Misplaced Pages

:Conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:02, 4 May 2005 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Seek More Complicated Discussion & Titles: It's possible anybody could be pushing POV on any article.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:34, 19 November 2023 edit undoDr. Blofeld (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,186 edits hat 
(156 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:''see also ]''.
Copied from previous discussion:
{{ombox|text=Please refer to the Misplaced Pages ] (]), which covers conspiracy theories.}}
{{rejected}}


==New proposal==
I've set up ] 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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:33, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
The updated version 2.0 of the proposal can temporarily be found at ] and may be merged here or a more appropriate location (still waiting to hear back from Jayjg). ] ] 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


== Rejected proposal:Summary of debate on appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title ==
-------------
:'''Please direct all comments and ] to the talk page'''


==Summary of "conspiracy theory" arguments== === Keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is ===
The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description of a particular type of ]. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret ], usually by powerful conspirators. One of the distinguishing features of a conspiracy theory is that it tends not to be ] in the minds of believers. For example, if the claim is made that 4,000 ]s were warned not to go to work in the ] on ], 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 ] and the ] 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 ] and is not amenable to the standard rules of ].


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 ]. The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is ]. ] ] 06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
===For===


:Well done agent L. Mack -.-
:Hola Linda :P
:http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1
:http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/07/27/1943254/Wikipedia-Infiltrated-by-Intelligence-Agents
:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8247
] (])


=== Rename conspiracy theory and similar titles ===
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) &mdash; 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. ] | ] 20:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
__NOTOC__
:''Note: This proposal is not applicable to generic articles such as ] which is not pejoratively titled''


''Conspiracy theory'' is an ambiguous cliche added to a title to discredit some articles on Misplaced Pages through the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, secondary definition of the phrase. Misplaced Pages defines ] 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).
=== Against ===


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 Misplaced Pages talk pages the phrase has been used to discredit articles and is therefore provably not neutral. Some articles on Misplaced Pages 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.
"Conspiracy theory" is a POV loaded term and it's use should be deprecated on an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages'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.


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 Misplaced Pages policy. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can just state things directly using Y or Z?
"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).


'''Do Misplaced Pages titles generally state conclusions about an article's content? Should they?'''
Re: "scientific" - firstly, you are suggesting that we label articles such as the ] article a "conspiracy theory"; that the title be changed to ]. 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.


==== Proposed list of articles to be renamed ====
And by all rights, by both the For & Against logic, "]" should be ]. 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.
Related phrases and terms include "conspiracy claims" and "misinformation and rumor" and plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Misplaced Pages title policy as a guide when renaming.


*]
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.
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*(any others?)


The term ''conspiracy theory'' has significant connotative meaning (as described in ]) 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 Misplaced Pages's ] 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, ] 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 ] from articles about theories which they may believe to be conspiracy theories in order to avoid advocating a point of view.
===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.--] 20:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
: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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


=== Use ''conspiracy theory'' to describe only those alternative theories which are true conspiracy theories ===
::You have to actually explain this context to support your position. Why doesn't Pro vs Con work exactly? ] ] 21:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:''There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section ]. See the ].''


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 ]; any other use is a violation of ] 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.
:::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?--] 22:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


===Remove the word "theory" from all article titles===
::::So there are multiple ways of "conspiracy theory" being NPOV? Do you agree "conspiracy theory" is potentially ambiguous? ] ] 22:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:''There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section ]. See the ].''


The word "theory" inevitably carries a connotation that the explanation being presented is unproven, which denigrates those explanations. This pejorative 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 ] could be renamed ], ] could be renamed ], the ] could become ] and so on. The article on theory, ], would be allowed to keep its title so that the POV of the term could be explained.
:::::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.--] 23:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


::I feel that changing 'theory' to 'possible explanation' would make searching for any scientific theory (like the theory of evolution) an unnecessarily difficult task.
::::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. ] ] 23:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


