User:Zen-master/Wikipedia:Title Neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "consensus support is not present...whether there is active discussion or not."

[edit] Summary of arguments on the neutrality of "conspiracy theory" in a title

This is the second iteration of a proposal and counter argument previously called Wikipedia: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

[edit] 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)

There are no plausible arguments for banning the clearly comprehended narrative category Conspiracy theory that do not similarly apply to the narrative category Urban legend, and several other such categorizations, which each can usefully organize information.

Supporting any move to ban would additionally constitute a significant defeat for wikipedia's ability to prevent undue weight being given to insubstantial materials, which would henceforth have to be treated with undue respect. This would effectively strangle wikipedia's hard-won credibility at a vital point in the 'pedias evolution. Please don't. Adhib 00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles

Comment: I believe SlimVirgin's argument above in favor of "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia article titles needlessly politicizes this proposal by mentioning rumors and 9/11. An encyclopedia should disassociate between and cite exactly who is theorizing or speculating something, and who is counter claiming it is an example of false rumor, fiction or belief. Rumors are to be expected after an event like 9/11, but rather than perpetuate the immediate aftermath climate of instinctive fear by dismissing and burying a rumor that I agree is untrue, we should instead calm everyone down and point people at facts and information and encourage a scientific and logical analysis. I recently asked SlimVirgin if she could further explain or update her argument above, given my updated proposal below, but she has so far declined. zen master T 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

When used to describe, label or categorize another subject the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and inappropriate in an encyclopedia article's title. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies: Neutral point of view, undue weight, simple and direct language. Also, wikipedia 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 Wikipedia presentation neutrality policies and rename any article that uses it to describe another subject (see list below). We should use Wikipedia'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.

[edit] Proposed list of articles to be renamed

This list includes plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Wikipedia 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
• (any others?)

Proposal last updated: 22:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] distinguishing between Y and Z

Watergate was a wacky theory once in a time. If we where to make a article about that theory before it became mainstream, we would have labeled it with the pejorative "conspiracy theory". Would it be neutral to give it a title that could confuse it with a theory that have the same credibility as the Flat Earth theory? ... I think here comes the point: Before it became mainstream, people did belive they where equally false. How do we solve that? How do we distinguish between a proven false theory, and a theory that is simply not mainstream? The earth being round was not mainstream once in the time.

Should we even try? Isn't it up to the reader?

I mean, you can be sure the "round earth theory" would have been given a pejorative article title if we where to make a article about it back then.

Should not pejorative name title be always avoided?

If they are truly false, shouldn't the evidence it self imply it?

What makes you think that we have become immune to mistaking a truth for a false?

Simply calling it "alternative theory" should suffice.

--Striver 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Great points, though perhaps this section should be moved to the talk page? I intentionally limited the scope of this proposal to only removing the pejorative "conspiracy theory" from titles, if the proposal passed new titles would be determined on a case by case basis as always. zen master T 21:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)