Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2


 * For historical accuracy here is the original proposal that corresponds to this vote (before enhancements were made to the proposal). Voting on the original proposal closed on Jun 1, 2005. zen master T 01:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Voting (rename vs keep as is)

 * Please see Conspiracy theory for the proposal, arguments and counterarguments.

Voting will end June 1, 2005.

The raw votes of the balloting were:
 * Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles: 12
 * Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is: 32
 * Remove the word "theory" from all article titles: 1
 * Decide on a case-by-case basis: 12

Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles

 * 1) Rename  zen master    T  00:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutralitytalk 01:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Rename BrandonYusufToropov 02:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Kevin Baastalk: new 02:34, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
 * 5) Rename to Unofficial accounts or a simmilar term to designate that this is an account accepted by some yet rejected by the concensus of the mainstream media for example.--The Brain 05:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) * Use of Unofficial accounts to distinguish from widely accepted ones is misleading with PoV intent: that choice implicitly asserts that no one but those holding office (or those who accept everything they say without other evidence) advocate for the widely accepted account, which rarely is true and is in practice never verifiable. --Jerzy|t 18:48, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
 * 7) Rename -- but, since it seems that this alternative is losing, the next-best thing for NPOV purposes is to be consistent, and to rename other articles by including the pejorative term.  One obvious example, mentioned in this debate over the use of "conspiracy", is Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.  Otherwise, we appear to be headed for a situation in which, for example, we'll report on allegations that the Bush administration engaged in secret activities of    this type, but we'll discredit those allegations by calling them "conspiracy theories".  When the allegations are made by the Bush administration rather than against it, however, the term will suddenly disappear.  I trust that the editors calling for case-by-case decisionmaking don't intend to endorse such bias. JamesMLane 07:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Rename Kaibabsquirrel 18:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Rename. We do not need a change to policy. Existing policy indicates that we should seek as NPOV a title as possible. I propose changing FOO conspiracy theory to Purported FOO conspiracy. This avoids the pejorative taint of the "conspiracy theory" phrase (aside from it's literal meaning) and clearly marks the "theory" as not commonly accepted. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Rename - JamesMLane makes a good point. - Mustafaa 21:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Rename - "Conspiracy theory" has an inherent negative, "nutcase" connotation, and use is usually deliberate by skeptics to instantly marginalize or discredit the subject, before somebody even has the opportunity to read about it. (Come on--you all know that's true--admit it.)  Sometimes "conspiracy theories" do eventually prove out when governments finally come clean by choice or through legal action, such as the U.S. government carrying out illegal radiation experiments on uninformed citizens, finally admitted to during the Clinton Administration, or the FBI using agent provocateurs and various "dirty tricks" to discredit anti-war groups during the Vietnam War.  Many other examples exist.  There are some good suggestions for making the titles more neutral, but I don't think one catch-all renaming policy is necessarily apt.  Renaming should be on a case-by-case base, with the goals to be more neutral and also more descriptive.  E.g., the UFO conspiracy theory could easily be renamed the "UFO cover-up theory" or "UFO government cover-up theory", which is not only more non-POV but also has the virtue of being much more descriptive of what the theory is about.  The pros and cons can then be laid out in the article.  User:Dr Fil 23:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: 's 25th edit. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) rename - i agree strongly with User:Dr Fil, and couldn't care less how many edit's he's made -- unless he's a sockpuppet. if you don't have more or better evidence than his contributions page, what's the point? i object to the technique, Jayjg. SaltyPig 06:03, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
 * 2) Rename - Present the evidence and facts from both sides, and let the readers decide for themselves. If a "conspiracy theory" is indeed "loony," then that should be evident to inteligent readers without having to prejudice them in the article's title.  Blackcats 10:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is

