Talk:Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

proper place for conspiracies to run free

trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 02:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

what was wrong with the title?

I changed "AIDS conspiracy theories" to "Alternative theories about the origin of AIDS". This is a more satisfactory title and should be a good compromise. It is NPOV, while "conspiracy theory" is often used in a negative connotation. I ask why was it moved back and why do you have a problem with neutrality? Revolución 04:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this entire talk page? Your answer is right here. Do you have a more specific question? -Willmcw 08:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The title is disputed. The phrase "conspiracy theory" is at best ambiguous and at worse extremely POV (presumption inducing). I do not understand why Willmcw supports the status quo title. zen master T 08:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The majority of editors here differ with you on that. Please read the Talk: page, as Willmcw suggested. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically Revolución, it comes down to whether a user wants to build a language neutral encyclopedia or whether a user wants to encourage sheepish behavior in the masses by using presumption inducing language for POV advancement. It is notable that such a misuse of language was/is a nazi-esque propganda technique though I will also note fighting fire with fire is just as depraved. The thought police are more accurately described as the thought middle men. zen master T 22:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I'm here, to encourage sheepish behavior by the masses by using nazi-esque propaganda techniques. And, as I've explained before, that's why this article should stay with its original title. ;) -Willmcw 23:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why the title was changed by User:Revolución in the first place? We've already explained why we think that "AIDS conspiracy theories" is a better title. We've already had a lengthy discussion with many editors with a clear consensus opposing this change. Why has User:Revolución changed it? Thanks, -Willmcw 02:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Who is we? Revolución 03:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The people who discussed this above, just before you came and changed the title. -Willmcw 03:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

There may be a majority, but there certainly isn't consensus in favor of the pejorative "conspiracy theory" title. zen master T 04:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, so let's hear User:Revolución's explanation for the page move. -Willmcw 09:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I already gave my "explanation". Revolución 01:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean above? I don't see where it takes into consideration the views of other editors. Just because you feel that the title is not ideal does not mean that you are the only editor in this project. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:23, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no comment and discussion appears to have dried up, I'm removing the tag from the main page.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the voting but the comments 1 week ago in this section, from more than one user, should have indicated to you there was no consensus to remove the template, I will revert. I removed the box here as it seemed to restrict the ability to actually comment. zen master T 06:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It looked to me as though there had been no comments for nine days, and that there was consensus. I'd like an agreed time when this can be settled, but I'm pretty easy. In the end this should either be settled or moved to request for comment. I notice that you have not placed a quasi-vote in the section you unboxed. Was that on purpose? Are you abstaining?
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No one noticed the vote apparently and given the discussion and infered votes in this section and previous votes above it may be redundant, but if you insist. Disputed headers come into play when there is a legitimate neutrality dispute, they would never be used if the majority could simply outvote the minority to remove them. zen master T 07:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If one or more editors, regardless of whatever long arguements with many other editors, still dispute a title can they keep the dispute tag up forever? That woulnd't seem right either. (Sorry, I missed the vote too). -Willmcw 08:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If the dispute remains legitimate then yes it should stay, it would encourage discussion to reach true consensus. If the pro disputed header folks stop making logical arguments (and/or seem interested in just keeping an ugly header at the top of the article) that can be used as evidence the dispute is no longer legitimate. Separately, I was thinking of creating a template called {SpecificDispute} which would take a text argument for each situation to signify *exactly* what is disputed rather than being forced to fit each dispute within pre-existing templates, or I suppose each article could just have custom warning/notice text at the top and simply not use a template. Also, perhaps instead of a big red warning that doesn't convey much context, the warning should look more like a disambig notice and it should describe exactly what the concern over the alleged neutrality violation is so readers have the full context, i.e. in this case the brief warning at the top would say something along the lines of the rough "Notice: there is a dispute over whether the phrase 'conspiracy theory' biases the presentation of this subject, see the talk page". Readers should be made conscious of the exact details of the dispute and what to watch out for (as succinctly as possible), rather than just having a random nearly contextless warning that in many cases I agree does damage article quality. zen master T 08:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

True consensus means that minority editors cannot hold the majority hostage forever. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

We disagree on the nature of true consensus. If the dispute is legitimate the word "hostage" is completely inaccurate zen master T 17:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

All people believe their disputes are "legitimate", and "true consensus" is irrelevant, only what Wikipedia considers to be consensus is relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

And all majorities impose their beliefs on others it seems. I've changed it to a notice that signifies exactly what the dispute is over, may tweak it a bit latter, hope you like it. zen master T 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Complex reverts are still reverts. Please don't add unencyclopedic and self-referential text to the start of this article. There is no controversy; consensus has formed, and this two-month hostage taking incident is coming to an end. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I will be happy for the 3RR judges to compare my signifying a legitimate neutrality dispute to your full reverts. Again, the word "hostage" completely mischaracterizes this dispute, "censorship" is more accurate. zen master T 18:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The word "conspiracy" is (I) POV and (II) not related to the contents. In this context, the word "conspiracy" is a synonym for "wrong". 140.129.151.35 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough Already

• Ok, I think everyone has made their position clear. Shall we call a halt to the rhetoric and have a show of hands? Rather than have another 10K words blasted back and forth, let's be crisp for once. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 0.0

• This vote commences 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC) and will be closed after seven days.
• This is not an attempt to write policy or guidelines.
• No new proposals will be added, or changes made to the existing proposals.
• In the event that Proposal 0.0 fails, Proposals 1.0 and 1.1 will by definition fail.
• A valid vote will have the form "#~~~~ <See me comments below.>"

Technically I suppose that the vote would have to be taken on the form of the valid vote, but then you'd have infinite recursion because what's a valid vote on that vote...

