Talk:Conspiracy theory (disambiguation)

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 11:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) → Conspiracy Theory — This is the usual way of doing things. Everything on the disambiguation page is spelt with caps. I will add {{otheruses|Conspiracy Theory}} on top of Conspiracy theory once this has been performed. —Mel sa ran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's only the usual way of doing things if there's no primary topic. Of the two articles named "Conspiracy Theory", the Mel Gibson film is the clear primary topic, so that should be at Conspiracy Theory. The dab page should be at Conspiracy Theory (disambiguation). Saikokira 19:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't think it's wise having seperate articles at Conspiracy theory and Conspiracy Theory. The present arrangement seems fine to me. PC78 11:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - As it is right now, those are separate articles, one for conspiracy theories (like the shooter on the grassy knoll, Elvis still alive, etc.) and another for the movie starring Mel Gibson (respectively, in the order you linked to them). Are you suggesting that be changed or left alone? Darquis 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - A move should be made, but not this one. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New World Order (conspiracy theory)

New World Order (conspiracy theory), the theory or theories associated with "New World Order" phenomena or expression.

User:Arthur Rubin, why have you Reverted? Clearly this belongs here. If not, why not? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it does not belong here; "conspiracy theory" is a disambiguatior of "New World Order", not the other way around. It only belongs in List of conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look (Says Ludvikus):

    * New World Order (conspiracy theory), the theory or theories associated with "New World Order" phenomena or expression

So include it. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason there. (Any double meanings, although not intended at the moment I wrote it, seem appropriate.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) → Conspiracy

Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) → Conspiracy

Appears the obvious route to take. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- But now I see that Mergeto Conspiracy is better. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, what's the argument for this? It's two distinct topics.Prezbo (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'conspiracy theory' in law

Proposed addition:

In law, a conspiracy theory can be presented as a 'theory of the case' or logical description of events an attorney wants the judge or jury to adopt as their own perception of the underlying situation.

Humanengr (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New disambiguation

I added this disambiguation, because it seems very important to apprise readers of the fact that the pejorative meaning of "conspiracy theory", though probably the most widespread meaning, is not the only usage of the term, as confirmed in virtually all respected dictionaries, which acknowledge multiple usages with different meanings, one of which is simply neutral and non-pejorative. This is discussed at great length, and well-elucidated in the link which I propose, to Philosophy of Conspiracy Theory Joseph Rowe (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DPAGE, disambigs are used to link to article, not for use as dictionaries.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I corrected it with a new disambiguation, and proper article link. Joseph Rowe (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not editorialize.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no editorializing whatsoever. There is only a brief furnishing of information, elucidating a fact which is very relevant to disambiguation. What is this elucidation of fact? It is this: that the only reason why the site "Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories" is mentioned on this disambiguation page is precisely because it discusses a different usage of the term "Conspiracy Theory" — exactly the same type of furnishing of information that the next entry does about the legal term, when it explains it as "a theory of a case that presents a conspiracy to be considered by a trier of fact" OK, I'll try to make it clearer that this is about fact, and not about opinion. But please think twice before you claim again that this is editorializing. Joseph Rowe (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no overall consensus of philosophers who hold that the term should be defined non-pejoratively. If that's how you interpret Philosophy of conspiracy theories, then there is something very wrong with that article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Slatersteven, that would be a bad idea. Guy (help!) 12:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, please — you've both misunderstood my intentions. Seriously, and sincerely. I'm not saying, nor is the article saying, that there is any ( "overall consensus of philosophers who hold that the term should be defined non-pejoratively." [Direct quote of LuckyLouie, emphasis mine]. There are no "shoulds" in this proposal, except that we should alert readers to variant usages whenever we can. What the proposed disambiguation wants to point out (and also what the article points out, and discusses at great length) is the simple fact that different definitions (i.e., different usages) do exist, and have existed for a long time. I would certainly agree that the pejorative definition is now probably the primary usage — but it is not the only one. Hence the need for disambiguation. In fact (and this may surprise you) I would even join you in challenging the claim that the non-pejorative meaning of CT is the only one, or even that it is the primary one. That would be absurd, because clearly, the pejorative usage has become very widespread, and is arguably the most common usage, as the main CT article implies. I'm merely pointing out (as does the Philosophy article) that different usages of the term unquestionably exist. That's what disambiguation is all about. However: speaking now of ambiguity in general, perhaps we would all do well to take a closer look at the term preferred definition. This is admittedly a kind of dictionary jargon, whose meaning is neither straightforward, simple, nor always entirely clear. Though I have previously referred to the fact that the neutral definition of CT is the "preferred" one in many reputable and respected dictionaries, intellectual honesty compels me to admit that the only solid and unquestionable basis for calling it "preferred" is simply that it occurs as the first entry in their list of definitions. THEREFORE: in the interest of clarity, and also in hopes for a sounder, and more cordial consensus, I hereby agree to refrain from invoking, on this disambiguation page, this unclear dictionary jargon of "preferred", since it might seem to suggest that I'm claiming that the neutral one is the only one, or the "best" one. Please think long and carefully about the next effort of disambiguation (soon to come), in the light of the latest argument presented here, before you consider reverting it. I recognize that there has been an overheated atmosphere in the discussions on the talk page of CT, and it seems to me that I — at least — have acknowledged my part in this over-reactivity. I trust that you, like myself, want to avoid the fallacy of ad hominem dismissals of arguments. Therefore, I hope you'll recognize that I'm making a good faith effort to communicate that this new disambiguation is strictly about making it clear that the term has different usages — for exactly the same kind of reason that necessitates the disambiguation concerning the legal usage.Joseph Rowe (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to CAT:DABP; disambiguation is used to resolve conflicts when articles about two or more different topics could have the same "natural" page title. Philosophy_of_conspiracy_theories and Conspiracy theory do not have the same title and need no disambiguation. Also, you can't zero in on selected philosophic opinions while ignoring others, and then treat the selected opinions as if they were a notable consensus. And speaking of WP:CONSENSUS, it's the way we work here on Wikipedia, I encourage you to read up on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sufficient to merely provide a verbose discussion of the reasons why you think a change should be made; your argument must be persuasive enough that others agree that it is reasonable. That is clearly not the case. I would suggest that you slow down and take a look at prior edit warring discussions. --mikeu ^talk 00:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Call for immediate block to stop continued disruption by Joseph Rowe --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]