499:
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.
502:"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.
254:
Some articles on
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
506:
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.
32:
367:) 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 Knowledge (XXG)'s
56:
505:
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
498:
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
257:
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
249:
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
457:
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
416:
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
253:
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
Knowledge (XXG) talk pages the phrase has been used to discredit articles and is therefore provably not neutral.
250:
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).
173:
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
433:
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.
380:
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
375:
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,
258:
Y and Z are the two definitions of X)? To use Y or Z is to state things simply and directly which is currently
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Why use an ambiguous phrase X when you can just state things directly using Y or Z?
345:
245:
is an ambiguous cliche added to a title to discredit some articles on
Knowledge (XXG) through the sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious, secondary definition of the phrase. Knowledge (XXG) defines
271:
Related phrases and terms include "conspiracy claims" and "misinformation and rumor" and plural versions. We should use the "simply stated" Knowledge (XXG) title policy as a guide when renaming.
492:
I feel that changing 'theory' to 'possible explanation' would make searching for any scientific theory (like the theory of evolution) an unnecessarily difficult task.
330:
162:
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
315:
154:, 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
335:
280:
530:
78:
63:
216:
449:
404:
117:
74:
295:
479:
421:
to describe a theory which expands to encompass any contradictory evidence into the conspiracy is, therefore, not a violation of
19:
205:
94:
385:
from articles about theories which they may believe to be conspiracy theories in order to avoid advocating a point of view.
73:
for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
340:
320:
138:, usually by powerful conspirators. One of the distinguishing features of a conspiracy theory is that it tends not to be
475:
463:
38:
471:
300:
290:
151:
200:
350:
285:
275:
159:
220:
310:
325:
70:
510:
Assess article titles on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on accuracy, informativeness, and neutrality
305:
514:
Thus, for example, articles which are not about secret agreements between the parties in question are
186:
101:
459:
42:
147:
97:
and may be merged here or a more appropriate location (still waiting to hear back from Jayjg).
382:
377:
364:
262:
Do
Knowledge (XXG) titles generally state conclusions about an article's content? Should they?
246:
234:
426:
422:
368:
210:
206:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/07/27/1943254/Wikipedia-Infiltrated-by-Intelligence-Agents
467:
183:
98:
110:
Rejected proposal:Summary of debate on appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title
524:
486:, would be allowed to keep its title so that the POV of the term could be explained.
163:
179:
188:
104:
444:
There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section
399:
There is a disputed proposal that this section should be merged with the section
134:. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret
139:
201:
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=374006&rel_no=1
393:
to describe only those alternative theories which are true conspiracy theories
130:
The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description of a particular type of
131:
178:. The difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is
175:
167:
142:
in the minds of believers. For example, if the claim is made that 4,000
143:
483:
155:
445:
400:
93:
The updated version 2.0 of the proposal can temporarily be found at
346:
Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings
233:
Note: This proposal is not applicable to generic articles such as
518:
to be titled "conspiracy theories", as this would be inaccurate.
135:
50:
26:
281:
911 Commission Report and Saddam-al Qaeda
Conspiracy Theory
211:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8247
363:
has significant connotative meaning (as described in
438:Remove the word "theory" from all article titles
446:keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is
401:keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is
331:Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories
126:Keep conspiracy theory and similar titles as is
458:"possible explanation". So, for example, the
166:and is not amenable to the standard rules of
8:
480:general possible explanations of relativity
227:Rename conspiracy theory and similar titles
316:Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories
371:policy. Therefore, the use of the term
95:User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles
336:Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theory
267:Proposed list of articles to be renamed
146:were warned not to go to work in the
7:
45:), which covers conspiracy theories.
37:Please refer to the Knowledge (XXG)
20:Knowledge (XXG):Conspiracy theorist
482:and so on. The article on theory,
425:; any other use is a violation of
296:Black helicopter conspiracy theory
14:
464:Possible explanation of evolution
429:and should be avoided. The term
531:Knowledge (XXG) failed proposals
237:which is not pejoratively titled
54:
30:
116:Please direct all comments and
189:06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
472:Critical possible explanation
341:Freemason conspiracy theories
321:Columbine conspiracy theories
301:Bush family conspiracy theory
291:Nick Berg conspiracy theories
476:general theory of relativity
105:04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
39:guideline on fringe theories
194:Well done agent L. Mack -.-
547:
351:NESARA conspiracy theory
286:AIDS conspiracy theories
276:9/11 conspiracy theories
160:United States government
77:or initiate a thread at
311:Bible conspiracy theory
326:SARS conspiracy theory
369:neutral point of view
306:UFO conspiracy theory
460:Theory of Evolution
148:World Trade Center
470:could be renamed
462:could be renamed
431:conspiracy theory
419:conspiracy theory
414:conspiracy theory
412:Because the term
391:conspiracy theory
383:conspiracy theory
378:Conspiracy theory
373:conspiracy theory
365:conspiracy theory
361:conspiracy theory
247:conspiracy theory
243:Conspiracy theory
235:Conspiracy theory
86:
85:
49:
48:
538:
120:to the talk page
79:the village pump
58:
57:
51:
34:
33:
27:
546:
545:
541:
540:
539:
537:
536:
535:
521:
520:
512:
468:Critical theory
440:
395:
269:
229:
180:epistemological
128:
112:
91:
82:
55:
31:
12:
11:
5:
544:
542:
534:
533:
523:
522:
511:
508:
496:
495:
494:
493:
455:
454:
439:
436:
410:
409:
394:
387:
357:
356:
353:
348:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
268:
265:
240:
239:
228:
225:
214:
213:
208:
203:
198:
195:
127:
124:
123:
122:
111:
108:
90:
87:
84:
83:
69:
68:
59:
47:
46:
35:
25:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
543:
532:
529:
528:
526:
519:
517:
509:
507:
503:
500:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
485:
481:
478:could become
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
453:
451:
447:
442:
441:
437:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
408:
406:
402:
397:
396:
392:
388:
386:
384:
379:
374:
370:
366:
362:
355:(any others?)
354:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
273:
272:
266:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
244:
238:
236:
231:
230:
226:
224:
222:
218:
217:79.44.229.201
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:Hola Linda :P
196:
193:
192:
191:
190:
187:
185:
181:
177:
171:
169:
165:
164:closed system
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
125:
121:
119:
114:
113:
109:
107:
106:
103:
100:
96:
88:
80:
76:
75:the talk page
72:
67:
65:
60:
53:
52:
44:
40:
36:
29:
28:
22:
21:
16:
15:
515:
513:
504:
501:
497:
456:
443:
430:
418:
413:
411:
398:
390:
372:
360:
358:
270:
261:
260:
256:
252:
242:
241:
232:
215:
172:
129:
115:
92:
89:New proposal
61:
17:
448:. See the
403:. See the
140:falsifiable
184:SlimVirgin
99:zen master
62:This is a
450:talk page
417:the term
405:talk page
359:The term
132:narrative
71:Consensus
66:proposal.
43:WP:FRINGE
18:see also
525:Category
176:ideology
168:evidence
158:and the
144:Israelis
427:WP:NPOV
423:WP:NPOV
484:Theory
474:, the
156:Mossad
118:voting
64:failed
389:Use
221:talk
152:9/11
136:plot
516:not
150:on
527::
466:,
223:)
182:.
170:.
452:.
407:.
219:(
102:T
81:.
41:(
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.