• A vote of Oppose to Proposal 0.0 will be counted as a vote of Oppose to Proposals 1.0 and 1.1.
• A vote of Support to Proposal 0.0 will not be counted as a vote on Proposals 1.0 and 1.1.
• As Wikipedia is not a democracy, the purpose of this vote is to gauge consensus.

Support

1. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 1.0

The title of this article shall remain "AIDS conspiracy theories".

Support

1. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1

The "disputed title" tag will be removed from this page.

Support

1. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Title dispute

I was requested by Zen-master to have a look at this whole situation. As an objective outsider (I haven't voted anything nor expressed an opinion anywhere on this), I've come to the following conclusions:

• There were many votes at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2 stipulating a case-by-case discussion should be had for each one
• With the previous point in mind:
  • I find no consensus on the words "conspiracy" or "consensus"
  • I find no consensus on this page
  • I can't reasonable understand how anyone can claim a consensus has been made when the very word consensus is being debated
• The revert war on this page shows to me that not only has the dispute about the title not been settled, the definition of "consensus" is still not settled
• I think a vote needs to proceed immediately to determine a more numerical support as having read this talk page....I find nothing, only an attempt on a vote that seems overly complicated (version numbers??)
• I think Zen's violation of the 3RR should be upheld primarily because of Wikipedia:Vandalism#What Vandalism Is Not

Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

• I will be blocking Jayg for violation as well in a moment, which will be explained on his talk page.

One last concluding note: I want to stress that the dispute as to whether or not there is a dispute clearly shows to be that no consensus has ever been formed. I would encourage this talk page to be archived, the discussion started afresh, some points and definitions be clarified, and a vote held (maybe even list on WP:RM for more advertisement). Cburnett 01:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The vote was 32:12 in favour of keeping "conspiracy theory" in the title, 73% in favour; Wikipedia:Consensus defines consensus as being as low as 70%. Consensus, or close enough, has been reached; people need to accept that consensus and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is it written in policy that the counter argument of a proposed policy that fails becomes policy itself? The counter argument did not explicity note it was itself a policy proposal, in fact, the counter argument option was "keep conspiracy theory titles as is" and we have not changed them as a group, the counter vote option was not "change policy", how are you construing that? "As is" means neutrality concerns are still decided on a case by case basis, how was WP policy possibly changed through an anti-proposal argument when nothing was explicitly noted? zen master T 20:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Definitely grounds for dissent

Although I don't generally hold with Zen-master's crusade over "conspiracy theories", this is a rather special case. Not all of the theories about AIDS concern "conspiracies". One specifically notes that it is thought to have originated in an accident. I don't generally feel Zen has grounds for his dissent over this issue -- although I agree with him that there is no "consensus" while some editors try to silence him by browbeating him with a majority vote, which may well be the vogue in Wikipedia but is not something to be lauded in my view and is definitely not something that has a place in the ideal wiki -- but I think Alternative theories on the origin of AIDS or something similar would be a much better title. It could consider any and all theories -- making the kind of synthetic article that Wikipedia can sometimes do much better than any other medium, since Wikipedia is not restricted for space or by overarching editorial control. Grace Note 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I see this suggestion was already shouted down by one of the editors who, because he is part of the majority, does not feel that there's any point actually building a consensus. Still, Dante's suggestion is a good one. Not only would it resolve Zen-master's problem but it would make a much better article. Grace Note 04:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Another outsider's view

I just happened to stumble across this.

There's every reason to believe that, at least in this case, "conspiracy theory" is POV. While you can get technical about it all you want, a significant number of people (perhaps even the majority of English speakers) associate "conspiracy theory" with "something espoused by crazy people". And at least one of these theories is not a conspiracy in the technical sense, others are on par with theories about space potatoes, lending credence to the meaning "things suggested by nutters".

Most of the theories presented here are either non-science or easily refuted, especially the theories insisting AIDS began in the late 70s and/or it involving genetic engineering. There's pretty definite evidence it existed before we had the capability to do this.

As I see it there are four choices. The three obvious ones are to call a spade a spade and title the page "Pseudo-scientific AIDS theories", create a single page called "AIDS alternative theories" and include the more scientific-sounding non-mainstream alternatives, or simply name this page something truly neutral like "AIDS alternative theories". There's simply no need to keep the current name, and good reason to change it.

Or, better still, create a page called something like "Theories of the causes of AIDS" and list all of them, with a brief explanation of HIV at the start plus a separate link to the page containing complete information on the HIV theory. The briefer theories won't need separate pages. If you truly want to be NPOV, that's the right alternative; it makes it clear that the mainstream theory is HIV, but that there are others worth considering.