 * 1) Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis: "carefully restricted to those situations where it is the best descriptor of the theory in question", to borrow ObsidianOrder's good wording. -Willmcw 01:01, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Cberlet 01:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Carbonite | Talk 01:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- M P er el ( talk 02:42, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, with the comment that there is a big differene between a "conspiracy," a "conspiracy theory," and an "unofficial account." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. &mdash; mark &#9998; 07:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support on a case-by-case basis: "carefully restricted to those situations where it is the best descriptor of the theory in question" ObsidianOrder 08:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support with the same caveat as above - case by case, and I prefer "conspiracy theory" to "misinformation and rumors" any time, except in articles dealing only with clear misinformation, which is not the same thing as a rumor. -- AlexR 11:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- This proposed policy would cause no end to problems for no good reason. For example, the Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories article only makes sense at that title. Calling it an unofficial account or some other set of weasel words means we'd have to call it by something other than the descriptive phrase the case majority of people in the field refer to it as. This proposal is well-meaning but extremely impractical, causing far more problems of greater seriousness than the alleged difficulty it tries to address. DreamGuy 13:35, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - "Conspicary theory" is neutral enough in my opinion. Peter Isotalo 15:04, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support in general, though not as a blanket rule. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Keep the word police out of Wikipedia, please. Decisions can be made on an article-by-article basis. Rhobite 18:29, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. See my reasoning above -- removing "Conspiracy Theory" creates a POV just as much as conspiracy theory does as well, try to come up with a good alternate title for 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel or AIDS conspiracy theories that doesn't give the conspiracy theorists too much credence. We should be NPOV on presenting all facts, not representing all assertions as equally valuable.  --Goodoldpolonius2 19:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly neutral to call a theory unconventional, unusual, non-mainstream, minority view, not generally accepted, etc. Another possibility would be "speculative" theory. Mirror Vax 09:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Or, Theoretical speculation. ;)   -Willmcw 09:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support a common term. An encylopedia should not redefine terms just because they clash with someone's agenda.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 09:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was asked to elaborate. I oppose attempts to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. --Mrfixter 11:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, with the comment that "conspiracy theory" has a range of legitimate senses, which unfortunately conspiracy theorists have failed to create awareness of and standard terms for. Every theory that says a conspiracy is involved is objectively a CT, and every CT that fails to win predominance in people's thinking about an event has the potential need for the phrase in its article's title.  Conspiracy theories (e.g. most versions of Holocaust denial) that require the assumption that the conspirators are so powerful as to make the theory incredible (to anyone who has both a life and any respect for truth) are loony, paranoid, or all-embracing CTs (probably not just "fringe CTs", tho it could stand in if it's the best we can do w/in NPoV). (It's a shame if our article on CTs doesn't yet acknowledge that spectrum, but not relevant to this discussion.) So the only question we should be worrying about is whether we have articles with "CT" in their titles, that fail to clarify that they discuss CTs that are credible to almost no one; my guess is that this seldom matters. --Jerzy|t 18:33, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, MechBrowman 20:27, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, and all pages with "conspiracy theory" on the title should have a link to conspiracy theory on the first paragraph. --cesarb 23:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: the natural title rule applies. Tannin 23:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Decide on a case by case basis. Gamaliel 03:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Decide on a case by case basis. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. The term "Conspiracy Theory" is commonly used and people know what to expect. It's not up to wikipedia to change common habitus. Dabljuh 21:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It is up to wikipedia to inform the reader, that is the goal, and anything that stands in the way of that goal rather than being in pursuance of it, be it common habitus or not, is contrary to the raison d'etre of wikipedia. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:19, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Nunh-huh 04:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --mav 01:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support &mdash;Morven 23:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --PHenry 14:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Dalf | Talk 06:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Mgw 07:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Prevalent. --maru 17:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. The author of the proposal clearly has no idea what the words conspiracy, theory, and conspiracy theory mean. &mdash;Sean &kappa;. + 19:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) I was asked to explain my vote, so I'll do so here. Though some words may have a rhetorical or biased slant to some, that doesn't mean that their true definition should not be used.  There is obviously a simple difference of perspective here&mdash;to some of you, "conspiracy theory" means "a bogus crackpot theory", or at the very least has a pejorative connotation.  However, "conspiracy thoery" is a completely objective word&mdash;It's a theory that a two or more people are/were plotting an act.  Some of you seem to think it has a "double meaning", and I completely disagree.  In fact, I cannot think of a more objective word, and some of your suggested replacements are worse.  If you change "conspiracy theory" to "conspiracy", then you lend it validity.  "Controversy" is even worse.
 * 10) In the Conspiracy theory article, it states that a second, colloquial definition, is an "outlandish theory". Note the "colloquial" part.  Plenty of words have alternate colloquial definitions, but an encyclopedia avoids them.  Should we stop using the word fascist because its colloquial meaning is completely skewed from its actual meaning?  &mdash;Sean &kappa;. + 15:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Remove the word "theory" from all article titles

 * 1) Oppose this option. There is such a thing as a conspiracy. It is a legal term. If a group is convicted of conspiracy, then it is not a theory. A conspiracy theory on the other hand, is a concept not backed up by law. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Decide on a case-by-case basis
Now logically, it is to be understood, that the above votes amount to not deciding on a case-by-case basis, but either having "conspiracy theory" in all articles that meet a given criteria, or none. This all or none is, logically, mutually exclusive frome "decide on a case-by-case basis". However, some people have at different times voted for either all or none, while stating their support for "case-by-case", either without realizing or without acknowledging the contradiction.

Furthermore, noone has changed the article "Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda" to ""Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory", so it is safe to say that nobody has, in action, shown genuine support for the the "all" option. This is, to the contrary, a clear example of deciding on a case-by-case basis, where the only apparent criteria is whether the theory is from or against the adminstration.

And in any case, this is the null hypothesis - the state of consensus existing before/without these proposals - the status quo. People who have stated their support for, or endorse the preservation of, the null hypothesis - the status quo - case-by-case, on whatever grounds, should list their names here, so that their views may be represented collectively, for the knowledge of all those who seek a mutually satisfactory resolution of this issue.

I have, in the aim of resolving this confusion, and making this situation clear, compiled a list of people who have made unambiguous statements in support of deciding this matter on a case-by-case basis. People are welcomed to reaffirm their position by turning their names into a signature. Only then will it be recognized as a vote. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

(grey votes are inferred from unambiguous statements made by named parties)


 * 1) Kevin Baastalk: new 03:19, 2005 May 9 (UTC) -subtract from "Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles"
 * 2) JamesmLane -subtract from "Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles"
 * 3) Zen master -subtract from "Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles"
 * 4) BrandonYusufToropov -subtract from "Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles"
 * 5) Willmcw -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 6) AlexR -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 7) ObsidianOrder -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 8) Jayjg -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 9) Rhobite -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 10) Gamalial -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 11) Mel Etitis -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"
 * 12) ? "So, given the levels of nuance, why is the problem not solved as part of the normal negotiation over article titles, so that we have to ban the words all together?" --Goodoldpolonius2 -subtract from "Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is"?


 * this would put the vote distribution at 2-18-1-12. Kevin Baastalk: new 20:20, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

new 03:19, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I deleted your addition of other people's names here. They've voted where they wanted to vote, and would have created a new header if they'd wanted to. Please leave it to them to decide what they want to say, and where they want to say it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * They said it on the talk pages, quite specifically. I am just aggregating references to those who have stated the same thing, and am being completely transparent about it - it is clear that the people did not put their names there.  Furthermore, there is something that people cannot do: contradict themselves.  If they say "I think this should be decided on case-by-case basis." and then deny that they said that, or act in other circumstances in that manner, then wikipedia degrades into an incoherent and irrational gobb of unreliable abusrdity.  If you assert something to make a point in one argument, you cannot assert the opposite in another argument.  You cannot arbitrarily assert whatever premises are convenient to a certain rigid and unyelding position.  One must assert premises based upon a genuine and unbiased measure of reality, and from there, by logic, reach non-arbitrary conclusions that are consistent with the fixed premises.  If, for example, one is to assert "case-by-case" they 'cannot arbitrarily withdraw this assertion when it proves inconvenient.  I am aggregating the record, and making no pretention about it.  If people choose to reaffirm what they have already stated, then they may go ahead, but they cannot deny it. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:33, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment. I can think of a couple ways to get rid of the problematic "conspiracy theory" phrase. One is to drop the "conspiracy", so that 9/11 conspiracy theories becomes simply 9/11 theories. Or, if it is desired to have only non-mainstream theories in the article, then call it 9/11 unconventional theories. "Unconventional" is neutral and conveys the message that the content is not generally accepted. Mirror Vax 08:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot of this is coming from the POV that whether something is a conspiracy theory or not is simply a matter of perspective. Not so. A conspiracy theory is not the same as a dissenting viewpoint, and there is a long history of conspiracy theories. Put it this way, U.S. vs. National City Lines involved a conspiracy--how do we know? The conspirators were convicted. Now when the U.S. brought suit in the case, they had a prosecution theory of how they believed the conspiracy worked, but that is not the same as a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are, by their nature, speculative, and often biased as well. They are often driven by a refusal by the theorists to accept that the mainstream explanation of an event may be the right one, so they look for any possibility, however slender, that their POV is correct.
 * Trying to soften the term gives credence to crackpot ideas, and that is not what an encyclopedia is about. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If an article is about crackpot theories, then title it "crackpot theories". Then we can debate which theories are crackpot, rather than having to deal with people who insist that "conspiracy theory" means "a theory involving a conspiracy" (that viewpoint has been expressed on this very page). Mirror Vax 04:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * A cure worse than the disease. A conspiracy theory is often a crackpot theory, but sometimes they contain elements of truth or might even be the truth. You know, a stopped clock is right twice a day. But crackpot theory is, erm ... a teensy bit POV. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the point, "conspiracy theory" is just as POV as "crackpot theory" but is allowed to exist. In fact "conspiracy theory" is way more POV than "crackpot theory" because the former discourages an objective analysis of the subject, and the POV is very subtle too. zen master    T  17:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)