| Revision as of 04:57, 18 January 2006 editZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits →New proposal← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:34, 28 January 2006 edit undoZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits Insert new proposal into "New proposal" sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| An archive of the old proposal can be found ] | |||
| {{rejected}} | |||
| {{proposal}} | |||
| ''Note: this "proposal" is not attempting to create new Misplaced Pages policy, it is merely trying to affirm an interpretation of existing Misplaced Pages policy.'' | |||
| 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) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == New proposal == | |||
| This is the second iteration of a proposal and counter argument previously called ] which did not pass. Version 2.0 incorporates feedback and updated arguments based on talk page discussions. For the historical discussion of this issue see ] and for the previous vote (which closed June 1, 2005) see ], for other and new discussion see ]. | |||
| == Rejected proposal:Summary of debate on appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title == | |||
| :'''Please direct all comments and ] to the talk page''' | |||
| === |
=== Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles === | ||
| When used to describe, label or categorize another subject the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and inappropriate in an encyclopedia article's title. Misplaced Pages historically defined the phrase "conspiracy theory" colloquially "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which is the antithesis of an encyclopedia and the scientific method. An encyclopedia should encourage rather than discourage a serious consideration of a subject so it can be understood even if false. Abstract understanding should come from fact and logic not from presumption inducing nor dismissive language. The "conspiracy theory" label is used, often subtly or inadvertently, to confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore or rumor for the purpose of: obfuscation, thwarting a scientific and logical analysis, or unencyclopedic dismissal. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| Even if a specific theory alleges an actual conspiracy that is insufficient evidence that the subject of the theory should be associated, to even the slightest degree, with the allegedly false, allegedly eccentric, and allegedly paranoid type of fiction or rumor. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is both the name of a collection of allegedly fictional and eccentric stories involving aliens, UFOs, etc (often featured in popular media and entertainment) and coincidentally is also a possible label for any individual theory that literally alleges a conspiracy, very ambiguous and confusing. Note the ] article as a good example of a historical belief that has been disproven yet its article has a neutral title. Flat Earth is also a good analogy, if someone only has a limited amount of information it is reasonable to errantly believe or conclude the Earth is flat. Any discouragement of investigation and iterative testing perpetuates errant or incomplete belief. | |||
| 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 ]. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Using "conspiracy theory" as a label in a title to dismiss violates various Misplaced Pages policies: ], undue weight, simple and direct language. Also,[REDACTED] articles are required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that a subject should be categorized within the eccentric type of fiction, which is something that is impossible to do in a title, see ]. | |||
| === Rename conspiracy theory and similar titles === | |||
| __NOTOC__ | |||
| :''Note: This proposal is not applicable to generic articles such as ] which is not pejoratively titled'' | |||
| The "conspiracy theory" label should be considered inappropriate if used to dismiss theoretical speculation in any form. I propose we affirm that the phrase "conspiracy theory" violates various pre-existing Misplaced Pages presentation neutrality policies and rename any article that uses it to describe another subject (see list below). We should use Misplaced Pages's existing title and neutrality policies as a guide individually in each case when renaming. The words "conspiracy" and "theory" when not combined are unaffected by this proposal and may still be used in a title individually. | |||
| Proponents of "conspiracy theory" in titles argue that some subjects are "true conspiracy theories" or "objectively a conspiracy theory" or "literally a conspiracy theory" but how can something be a "true X" if X has multiple meanings? Is X a ] that alleges a ] or an example of fiction, belief, folklore or rumor? To avoid ambiguity and potential bias, an encyclopedia should use simple language that states that something is either a "true Y" or a "true Z", where Y and Z are the two meanings of X. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can instead just state things directly and clearly using Y or Z? The more unambiguous and neutral a subject is presented the more obvious any error becomes. Proponents of the phrase's usage generally emphasize the stigmatizing type of fiction as some sort of argument in favor of the phrase's usage, but how does that make the phrase neutral or unambiguous? Should dubiousness through association with a type of eccentric fiction ever be implied by an encyclopedia even for non mainstream or controversial theories or beliefs? Theories, theoretical speculation, folklore, belief, rumor and fiction should be disassociated from one another. | |||
| 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 ==== | ==== Proposed list of articles to be renamed ==== | ||
| This list includes plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Misplaced Pages title policy as a guide when renaming. | |||
| *] | *] | ||
| ⚫ | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| Line 41: | Line 35: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| ⚫ | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| *(any others?) | *(any others?) | ||
| Proposal last updated: 22:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| === |
=== Keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is === | ||
| :''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. | |||
| ===Remove the word "theory" from all article titles=== | |||
| :''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 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 ] 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. | |||
| ::I feel that changing 'theory' to 'possible explanation' would make searching for any scientific theory (like the theory of evolution) an unneccesairily difficult task. | |||
| ===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. | |||
| *''Updated counter argument goes here'' | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 23:34, 28 January 2006
An archive of the old proposal can be found here
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
Note: this "proposal" is not attempting to create new Misplaced Pages policy, it is merely trying to affirm an interpretation of existing Misplaced Pages policy.