(Personally, I think it's HIV and that the other theories listed here are nutso. I'm just suggesting a better way to be NPOV.)

I'm just checking this out now too, and here's my view. Part of the problem is a lack of consensus as to what a "conspiracy theory" is. I personally use it in a very precise way (as in, a theory, usually resistant to verifiability, that alleges a hidden conspiracy), not in the more general "loony theory" sense. I would argue that we should stick to the more precise definition, in part because encyclopaedias are supposed to be precise and demonstrate (by example) critical thinking, and using terminology in a "loose" way defeats all of these. In addition, it reduces the utility of the term to have it be synonmous with a broader class of bogus theories.

There's also the problem of whether a theory that posits that AIDS was originally natural, but is now the subject on some conspiracy - e.g. to say, hide a cure - is an "AIDS conspiracy theory". To me, it's an important distinction to make, in part because it's more heinous to have deliberately created such a thing and set it loose, and in part because the evidence needed to show it's untrue is different.

Moving on to the theories listed in the article, some of them aren't conspiracy theories at all, e.g. the Edward Hooper and William C. Douglas theories. (I can't tell about Matilde Krim because the entry doesn't say where she thinks the virus originally did come from).

Others fall into that grey area where there is a conspiracy, but it's not related to the origin and spread of the disease - Hulda Clark seems to fall into this class.

Then there are people like Thabo Mbeki and Peter Duesberg, whose theories aren't fundamentally conspiracy theories, in that they seem to concede that AIDS has natural and/or accidental causes (but argue that it is not caused by HIV). There may be minor aspects of their models which count as conspiracy theories (e.g. why keep giving AZT when it's poisonous and doesn't work), but I don't really think you can call them conspiracy theories.

Cold War Propaganda is in a class by itself, because it claims that there was a real conspiracy - to promulgate a black propaganda conspiracy theory about the cause of AIDS! (I looked up the Mitrokhin citation, but alas that book, otherwise well noted as to sources, gives no notes for its source for its main section about this claim, although a later references notes Oleg Gordievsky, who would have been in a position to know. A subject for later investigation, but if it can be sourced, e.g. to Gordievsky, I think I'd be inclined to drop Cold War Propaganda entry entirely, except to note that it was the motivation behind Jakob Segal's work.)

All of which leads me to agree that "AIDS conspiracy theories" is an inappropriate name for this article. Ideally, I'd like to see it titled something like "Non-mainstream theories about AIDS", and divided up into sections:

• "Alternative theories about the causes of AIDS" (which would hold Duesbery, Mbeki et al, those who propose it's not HIV)
• "Alternative theories about the spread of AIDS" (which would hold Hooper, Douglas et al who agree it's HIV, but say the spread was caused by human activity, but not deliberately)
• "Conspiracy theories about the causes and spread of AIDS" (which would hold everyone who feels there was deliberate creation/spread - I don't feel it's useful to divide this into the two constituent groups)
• "Other AIDS conspiracy theories" (which would hold people like Clark, who allege post-spread conspiracies)

This has the nice attribute that some theories are clearly labelled "conspiracy theories" (which should mollify one camp) while pointing out that they aren't all conspiracy theories (which should mollify the other camp)! I'm only worried that then there would be arguments about which category to list various theories in! :-) Noel (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Noel's proposal is an organizational improvement but what about the point that "conspiracy theory" is non neutral language and violates NPOV? Is Flat Earth titled "Dubious Flat Earth theory"? Answer: no. Evidence has to be presented and described neutrally first, before conclusions of dubiousness or "conspiracy theory" can be determined, to do otherwise taints any article. I ok with section sub titles along the lines of "non-mainstream theories about the spread of aids". Let's not forget scientists are the ones alleging these supposed "conspiracy theories" so there is absolutely zero logical rationale for using dubious and discrediting presentation method and language here. Even labeling the theories "dubious" would be a drastic improvement over "conspiracy theory" as far as NPOV is concerned. zen master T 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Theories which allege a conspiracy are, facially, "conspiracy theories". How can the use of "conspiracy theory" to describe a theory which alleges a conspiracy be NPOV? It's a flat, factual description of the theory. If you claim that the term "conspriacy theory" is inherently dismissive, would you be OK if we labelled the sections, e.g., "theories which allege a conspiracy related to the cause and spread of AIDS"? Would that really make any difference? Noel (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" has secondary meanings which discredit, see conspiracy theory and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, the phrase is at best ambiguous and at worst profoundly POV, being "literally" true by some metrics is not the whole picture. I am ok if we describe the theories as "Many people consider these theories to be dubious" but I do not support subtly duplicitious language such as "conspiracy theory" which subtly concludes things about a subject inappropriately, titles especially should not do that. And where is the requirement that we have to focus on describing these theories as only involving people conspiring, there are many other valid ways of describing them...? zen master T 21:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master will just repeat himself; please stop giving him further excuses to do so. We've been throught this before; the strong consensus was that the phrase was perfectly reasonable and accurate, regardless of what Zen-master believes. Instransigence in the face of consensus is anti-Wiki. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

