User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/008

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
Regarding your revert at Conspiracy theories: These may be state crimes, as you said in your edit summary, but the important aspect is that there have been conspiracy theories about these crimes. The source I have cited is not somehow randomly selected, it is a text that explicitly discusses conspiracy theories, written by mainstream university professors. Cs32en  Talk to me  22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite how reliable your source may be, the point the majority of the reliable sources we are using for this article make is that the state crimes they list may be political/criminal "conspiracies" but they are not conspiracy theories unless it can be shown that people were being dismissed as conpiracy theorists for claiming that the U.S. government might have been engaged in these illegal/unethical acts until it was proven that these acts had actually been done. I suggest you read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies, in which he writes, "It is [...] true that the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one." --Loremaster (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Domhoff consistently uses the term "conspiratorial view", not "conspiracy theory". Furthermore, the status of Domhoff's text is lower than that of the research paper I have referred to, as it is not explicitly addressed to an academic audience. We would need more sources to determine whether the preponderant academic view is that conspiracy theories need not be false or that conspiracy theories are necessarily false, and in case both viewpoint have substantial support, we would need to present both views on this issue. Cs32en   Talk to me  23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although Domhoff consistently uses the term "conspiratorial view", he is in fact refering to conspiracy theory. Furthermore, his text is a summary of arguments found in his book. --Loremaster (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your arguments seem to be based on the definition of the term "conspiracy theory" as a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, as the article makes clear, the term almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. Therefore, your list of CIA crimes may be conspiracies but they are not conspiracy theories. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: The main discussion thread is on Loremaster's talk page. Cs32en  Talk to me  18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution?: Projectification
As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dresden Without Nazis
Hello! Your submission of Dresden Without Nazis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PleaseStand (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi PleaseStand, do the recent changes I made to the article and the hook adequately address the concerns that you have noted? Cs32en   Talk to me  18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen
Sorry, didn't mean to step on your toes on that revert. I already had the page open and was checking the addition to the text of the source and saw it was basically a copy and paste job, so then I reverted it, not realizing you already had. GMTA, huh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regards, Cs32en   Talk to me  23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)