+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    63

    Wikipedia on Conspiracy Theories

    Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Jump to: navigation, search

    New proposal

    The updated version 2.0 of the proposal can temporarily be found at User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles and may be merged here or a more appropriate location (still waiting to hear back from Jayjg). zen master T 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Rejected proposal:Summary of debate on appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title


    Please direct all comments and voting to the talk page

    Keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is

    The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description of a particular type of narrative. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret plot, usually 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. For example, if the claim is made that 4,000 Israelis were warned not to go to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11, and if 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 the United States government have conspired to alter the records, and that the names of 3,990 Israeli employees have been made to disappear. That is, the conspiracy theory represents a closed system and is not amenable to the standard rules of evidence.
    This evolutionary growth in the face of evidence disproving the theory is one of the characteristics that distinguishes a conspiracy theory from a matter of simple controversy, an unresolved issue, or an alternative theory. A conspiracy theory is a matter of ideology. The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is epistemological. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

    Rename conspiracy theory and similar titles


    Note: This proposal is not applicable to generic articles such as Conspiracy theory which is not pejoratively titled
    Conspiracy theory is an ambiguous cliche added to a title to discredit some articles on Wikipedia through the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, secondary definition of the phrase. Wikipedia defines conspiracy theory secondarily as connoting that a subject is unworthy of being taken seriously, which is the anti-thesis of an encyclopedia and is not appropriate in a title if neutrality is the goal. I propose that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" and similar phrases (that use the phrase to describe another subject) be renamed. These unnecessarily pejorative phrases should be declared not neutral enough for use in titles in the future. The words "conspiracy" and "theory" if not combined are unaffected by this proposal and can still be used in a title (will depend on individual article context).
    Even when an article is literally about people conspiring the phrase "conspiracy theory" is still used to discredit some articles but not others by using the secondary definition. On Wikipedia talk pages the phrase has been used to discredit articles and is therefore provably not neutral. Some articles on Wikipedia also group together all "alternative theories" inside "conspiracy theory" titled articles. If a theory is citable and factual it should not be mislabeled as a "conspiracy theory" because it is then provably the exact opposite of the secondary definition even when also literally a theory of people conspiring under the first definition. This multiple definition confusion at best leads to ambiguity, at worst to POV.
    Proponents of "conspiracy theory" titles argue that some subjects are "true conspiracy theories" or "objectively a conspiracy theory". But how can something be a "true X" if X has multiple definitions? To be clear, shouldn't an article state that something is either a "true Y" or a "true Z" (where Y and Z are the two definitions of X)? To use Y or Z is to state things simply and directly which is currently Wikipedia policy. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can just state things directly using Y or Z?
    Do Wikipedia titles generally state conclusions about an article's content? Should they?

    Proposed list of articles to be renamed

    Related phrases and terms include "conspiracy claims" and "misinformation and rumor" and plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Wikipedia title policy as a guide when renaming.
    The term conspiracy theory has significant connotative meaning (as described in conspiracy theory) beyond its plain language meaning. As a result using this term in an article about a particular theory or set of claims, and especially in the title of such an article, tends to cast the claims described therein in a negative light. Using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe a particular set of claim will almost invariably violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Therefore, the use of the term conspiracy theory in an article title, or to describe a set of claims within an arrticle, should be avoided. Alternative, less-loaded language, should be used to describe theories which include claims of conspiracy or complicity. However, Conspiracy theory itself should not be renamed, since it discusses the concept of conspiracy theories in an appropriate way; to rename it would divorce the title of the article from its content for no purpose. Editors should avoid linking to conspiracy theory from articles about theories which they may believe to be conspiracy theories in order to avoid advocating a point of view.