When someone refutes my logical argument I will stop saying it, why use ambiguous language if you don't have to? Jayjg, for the 10th time, I will point out that Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory was not a vote "in favor" of "conspiracy theory" it was merely a vote against retitling all those articles as a group, numerous editors have explained this to you. You consistently fail to debate the merits and the possibility of POV in "conspiracy theory", the article and definition conspiracy theory are more than enough to prove you are incorrect. zen master T 21:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

New "notice" proposal

What do people think about succinctly summarizing, using NPOV language, the minority's dispute complaint (if it's made in good faith). This would mean changing the notice at the top to something like: "Notice: a minority of editors allege the phrase 'conspiracy theories' biases the presentation of this subject, please see the talk page for details". zen master T 20:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that's just another form of the "dispute" notice, which shouldn't be there. Dispute notices don't last forever. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is clear that dispute headers or notices are added to articles if there is an in good faith neutrality dispute (See Title thread above). Please point to a WP policy that supports your time limitation theory? zen master T 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no precedent for permanent dispute headers, and insisting on permanent dispute notices in the face of clear consensus in favour of this title is not "good faith". Also, much as you seem to enjoy doing so, I'm not going to repeat arguments that have already been repeated ad nauseam. Just re-read the old arguments in the future, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WP policies and precedents are designed to protect the minority view. There is zero precedent to remove dispute headers when there remains an in good faith neutrality dispute, regardless of time. And when you say "consensus" you mean "majority" -- more than a majority is required to remove dispute headers when there is an in good faith dispute. zen master T 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I see you've put an even uglier and more inappropriate header at the top of the page now. The twoversions header is for articles that are substantially different, not for articles that simply have a dispute about a different header. Please go fix that. Regarding the rest of your argument, please re-read my previous comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I think that's a great idea! Jayjg: you are violating multiple wikipedia policies with your language. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

LOL! The other main "this title is POV" proponent speaks. Name the policies, Kevin. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Where is the policy reference for removing dispute headers because of time? zen master T 20:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating yourself Zen-master, without following the conversation. The question asked is what at the "multiple wikipedia policies" that I am "violating" with my "language" here? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Majority does not equal consensus.
2. Time is not the metric, in good faith status of the dispute is.
3. The point of WP policies is not for one side to "win" over the other, the policies are for handling disputes and making sure the minority voice(s) are heard.

zen master T 20:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a logical explaination on how, under WP policy, there is a time based limitation on dispute headers if an in good faith neutrality dispute still exists? Over half a dozen other editors have agreed there is a dispute. Majority does not equal consensus, especially when it comes to neutrality disputes. zen master T 12:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

protected & new notice

I have protected this page as requested at WP:RFPP as the constant reverts do nothing for anybody's benefit.

At the same time I have combined the two distinct versions of the notice at the top of the page to a version I beleive accurately states both sides views.

Notice: some editors allege the phrase "conspiracy theories" biases the presentation of this subject, others claim that consensus has been reached that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is an accurate depiction of the theories discussed here. Please see the talk page for details.

Thryduulf 14:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea Thryduulf but how long does it take for the cache to clear? If you go to the article directly it looks like the version of the article that is protected just has the {NPOV} header at the top, it does not have the protection notice or specific dispute details notice but it signifies that it is not editable. The most recent version in history shows you added the other stuff but basically, the latest version in history disagrees with the latest version if you go to the article directly, what is going on? zen master T 15:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The bug only happens when I'm logged in, if I log out your latest version is what shows up when I go to AIDS conspiracy theories directly, if I log back in I get the version before your version but even that page does signify the article is not editable, so I don't think it's my browser. zen master T 15:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

However it happened it's working ok now. zen master T 16:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There have been no objections noted to my revised wording above, so unless anyone objects I will unprotect the page either tomorrow or Wednesday. Thryduulf 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Notices aren't permanent, Thryduulf, that simply isn't part of the Manual of Style. Minorities need to learn to respect consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Notices are not governed by the "manual of style" they are governed by the NPOV dispute policy. If an in good faith neutrality dispute exists dispute headers are added to articles. zen master T 17:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason this article was protected was people were edit waring over which notice they had at the top of the page. The notice isn't designed to be permanent, but to alert readers and potential editors that there is a dispute over this page. It breifly summarises what the dispute is and where they can find more detail. When the dipsute has been resolved the notice can go. Thryduulf 01:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As per above, I have unprotected this article. I will reprotect if the edit war continues however. Please put your energies into resolving the dispute rather than arguing over what sort of dispute it is. Thryduulf 12:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like its more of the same edit war wise. This is more serious than a simple dispute "type" disagreement, it's one side trying to deny the existence of any dispute. I have a radical ideal, perhaps AIDS conspiracy theories should be merged into AIDS reappraisal? zen master T 13:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, a radical idea to move this article to one with a title that doesn't include "conspiracy theory"? How astonishing! Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But more importantly if you and your similar minded POV friends have any proposals of your own that don't involve sweeping the existence of this dispute under the rug I'd be astonished myself. zen master T 16:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no serious, good faith dispute. There was no consensus for a name change, so there will be no name change. --Mrfixter 17:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain the logic behind your (wholly false, IMO) statement? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