New proposal
This is the second iteration of a proposal and counter argument previously called Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory which did not pass. Version 2.0 incorporates feedback and updated arguments based on talk page discussions. For the historical discussion of this issue see archive3 and for the previous vote (which closed June 1, 2005) see archive2, for other and new discussion see this proposal's discussion page.
Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles
When used to describe, label or categorize another subject the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and inappropriate in an encyclopedia article's title. Misplaced Pages historically defined the phrase "conspiracy theory" colloquially as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which is the antithesis of an encyclopedia and the scientific method. An encyclopedia should encourage rather than discourage a serious consideration of a subject so it can be understood even if false. Abstract understanding should come from fact and logic not from presumption inducing nor dismissive language. The "conspiracy theory" label is used, often subtly or inadvertently, to confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore or rumor for the purpose of: obfuscation, thwarting a scientific and logical analysis, or unencyclopedic dismissal.
Even if a specific theory alleges an actual conspiracy that is insufficient evidence that the subject of the theory should be associated, to even the slightest degree, with the allegedly false, allegedly eccentric, and allegedly paranoid type of fiction or rumor. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is both the name of a collection of allegedly fictional and eccentric stories involving aliens, UFOs, etc (often featured in popular media and entertainment) and coincidentally is also a possible label for any individual theory that literally alleges a conspiracy, very ambiguous and confusing. Note the Flat Earth article as a good example of a historical belief that has been disproven yet its article has a neutral title. Flat Earth is also a good analogy, if someone only has a limited amount of information it is reasonable to errantly believe or conclude the Earth is flat. Any discouragement of investigation and iterative testing perpetuates errant or incomplete belief.
Using "conspiracy theory" as a label in a title to dismiss violates various Misplaced Pages policies: Neutral point of view, undue weight, simple and direct language. Also,[REDACTED] articles are required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that a subject should be categorized within the eccentric type of fiction, which is something that is impossible to do in a title, see citation policy.
The "conspiracy theory" label should be considered inappropriate if used to dismiss theoretical speculation in any form. I propose we affirm that the phrase "conspiracy theory" violates various pre-existing Misplaced Pages presentation neutrality policies and rename any article that uses it to describe another subject (see list below). We should use Misplaced Pages's existing title and neutrality policies as a guide individually in each case when renaming. The words "conspiracy" and "theory" when not combined are unaffected by this proposal and may still be used in a title individually.
Proponents of "conspiracy theory" in titles argue that some subjects are "true conspiracy theories" or "objectively a conspiracy theory" or "literally a conspiracy theory" but how can something be a "true X" if X has multiple meanings? Is X a theory that alleges a conspiracy or an example of fiction, belief, folklore or rumor? To avoid ambiguity and potential bias, an encyclopedia should use simple language that states that something is either a "true Y" or a "true Z", where Y and Z are the two meanings of X. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can instead just state things directly and clearly using Y or Z? The more unambiguous and neutral a subject is presented the more obvious any error becomes. Proponents of the phrase's usage generally emphasize the stigmatizing type of fiction as some sort of argument in favor of the phrase's usage, but how does that make the phrase neutral or unambiguous? Should dubiousness through association with a type of eccentric fiction ever be implied by an encyclopedia even for non mainstream or controversial theories or beliefs? Theories, theoretical speculation, folklore, belief, rumor and fiction should be disassociated from one another.
Proposed list of articles to be renamed
This list includes plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Misplaced Pages title policy as a guide when renaming.
- 9/11 conspiracy theories
- AIDS conspiracy theories
- Nick Berg conspiracy theories
- Black helicopter conspiracy theory
- Bush family conspiracy theory
- UFO conspiracy theory
- Bible conspiracy theory
- Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories
- Columbine conspiracy theories
- SARS conspiracy theory
- Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories
- Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theory
- Freemason conspiracy theories
- 911 Commission Report and Saddam-al Qaeda Conspiracy Theory
- Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings
- NESARA conspiracy theory
- (any others?)
Proposal last updated: 22:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is
- Updated counter argument goes here