    Use conspiracy theory to describe only those alternative theories which are true conspiracy theories


    There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is. See the talk page.
    Because the term conspiracy theory has pejorative meaning, its use should be carefully restricted to those situations where it is the best descriptor of the theory in question. A true conspiracy theory is one where the theory automatically expands to encompass any contrary evidence, and such a theory is not falsifiable. The use of the term conspiracy theory to describe a theory which expands to encompass any contradictory evidence into the conspiracy is, therefore, not a violation of WP:NPOV; any other use is a violation of WP:NPOV and should be avoided. The term conspiracy theory should not be applied to a theory merely because it is held by a small number of people, is unpopular, or relies on as-yet unproven conjectures, as long as the propopents are willing to admit the possibility of being proven incorrect.

    Remove the word "theory" from all article titles


    There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is. See the talk page.
    The word "theory" inevitably carries a connotation that the explanation being presented is unproven, which denigrates those explanations. This perjorative use violates the NPOV policy by implying that an explanation is unproven in the title. Articles could be renamed with more neutral phrases, like "possible explanation". So, for example, the Theory of Evolution could be renamed Possible explanation of evolution, Critical theory could be renamed Critical possible explanation, the general theory of relativity could become general possible explanations of relativity and so on. The article on theory, Theory, would be allowed to keep its title so that the POV of the term could be explained.

    I feel that changing 'theory' to 'possible explanation' would make searching for any scientific theory (like the theory of evolution) an unneccesairily difficult task.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

  2. #2
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Wikipedia on Conspiracy Theories

    I didn't see the "Lunar Landings Never Happened" Conspricy on the list.

    That's a big one here with the short-bus crowd
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    63

    Moon Landing is Example of fallacy not conspiracy

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    I didn't see the "Lunar Landings Never Happened" Conspricy on the list.

    That's a big one here with the short-bus crowd


    The Moon Landing Hoax is an example of a fallacy, not conspiracy.
    VideoArticlesNewsBlogsBooks & DVDContactHome

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Wikipedia on Conspiracy Theories

    Really , wiki as a source of truth on anything is an accident.
    Wiki is a first stop for the uneducated not a source of truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by gazzettee View Post
    Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Jump to: navigation, search

    New proposal

    The updated version 2.0 of the proposal can temporarily be found at User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles and may be merged here or a more appropriate location (still waiting to hear back from Jayjg). zen master T 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    Rejected proposal:Summary of debate on appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title



    Please direct all comments and voting to the talk page

    Keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is

    The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description of a particular type of narrative. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret plot, usually 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. For example, if the claim is made that 4,000 Israelis were warned not to go to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11, and if 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 the United States government have conspired to alter the records, and that the names of 3,990 Israeli employees have been made to disappear. That is, the conspiracy theory represents a closed system and is not amenable to the standard rules of evidence.
    This evolutionary growth in the face of evidence disproving the theory is one of the characteristics that distinguishes a conspiracy theory from a matter of simple controversy, an unresolved issue, or an alternative theory. A conspiracy theory is a matter of ideology. The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is epistemological. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

    Rename conspiracy theory and similar titles



    Note: This proposal is not applicable to generic articles such as Conspiracy theory which is not pejoratively titled
    Conspiracy theory is an ambiguous cliche added to a title to discredit some articles on Wikipedia through the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, secondary definition of the phrase. Wikipedia defines conspiracy theory secondarily as connoting that a subject is unworthy of being taken seriously, which is the anti-thesis of an encyclopedia and is not appropriate in a title if neutrality is the goal. I propose that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" and similar phrases (that use the phrase to describe another subject) be renamed. These unnecessarily pejorative phrases should be declared not neutral enough for use in titles in the future. The words "conspiracy" and "theory" if not combined are unaffected by this proposal and can still be used in a title (will depend on individual article context).
    Even when an article is literally about people conspiring the phrase "conspiracy theory" is still used to discredit some articles but not others by using the secondary definition. On Wikipedia talk pages the phrase has been used to discredit articles and is therefore provably not neutral. Some articles on Wikipedia also group together all "alternative theories" inside "conspiracy theory" titled articles. If a theory is citable and factual it should not be mislabeled as a "conspiracy theory" because it is then provably the exact opposite of the secondary definition even when also literally a theory of people conspiring under the first definition. This multiple definition confusion at best leads to ambiguity, at worst to POV.
    Proponents of "conspiracy theory" titles argue that some subjects are "true conspiracy theories" or "objectively a conspiracy theory". But how can something be a "true X" if X has multiple definitions? To be clear, shouldn't an article state that something is either a "true Y" or a "true Z" (where Y and Z are the two definitions of X)? To use Y or Z is to state things simply and directly which is currently Wikipedia policy. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can just state things directly using Y or Z?
    Do Wikipedia titles generally state conclusions about an article's content? Should they?