There was no consensus to change all "conspiracy theory" articles as a group yes, but the status quo of determining neutrality concerns on an article by article basis remains. Also, majority does not equal consensus. The point of the NPOV policy is to ensure the existence of disputes is noted. zen master T 17:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is there to ensure that disputes between encyclopedic sources are noted, not between encyclopedia editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That does not make sense. A complaint against the lack of neutrality for how a subject is presented certainly fails within the NPOV policy, are you really claiming otherwise? zen master T 17:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote the section which explains that articles should have permanent notices on them whenever even one editor feels that the title is not neutral. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's only permanent if you choose not to debate and not work towards true 100% conensus. The NPOV policy means dispute headers are added if an in good faith dispute exists. I am not saying time can't be considered a factor, I am saying in this case there clearly still is a dispute. Time is only a factor if it becomes obvious someone is just trying to damage the look of an article, in this case many people agree there is an arguably valid neutrality complaint here. zen master T 17:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ZM here... it's not permanent, it only lasts as long as the dispute. Are you SERIOUSLY asserting, Jayig, that the dispute is over? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Of course I assert that, because it is fact. The vote was taken, consensus was decided, and no new arguments have been raised in months. Either the title has "conspiracy theory" in it or it does not; there is no middle ground. The minority is insisting on a "compromise", but that "compromise" means that the title cannot contain the term "conspiracy theory", so it's no compromise at all, nor in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, I'm curious as to what precisely you think my motive is since I'm not involved in this dispute in good faith? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC) Ah, I see, I'm operating in bad faith because I'm ignoring the vote? The problem is, Jayig, that vote didn't decide what you're claiming it did. That vote defeated a proposal that was to remove all "conspiracy theory" titles, Wikipedia-wide. That proposal failed. The argument here is that this particular article needs to have that aspect of the title changed. Your "consensus" to "keep conspiracy theory" was not what you're saying it was. It was simply saying, "No, don't get rid of them all"... which is not the same as saying, "KEEP ALL OF THEM FOREVER OMGLOLLBBQ!!!!1" --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:48, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you point me to a vote where it was decided, specifically, that all "conspiracy theory" titled articles are ok? As I've explained to you before a vote for "keep 'conspiracy theory' articles as is" means we should not change them all as a group, which is exactly what has happened, but neutrality concerns are still decided on a case by case basis individually and the vote was not "there is no dispute". Also note NPOV disputes, separate from other wikipedia policies, work off of true consensus not majority. Also note a highly related dispute over the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in another article's title Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda so this proves "conspiracy theory" is still actively disputed. zen master T 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hooper/Koprowski

I would like to propose several edits to be made during this time while the article is protected. I think they are neutral and factual. They are related to the second bullet point, on Edward Hooper. I was surprised to see a suggested origin in the era of Salk, Sabin, and the polio vaccine, since I thought AIDS had a later origin than that, and I searched the web for some additional information. I found several sources (noted below) that show that Dr. Koprowski's polio vaccine was administered in the late 1950s. I propose that:

1. The spelling of Dr. Koprowski's name be corrected (it is spelled "Kaprowski" in the article).
2. The dates 1956-1960, or more conservatively, the period "late 1950s", be added to fix this theory in time.
3. The links to [[Salk]] and [[Sabin]] be changed to [[Jonas Salk|Salk]] and [[Albert Sabin|Sabin]].
4. The name of Koprowski's vaccine, CHAT, or other information from the sources I found, or links to the sources themselves, might be useful additions. I leave that to the discretion of others.

The sources are the CBC, the BBC, a letter from Dr. Koprowski to Science (on the University of Wollongong's web site), and an article in the San Francisco Gate.

I am hesitant to wade into the "conspiracy theory" debate, but I would say that although it does have a negative connotation, it can be used to describe a theory about conspiracies. However, no conspiracy is even alleged in the Koprowski case, so the title may not be an accurate summary of the theories in the article regardless of any negative connotations of the term.

DavidConrad 19:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have made the changes you requested in points 1 and 3 above. I am happy that nobody should object to these as they amount to correcting a name and correcting wiki links. The others involve aditions to the article, and I do not feel that it would be apropriate for me to do this when the article is protected. Thryduulf 16:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

More on the title

Initially I was fine with "conspiracy theories" for this article, but I'm starting to think it doesn't make a lot of sense with the current content. "Conspiracy theories" is a fine description of theories that allege conspiracies, such as those that claim it was created covertly as a biowarfare agent, but many of the theories described on this page, such as Thabo Mbeki's viewpoints, don't allege any conspiracy at all. I think we should either make this page only be about actual conspiracy theories such as the biowarfare one, or rename it to some broader term, such as Non-mainstream views on HIV/AIDS that covers basically any viewpoint other than the mainstream one accepted by the scientific community. --Delirium 18:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

This was precisely my argument from the beginning. I proposed Alternative AIDS origin theories I believe... or something to that effect. I can go back and check I suppose... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Noel has an even better suggestion/implementation of this general concept up above from July 26. Go check it out. Incidently, that would be further evidence that the dispute was still active as of July 26, but I doubt Jayig will accept that either. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Noel's idea was pretty good. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we please just move the article to Alternative theories about AIDS (a suitably neutral title), and divide them up into sections, with the minor change that we label the sections which allege conspiracies "theories which allege a conspiracy related to the cause and spread of AIDS" and "other theories which allege a conspiracy related to AIDS"? That avoids use of the dreaded "conspiracy theory" phrase, but keeps prominent the fact that these theories allege conspiracies. Noel (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is fine. Your suggestion above was good. I'm all for compromise, including on the title, but Zen-master insists that there cannot be "100% Compromise" until the phrase "Conspiracy theory" is excised from the page. That's not compromise at all, especially considering the fact that consensus was that the phrase was just fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that ZM would vastly prefer that conspiracy theory be excised from the article completely, but that he recognizes that fixing the article title is an important move nonetheless. Aside from that, there are the rest of us who would support such an article title change. I don't really see that anyone is saying (still) that the article title ought to steadfastly remain "AIDS conspiracy theories" --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

There was a vote on this, strong consensus that "Conspiracy theory" was just fine. ZM has been picking away at this ever since; I'm sure if we involved all the people who took part in the original vote, the view of the "rest of us" would change dramatically. I'm certainly not going to accept any unilateral change of the name, when there was a recent vote taken to not do that. The only valid reason I can see for a name change is that not all the items listed here are conspiracy theories. If we could get agreement that the content would be divided into sections, including the Conspiracy theory sections, then it might make sense to rename the article. However, if the point is just to get Conspiracy theory out of the article a little bit at a time, against previous consensus, then no, that won't fly. Get agreement on all the items, now; I'm not interested in having this article held hostage by ZM for another 3 months until he gets his way in everything (what he calls "100% consensus"). Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

As Dante, others and I have explained to you Jayjg, the vote you refer to does not mean what you think it means. Please point out where in the counter arguement it proposed that "conspiracy theory" was "just fine"? A vote against one proposal does not an opposite precedent make, especially when not explicitly noted.

Jayjg, would you support something like "Many people consider these theories to be 'conspiracy theories'" inside the article (in the sub section) so it's clear to the reader there is a chance the theories are not "conspiracy theories" (i.e. we shouldn't conclude dubiousness completely)? zen master T 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, they ARE conspiracy theories, so including a tiny-minority view that they aren't conspiracy theories is not necessary, per NPOV. ZM, point out the argument where "conspiracy theory" is "not fine"? Also, the dream scenario of 100% consensus does not exist, else articles would be held hostage by tiny bands of POV-warriors...Also, Jayjg is right to say that the NPOV tag is for noting disputes between encyclopedic sources, not editors. Failing to ram through your name change does not mean you put an NPOV tag on the article. --Mrfixter 23:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

My issue with them is that many of them are clearly not conspiracy theories. They may well be wacky unscientific theory, but a conspiracy theory is specifically a theory that alleges a conspiracy. Some of these do do that: The theory that AIDS was developed as a biowarfare agent is indeed a conspiracy theory. Others, however, such as the dubious claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, may be bad science and wrong, but don't involve conspiracies. --Delirium 23:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the flaw with the article. As Noel pointed out, it would make sense to have separate headings for conspiracy theories and other theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Mrfixter, they may literally be theories of people conspiring under the first definition of the phrase but the point is we shouldn't additionally hint at a predetermined conclusion of dubiousness under the secondary definition automatically too. I am ok if we state in the article, using NPOV language, something like "Many people allege these theories are dubious" or even "Many people have concluded that these theories are dubious". But using the phrase "conspiracy theory" is an extreme POV violation as it is needlessly ambiguous on a subconscious level which is completely unnecessary because we can just state what we mean directly with pristine conscious clarity. Given the secondary definition of conspiracy theory that describes it as "connoting that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously" how are all theories of people literally conspiring not potentially illegitimately tainted with a hint of "dubiousness" if the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used to describe them? If something has no basis in fact we should simple state "it has no basis in fact" which is exactly what we do inside the Flat Earth article, rather than resort to subconscious language confusion ("conspiracy theory"'s having two defintions, one of which means dubious, is the language confusion). Why take a chance of confusion and/or illegitimate biased presentation if we can just state facts directly using alternative simple and clear language? zen master T 00:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

needlessly ambiguous on a subconscious level - I think we should stick to writing WP articles on a conscious level, else we get into all sort of problems, IMO. Anyway, its the primary meaning of "conspiracy theory" that we are dealing with and its not being used in a prejorative context (consciously). Its obvious that we are all taking this article very seriously (even a little too seriously) so there is no way the secondary definition applies here. That you think using the term is an extreme POV violation is a tiny minority view and should be ignored, per NPOV. --Mrfixter 07:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If there is a chance of misinterpretation with "conspiracy theory" why not use language where there is no chance of misinterpretation? Do a google search for site:en.wikipedia.org and "conspiracy theory" and you will see, even on just talk pages, it's used pejoratively all the time. zen master T 11:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statement about needlessly ambiguous on a subconscious level is utter nonsense, ZM! How do you know this is happening on a "subconscious" level? Proof please. --Mrfixter 12:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I know you and others claim "conspiracy theory" means only a theory of people conspiring, yet I also know it is used all over the place to discredit things (see the list of discrediting uses below) so I know there is a profound inconsistency somewhere. Here is how the language confusion might work: because the phrase "conspiracy theory" has a strong hint of implied dubiousness and also because its literal definition means simply a theory of people conspiring, people errantly assume (at whatever conscious or subconscious level) that the theory being described must literally be dubious too. It's the combination of having a literal easily true first definition and a discrediting dubiousness connotation under the secondary definition. The most plausible explanation is that this complex language confusion is/was by design, especially when one factors in the illogical repetition used to defend and perpetuate it. 13:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So no proof for your "subconscious ambiguity" theory, no suprises there. I think the discussion about the meaning of conspiracy theory has been done already, so I will demure from flooding this talkpage with 100,000 more words.--Mrfixter 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The proof is in the section below, there are numerous examples of "conspiracy theory" used to discredit things just within Wikipedia. Whether the ambiguity is subconscious or not doesn't eliminate the point that there is ambiguity (unnecessarily imprecise language). The "subconscious ambiguity" instead is more accurately described as "an errant initial gut reaction interpretation of language", the problem really centers around the fact that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is described as being "literally true" under the first definition (a theory of people conspiring), so the discrediting dubiousness secondary definition baggage is also assumed by the mind to be literally true too, to a certain extent it comes along for the "literally true" ride illegitimately. zen master T 16:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page because the reverting had started again. Please try to sort the issue out on talk rather than going back and forth between versions. Give me a shout when you want it unlocked. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

New title suggestion: AIDS creation theories

How about AIDS creation theories? Regardless of the pages and pages of debate on "conspiracy" and the vague/general vote-to-keep, I think "AIDS conspiracy theories" or "Alternate AIDS theories" or ... are insufficient because they aren't descriptive enough.

Questions: Conspiracy about what? Alternate theories to what?

Answer: the creation.

So, why not AIDS creation theories? Neither the current title nor the proposed names are descriptive enough. Cburnett 04:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

"AIDS origin theories" sounds better but creation is an improvement. zen master T 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is not a bad title, AIDS origin theories would be better imho as to me "creation" implies a deliberate (or accidentaly) act by a person (or supreme being) to create it, whereas at least some of the theories of how AIDS came to be are that it evolved/mutated/jumped a species barrier/whatever. I don't have any desire to see this article caught up in any Creation vs. Evolution controvercies. Thryduulf 12:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I like "AIDS origin theories" but as far as sub section titles go I think we can come up with a more neutral way of describing even arguably dubious theories than using the ambiguous and improperly discrediting phrase "conspiracy theory". Separately, the NPOV policy requires us to state who and how someone has concluded that some of the theories are allegedly dubious, which is impossible when the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used in a descriptive, conclusive sense. zen master T 19:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"AIDS origina theories" would be a good title for a different article. However this article does not include all AIDS theories, it focuses on the conspiracy theories. -Willmcw 19:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If I assume for the sake of argument some/all of the theories in this article really need to be segregated then what do you think about a title something to the effect of "Non-mainstream AIDS origin theories"? Isn't it inconsistent the dubious connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda gets a straightforward title yet this article doesn't? (both are theories of people literally conspiring). zen master T 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: 2+ people stating the same theory (e.g., Thabo Mbeki's theory) does not make it a conspiracy theory...just a more widely believed theory. I find the idea that the special theory of relativity is a conspiracy theory purely laughable. However, people stating that a group of 2+ people created AIDS (e.g., Jakob Segal's theory) is a conspiracy theory: a theory about a conspiracy to create it. Cburnett 20:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If Mbeki's theory is not a conspiracy theory then it should be removed. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

In that case:

• Mbeki's isn't a conspiracy theory by above argument
• Hooper's is unsourced, and should be removed
• Segal's isn't a conspiracy theory because the goal wasn't the creation of AIDS but was incidental, therefore it is not a conspiracy
• "cold war propaganda" isn't a conspiracy theory because it was disinformation dissemination; it's nothing more than propaganda/lie/FUD
• Krim's isn't a conspiracy theory because she claimed it was an accident (thus no goal -> no conspiracy)
• Douglas's isn't a conspiracy theory because it was a contaminated vaccine (thus no goal -> no conspiracy)

Which leaves a couple bio warfare and population control theories. Cburnett 21:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Though, I question calling the creation of bio warfare weapons as conspiracies. The conspiracy would be denying doing so, etc. If development of a weapon is a conspiracy, then so is building a house; so is flying a plane; so is having a conversation; etc. Pretty much everything in life involving 2+ people would be a conspiracy (building a dwelling; getting from A to B; learning something about one anther; etc., respectively) but that's simply absurd. If everything in life was a conspiracy, then the word would have no meaning. This entire discussion is a conspiracy (goal: have a consensus, write an article, etc.), again which is absurd. Cburnett 21:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If there is a concern about the Hooper theory being unsourced, please see the Hooper/Koprowski section of this talk page where I proposed a few corrections to the Hooper story and provided several sources. Google would turn up more. The Hooper story has been disproven, but there are sources for it. DavidConrad 03:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

List of discrediting uses of "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia

Multiple wikipedia editors (Jayjg, Mrfixter, many others) have claimed that the phrase "conspiracy theory" 1) only means a theory of people literally conspiring and/or claim that 2) the primary literally true definition only ever applies (i.e. they claim the secondary discrediting definition never applies). This list is evidence that both the discrediting definition of "conspiracy theory" exists and discrediting use of the phrase has happened frequently on wikipedia talk pages.