It is not necessary to change the titles referencing scientific theories, because they accurately represent the standard usage in that context and within the scientific community. Usage of "theory" as something unproven is only appropriate in non-technical, non-scientific language (for example, when referencing conspiracy suspicions that cannot be falsified). In science, an unproven, possible explanation is referred to as a hypothesis, not a "theory." The distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory" in scientific language is clearly defined and is not disputed within that community. A scientific "theory" refers *only to explanations that are based on a falsifiable hypothesis or group of falsifiable hypotheses/"possible explanations" that have been consistently substantiated through rigorous, repeated empirical testing. A scientific theory requires substantial evidence supporting and proving the hypothes(es). Conversely, hypothesis alone does not require any evidence and may or may not have ever been, or ever necessarily will be, tested. You could justify calling a scientific hypothesis a "possible explanation," but a scientific theory, then, by logical extension and scientific community definition, would be more appropriately referred to as a "probable explanation." Probability not only suggests, but requires significantly more proof and empirical support than possibility. Changing theory on a scientific theory article to either "possible" or "probable explanation" is neither necessary nor appropriate.
:::::So, what are your objections to my 6 titles?--] 23:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


"Theory"'s neutrality is inherent in its accepted meaning and usage within the scientific community, and within that community is never interpreted as negative or pejorative. Only readers unfamiliar with the scientific community's well-established definition of "theory" would equivocate it pejoratively. Vocabulary and reading comprehension limitations of individual readers does not constitute a pejorative violation. Its usage in the context of a title of a scientific theory cannot reasonably be considered pejorative. Exchanging it for the non-technical language suggested would actually denigrate its meaning, pejoratively, because "possible explanation" omits reference to and undermines the substantial support that is, by technical definition, immediately expressed and generally understood in the usage of "theory" in a scientific context.
::::"conspiracy claims" is too close to "conspiracy theory", the other 4 titles are good. Note the arguably very dubious ] article is not titled ]. 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). ] ] 23:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


It is it even appropriate for the wikipedia community to endeavor to arbitrarily change the scientific community's technical language and attempt to redefine that community's well-established meaning of scientific theory? What's the point? The scientific community is not going to reject its standard usage to accommodate the whim of wikipedia contributors, and consequences of attempting to make such changes to the titles will only discredit the affected articles and misrepresent their subject matter. Not only would changing "theory" to "possible explanation" on articles of scientific theory make them unnecessarily hard to find, but it would be a dangerous demonstration of wikipedia's notorious lack of credibility as a resource.
::::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. ] ] 23:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


===Assess article titles on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on accuracy, informativeness, and neutrality===
:::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.--] 23:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Thus, for example, articles which are not about secret agreements between the parties in question are ''not'' to be titled "conspiracy theories", as this would be inaccurate.


]
::::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). ] ] 00:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] as a worldview
* ]
* ]
:::::::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.--] 00:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

: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 ] title exists without any caveats? It's actually more a hypocrisy than an inconsistency. ] ] 00:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

:::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 ], 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. ] ] 00:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::::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.--] 01:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::A third would be the belief that people act for the purpose of "covering up" their activities and hiding them from scrutiny.. 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" ). That's four. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::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"? ] vs ] and ] ] ] 21:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::I dunno, whose "subtle POV psychological word game trickery" do you think is "winning"? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::You tell me. ] ] 21:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::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? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::Inconsistent titles exist to push POV. ] ] 22:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::Um, ok, whose POV? Who is the hidden puppet-master here? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

::::::::::::::O.K., which specific POV is being pushed? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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. ] ] 22:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:And which specific group has that agenda? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 22:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::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. ] ] 22:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:::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. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 14:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::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. ]<sup>]: </sup> 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. ]<sup>]: </sup> 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!--] 21:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::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 ] article, which does exactly that. ]<sup>]: </sup> 21:47, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

===Comments===

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

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

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 ] 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.--] 20:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

: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. ] ] 20:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

: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 ] article is titled very straigtforwardly (though I disagree with that article's title for different reasons). ] ] 21:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop re-factoring other people's comments, and trying to take control of the page. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

: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? ] ] 21:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

==Larger Question of Titles & Conspiracy/Complicity==
For months now there has been a series of discussions on how to title pages that may or may not involve Conspiracy/Complicity. The major discussion was at: .

Here is a set of compromise titles I proposed in an attempt to find a middle ground:

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:

* ]
* ] With the following briefly discussed and linked
* ] (including claims of cover-up)
* ] (including stock fraud, oil gambit)
* ]
* ] or ] (anthrax attacks and war profiteering)

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:

* ]
* ] as a worldview
* ] Collection of conspiracy theories with short discussion
* ] Another list
* ]
* ]

And probably several more. Let's start over and debate these issues with a mind to finding a constructive compromise.--] 20:04, 2 May 2005 (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? ] ] 20:01, 2 May 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 (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) ] ] 20:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)''

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: .