    Proposed list of articles to be renamed

    Related phrases and terms include "conspiracy claims" and "misinformation and rumor" and plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Wikipedia title policy as a guide when renaming.
    The term conspiracy theory has significant connotative meaning (as described in conspiracy theory) beyond its plain language meaning. As a result using this term in an article about a particular theory or set of claims, and especially in the title of such an article, tends to cast the claims described therein in a negative light. Using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe a particular set of claim will almost invariably violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Therefore, the use of the term conspiracy theory in an article title, or to describe a set of claims within an arrticle, should be avoided. Alternative, less-loaded language, should be used to describe theories which include claims of conspiracy or complicity. However, Conspiracy theory itself should not be renamed, since it discusses the concept of conspiracy theories in an appropriate way; to rename it would divorce the title of the article from its content for no purpose. Editors should avoid linking to conspiracy theory from articles about theories which they may believe to be conspiracy theories in order to avoid advocating a point of view.

    Use conspiracy theory to describe only those alternative theories which are true conspiracy theories



    There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is. See the talk page.
    Because the term conspiracy theory has pejorative meaning, its use should be carefully restricted to those situations where it is the best descriptor of the theory in question. A true conspiracy theory is one where the theory automatically expands to encompass any contrary evidence, and such a theory is not falsifiable. The use of the term conspiracy theory to describe a theory which expands to encompass any contradictory evidence into the conspiracy is, therefore, not a violation of WP:NPOV; any other use is a violation of WP:NPOV and should be avoided. The term conspiracy theory should not be applied to a theory merely because it is held by a small number of people, is unpopular, or relies on as-yet unproven conjectures, as long as the propopents are willing to admit the possibility of being proven incorrect.

    Remove the word "theory" from all article titles



    There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is. See the talk page.
    The word "theory" inevitably carries a connotation that the explanation being presented is unproven, which denigrates those explanations. This perjorative use violates the NPOV policy by implying that an explanation is unproven in the title. Articles could be renamed with more neutral phrases, like "possible explanation". So, for example, the Theory of Evolution could be renamed Possible explanation of evolution, Critical theory could be renamed Critical possible explanation, the general theory of relativity could become general possible explanations of relativity and so on. The article on theory, Theory, would be allowed to keep its title so that the POV of the term could be explained.


    I feel that changing 'theory' to 'possible explanation' would make searching for any scientific theory (like the theory of evolution) an unneccesairily difficult task.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    454

    Re: Wikipedia on Conspiracy Theories

    Who said it was the truth. The title is simply says Wiki on Conspiracy Theories.

    I believe the OP wanted to open up a discussion on the topic.

    Now , how about something germain to the topic, like your opinion on "conspiracy theories."

Similar Threads

  1. I love conspiracy theories because. . .
    By Denis Hard in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2014, 04:03 AM
  2. Interesting Article about Conspiracy Theories
    By Wizywyg in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 07:19 AM
  3. Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories For GOP Dummies
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 07:40 PM
  4. Conspiracy Theories why they exist?
    By NumberSix in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 09:09 AM
  5. Conspiracy theories
    By Jax74 in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 03:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •