed the official conspiracy theory about Saddam Hussein being an imminent threat with stockpiles of WMDs, and rationally stopped believing it when it was revealed to be based on fabrications and exaggerations. Chameleon 17:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when you describe the "conspiracy theory" about Saddam and WMDs, you are not using it the same way Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and I have been using the term; I do not think you are using it the way most people use the term. Bush's arguments for an invasion were wrong, but they weren't conspiracy theories precisely because Bush believed that a thorough ivestigation would reveal WMDs. Nor do I think we need to bring religion into the discussion, it only muddies the waters. See my comment above (in the previous section); I think SlimVirgin is exactly right. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware that I am not using the term "conspiracy theory" in the same way as it is usually used. As noted in the article Conspiracy theory, the term is colloquially used as a shorthand or code for "wacky theory". I am attempting to use the term in a literal, NPOV sense. Are you admitting that you want the title of the article to use "conspiracy theory" in its common colloquial sense? That would be an admission of POV pushing. To use the term in that sense would be the same as calling the article Silly theories about AIDS, i.e. it would prejudge the issue, and not be NPOV. Finally, the comparison with religion is a good one and illustrates the issue. Chameleon 18:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubinstein, you write: "Bush's arguments for an invasion were wrong, but they weren't conspiracy theories precisely because Bush believed that a thorough ivestigation would reveal WMDs." I don't understand this. Let's assume arguendo that Bush sincerely believed that the investigation would find WMDs (an assumption I think is probably false, but we'll never know for sure). Are you saying that if someone sincerely believes something, then it's not a conspiracy theory? That's the kind of attitude that makes people think "conspiracy theory" is a loaded term -- that, along with implying crackpottery, it implies duplicity. My take on it would be: The theory that Iraq had WMDs wasn't a conspiracy theory because, well, it didn't involve either a real conspiracy or an imagined one (Bush's subjective beliefs are irrelevant either way); the theory that Iraq had cooperated with Al-Qaeda in engineering the 9/11 attacks was a conspiracy theory, because it involved disparate actors communicating and expressly coordinating efforts to achieve a particular result, and keeping their cooperation secret; and, despite that latter point, an article title like Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy claims would be inappropriate because of the loaded nature of the word "conspiracy". Also, you say you agree with SlimVirgin, but I'm not sure which points you agree with. SlimVirgin seems to suggest that, to determine whether something is a conspiracy theory, one should make an assessment as to whether its adherents (1) pay attention to evidence and adjust the theory to fit new data, or (2) inevitably explain away new data in terms consistent with the original theory. If we accept that distinction, then characterizing something as a conspiracy theory is inherently POV and the term shouldn't be used in article titles. Instead, the substance could be presented in the body of the article, with the opinion properly attributed ("The Prime Minister charged that Bush was fixated on finding a conspiracy between Saddam and al-Qaeda and persisted in that view despite all the evidence to the contrary" or "The Prime Minister said, 'It's appalling that so many people have died because of Bush and his conspiracy theories'"). JamesMLane 08:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People may indeed use "conspiracy theory" to mean "wacky theory." From what I have seen here at Wikipedia, many people use the word "religion" to mean "something irrational" or "something superstitious." Nevertheless, I do not think we should change the name of the article on "religion," or de-categorize such religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That is because "religion" means something else, and it is a useful word to use to refer to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Similarly, "Conspiracy theory" means something other than "wacky" and I think SlimVirgin did an excellent job of explaining it. If you read what I wrote in the section above, you would know that I too do not define "conspiracy theory" as "wacky theory." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Range of conspiracy theories

The difficulty is that in many cases, there is what prima facie appears to be strong evidence "something" is not fully kosher, or gone on behind the scenes. And yet official reports and sources dismiss or make no reference to it. Two recent wikipedia examples I was involved in - there was a huge amount of evidence that voting machines were (or could easily) have been used to force the election result in 2004. But nothing will come of any investigation, a few isolated incidents will be addressed, a few individuals prosecuted. Was there more? I dont know, nor does anyone else here most likely. And the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin by Amir, plenty of strong evidence siuggestive that the fatal injuries were inflicted after the initial incident, including surgeons notes, but again, nothing in official sources. So its important to note that a conspiracy theory can include everything from controversies through to allegations of whitewash, up to complete "blue sky" fantasy. They need to be accorded weight according to their evidence, and not all assumed equally valid or invalid. FT2 16:07, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Don't use loaded words. Be direct.

"Conspiracy theory" does include the meaning "highly speculative theory" or even "crazy theory".

Some theories are, in fact, highly speculative - and it's not POV to say so (indeed, it may be POV not to say so). But I would suggest that "conspiracy theory" should, as a rule, be avoided. Why use loaded words when you can just as easily be direct and precise? Mirror Vax 22:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Why needlessly use ambiguous phrases and take a chance of not being neutral when direct and precise alternatives exist? zen master T 22:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]