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:

* ]
* ] With the following briefly discussed and linked
* ] (including claims of cover-up)
* ] (including stock fraud, oil gambit)
* ]
* ] or ] (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:

* ]
* ] as a worldview
* ] Collection of conspiracy theories with short discussion
* ] Another list
* ]
* ]

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.--] 19:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

: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. ] ] 19:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

::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.--] 19:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

:::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? ] ] 19:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

:::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. ]<sup>]: </sup> 19:29, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

==From ]==

: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. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 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 ] 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. ] 17:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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. ] | ] 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:::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 ], 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 ], i.e. it would prejudge the issue, and not be NPOV. Finally, the comparison with religion is a good one and illustrates the issue. ] 18:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

::::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 ] 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'"). ] 08:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

People may indeed use "conspiracy theory" to mean "wacky theory." From what I have seen here at Misplaced Pages, 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." ] | ] 18:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:34, 19 November 2023

see also Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theorist.
Please refer to the Misplaced Pages guideline on fringe theories (WP:FRINGE), which covers conspiracy theories.
Red crossThis is a failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

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 06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done agent L. Mack -.-
Hola Linda :P
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/07/27/1943254/Wikipedia-Infiltrated-by-Intelligence-Agents
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8247

79.44.229.201 (talk)

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 Misplaced Pages through the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, secondary definition of the phrase. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages talk pages the phrase has been used to discredit articles and is therefore provably not neutral. Some articles on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can just state things directly using Y or Z?

Do Misplaced Pages 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" Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 pejorative 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 unnecessarily difficult task.

It is not necessary to change the titles referencing scientific theories, because they accurately represent the standard usage in that context and within the scientific community. Usage of "theory" as something unproven is only appropriate in non-technical, non-scientific language (for example, when referencing conspiracy suspicions that cannot be falsified). In science, an unproven, possible explanation is referred to as a hypothesis, not a "theory." The distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory" in scientific language is clearly defined and is not disputed within that community. A scientific "theory" refers *only to explanations that are based on a falsifiable hypothesis or group of falsifiable hypotheses/"possible explanations" that have been consistently substantiated through rigorous, repeated empirical testing. A scientific theory requires substantial evidence supporting and proving the hypothes(es). Conversely, hypothesis alone does not require any evidence and may or may not have ever been, or ever necessarily will be, tested. You could justify calling a scientific hypothesis a "possible explanation," but a scientific theory, then, by logical extension and scientific community definition, would be more appropriately referred to as a "probable explanation." Probability not only suggests, but requires significantly more proof and empirical support than possibility. Changing theory on a scientific theory article to either "possible" or "probable explanation" is neither necessary nor appropriate.

"Theory"'s neutrality is inherent in its accepted meaning and usage within the scientific community, and within that community is never interpreted as negative or pejorative. Only readers unfamiliar with the scientific community's well-established definition of "theory" would equivocate it pejoratively. Vocabulary and reading comprehension limitations of individual readers does not constitute a pejorative violation. Its usage in the context of a title of a scientific theory cannot reasonably be considered pejorative. Exchanging it for the non-technical language suggested would actually denigrate its meaning, pejoratively, because "possible explanation" omits reference to and undermines the substantial support that is, by technical definition, immediately expressed and generally understood in the usage of "theory" in a scientific context.

It is it even appropriate for the wikipedia community to endeavor to arbitrarily change the scientific community's technical language and attempt to redefine that community's well-established meaning of scientific theory? What's the point? The scientific community is not going to reject its standard usage to accommodate the whim of wikipedia contributors, and consequences of attempting to make such changes to the titles will only discredit the affected articles and misrepresent their subject matter. Not only would changing "theory" to "possible explanation" on articles of scientific theory make them unnecessarily hard to find, but it would be a dangerous demonstration of wikipedia's notorious lack of credibility as a resource.

Assess article titles on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on accuracy, informativeness, and neutrality

Thus, for example, articles which are not about secret agreements between the parties in question are not to be titled "conspiracy theories", as this would be inaccurate.

Category: