Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

The following is a proposed Wikipedia 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 advocating the creation of new Wikipedia policy, it is only attempting to affirm an interpretation of existing Wikipedia policy. An archive of the previous version of this proposal can be found here.

Version 2.0 of the "conspiracy theory" title neutrality proposal incorporates feedback and updated arguments based on talk page discussions, the original proposal did not pass. For the previous discussions of this issue see archives: 1, 3, and/or 4. For proposal 1.0 vote results (voting ended June 1, 2005) see archive 2. For new discussion use the discussion page.

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.

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
• 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)

• Updated counter argument goes here