| Revision as of 12:52, 29 January 2006 editWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,228 edits →Proposal 2.0 discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:25, 29 January 2006 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →Proposal 2.0 discussion: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::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) | :::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) | ||
| ::::If the proposal is more concise that should make it easier for you to actually list an objection to it? And what objections would those be exactly, please list them here specifically or don't bother responding to this post. The previous discussion is at best tangential toward understanding this issue. I interpret your use of "previous objections" to be an attempt to dismissively characterize version 2.0 of the proposal for the purpose of thwarting its acceptance (please correct me if I misinterpret), conveniently you don't actually list those objections. The challenge to defend the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of not being neutral remains unresponded to. On Misplaced Pages we (use to) follow the collaborative development process, when a title or word choice is disputed effort is undertaken by both sides to state the same thing using different words, except in the case of "conspiracy theory" for some reason, that is possible evidence the "conspiracy theory" bias/taint is intentional. Why do some controversial articles within Misplaced Pages have to be titled with the exact phrase "conspiracy theory" and not something unambiguous? ] ] 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | ::::If the proposal is more concise that should make it easier for you to actually list an objection to it? And what objections would those be exactly, please list them here specifically or don't bother responding to this post. The previous discussion is at best tangential toward understanding this issue. I interpret your use of "previous objections" to be an attempt to dismissively characterize version 2.0 of the proposal for the purpose of thwarting its acceptance (please correct me if I misinterpret), conveniently you don't actually list those objections. The challenge to defend the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of not being neutral remains unresponded to. On Misplaced Pages we (use to) follow the collaborative development process, when a title or word choice is disputed effort is undertaken by both sides to state the same thing using different words, except in the case of "conspiracy theory" for some reason, that is possible evidence the "conspiracy theory" bias/taint is intentional. Why do some controversial articles within Misplaced Pages have to be titled with the exact phrase "conspiracy theory" and not something unambiguous? ] ] 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I see no difference from the previous, defeated proposal. I also see you defying your probation per Arbcom. As far as I am concerned this should be closed immediately as vexatious and an attempt to ]. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 13:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Zen == | == Zen == | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 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)
- If the proposal is more concise that should make it easier for you to actually list an objection to it? And what objections would those be exactly, please list them here specifically or don't bother responding to this post. The previous discussion is at best tangential toward understanding this issue. I interpret your use of "previous objections" to be an attempt to dismissively characterize version 2.0 of the proposal for the purpose of thwarting its acceptance (please correct me if I misinterpret), conveniently you don't actually list those objections. The challenge to defend the phrase "conspiracy theory" from a charge of not being neutral remains unresponded to. On Misplaced Pages we (use to) follow the collaborative development process, when a title or word choice is disputed effort is undertaken by both sides to state the same thing using different words, except in the case of "conspiracy theory" for some reason, that is possible evidence the "conspiracy theory" bias/taint is intentional. Why do some controversial articles within Misplaced Pages have to be titled with the exact phrase "conspiracy theory" and not something unambiguous? zen master T 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I see no difference from the previous, defeated proposal. I also see you defying your probation per Arbcom. As far as I am concerned this should be closed immediately as vexatious and an attempt to make a point. - Just zis Guy, you know? /
AfD? 13:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Zen
Every time you discuss this topic, you will be blocked. Not sure if you don't know or just don't care. --Woohookitty 12:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)