| Revision as of 01:30, 29 January 2006 editZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits →Proposal 2.0 discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:05, 29 January 2006 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Proposal 2.0 discussion: old wine in new bottleNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::Are you for or against this proposal? If you are for "conspiracy theory" in titles please attempt to defend it from a charge of being non-neutral? ] ] 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | ::Are you for or against this proposal? If you are for "conspiracy theory" in titles please attempt to defend it from a charge of being non-neutral? ] ] 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::*''..uch more clear and concise and gets down into specifics...'' | |||
| :::That describes how the writing style is different. Is there any difference in the actual proposal? If it's just more concise, then the previous objections still remain. I, for one, never complained about it being too long, nor did anyone else that I recall. -] 02:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:05, 29 January 2006
Proposal 2.0 discussion
Comments on version 2.0 of the proposal are appreciated. zen master T 00:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please describe how this proposal is different from your previous proposals, and what criticisms you have incorporated into it? Thanks, -Will Beback 01:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Version 2.0 of the proposal is much more clear and concise and gets down into specifics about how the phrase "conspiracy theory" is ambiguously biasing, pejorative, and prejudicial when used to describe or label another subject. For example the proposal alleges: "The 'conspiracy theory' label is used, often subtly or inadvertently, to pejoratively confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore for the purpose of: obfuscation, thwarting a scientific and factual analysis, or dismissal". Also, the Flat Earth example of a neutral title even for a subject that has been disproven has been expanded into an analogy which lead to "Any discouragement of investigation and iterative testing perpetuates errant or incomplete belief". I've also come to realize the extreme degree to which SlimVirgin's original counter argument against the proposal politicized this issue, I asked SlimVirgin to explain or update her counter argument here but she has so far declined.
- Are you for or against this proposal? If you are for "conspiracy theory" in titles please attempt to defend it from a charge of being non-neutral? zen master T 01:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- ..uch more clear and concise and gets down into specifics...
- That describes how the writing style is different. Is there any difference in the actual proposal? If it's just more concise, then the previous objections still remain. I, for one, never complained about it being too long, nor did anyone else that I recall. -Will Beback 02:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)