1. Here are multiple arguments for deletetion of an article using "conspiracy theory" in the discrediting sense [1]
2. Here is someone arguing that if something is a "conspiracy theory" it does not belong in Wikipedia, but if we use Mrfixter and jayjg's logic why would a theory of people literally conspiring by itself be grounds for removal from wikipedia? [2]
3. Here is a surprising usage case, the phrase "conspiracy theory" appears to be used to discredit an alleged connection between Timothy Mcveigh and Al-Qaeda/the middle east, apparently in response to a WSJ opinion article (very interesting...) [3]
4. Here is a case where someone describes a "conspiracy theory" as "(presumed) wildly speculative hogwash", hmmm Mrfixter and Jayjg and others certainly won't like the fact that a phrase that they claim only means a theory of people literally conspiring is being used like this (I am being sarcastic): [4]
5. Here is a use that stretches even the definition of "conspiring", trying to be used in a historical context to discredit possibilities, note it doesn't simply say "Japan likely did not have nuclear weapons" it merely says, to discredit it, "There is a conspiracy theory that Japan tested nuclear weapons during WWII" [5]
6. Here, someone is arguing that a particular "conspiracy theory" is somehow worthy of an "appropriate amount of skepticism" which doesn't make sense if we accept jayjg's and mrfixter's literal meaning only definition. [6]
7. Here someone points out it is not correct to label this a "conspiracy theory" because it biases [7]
8. Here someone claims something is a conspiracy theory because it "never gained general acceptance", I don't see how that is possible if "conspiracy theory" only means a theory of people literally conspiring? [8]
9. Here someone points out the biasing treatment using "conspiracy theory" [9]
10. Here someone is illogically claiming (using Jayjg's and Mrfixter's logic) that a "conspiracy theory" is somehow fringe simply because it is literally a theory of people conspiring (inconsistent) [10]
11. Hmmm, another interesting case, first vote in a VfD someone claimed a theory that is merely (according to Jayjg and Mrfixter) a theory of people literally conspiring is "bullshit". [11]
12. I like this one, someone appears to be discrediting "intelligent design" with "conspiracy theory" [12]
13. At the bottom here someone says a book is "well researched" so it's "not an Oliver Stone conspiracy theory", but how can that be true if "conspiracy theory" only means a theory of people literally conspiring? [13]
14. I will rewrite this one using Jayjg's and Mrfixter's definition: "In the meantime, keep feeding yourself BS about some theory of people literally conspiring". If the theory is about people literally conspiring then it must be literally true, according to jayjg and mrfixter at least [14]
15. Here is another good one, "Note that 'conspiracy theory' is a major component of Arab and middle-eastern politics and sociology" that sentence doesn't mean anything unless "conspiracy theory" is being used in the discrediting sense [15]
16. Here someone is pointing out "conspiracy theory" is POV, and later on user Raul654 claims that "Wikipedia does not want conspiracy theories" which of course doesn't make sense if "conspiracy theory" means only what jayjg and mrfixter claim it does. [16]
17. At the bottom here someone is trying to discredit even Linguistic imperialism with "conspiracy theory" [17]
18. In the middle here someone says "It is classic conspiracy theory nonsense." which of course can't possibly be true if "conspiracy theory" means only what jayjg and mrfixter claim it does (a theory of people literally conspiring). Seems theories of people literally conspiring automatically become "nonsense" for some reason. [18]
19. This one is a doozy, "Such OSS advocates use conspiracy theory and annecdote in an attempt to demonstrate a malign motivation behind each of Microsoft's technical / business decisions." [19]
20. And the best example of them all, User:Dori argues on the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view page that theories that are about people literally conspiring may be ommitted from inclusion in Wikipedia merely because they are theories of people literally conspiring (using Jayjg's and Mrfixter's single definition). "No, NPOV means stating this is the majority opionion, this is the minority opinion (or so and so say this). If it's usually just some crank or conspiracy theory then it may be omitted. Dori | Talk 20:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)" Which is coincidentally ironic and relevant to the AIDS conspiracy theories dispute that the majority and minority views and/or who specifically is claiming what should be noted inside each article. [20]
21. There are many more examples if people are interested. zen master T 12:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

None of these are examples of "subconscious ambiguity" and since when does a google search of wikipedia:talk pages have anything to do with deciding what the title of this article should be? Keep building your strawman higher and higher...--Mrfixter 16:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, so you want to stick to the conscious level and ZM shows 20 cases on its use at the conscious level, and you write it off because it's not examples of subconscious use. There's not even a logical fallacy for that kind of argument because it's not even an argument! Cburnett 16:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Mrfixter, nice try at mischaracterization, this list exists to disprove your and jayjg's claim that "conspiracy theory" does not have any discrediting secondary definitions or is never used as such. Whether the ambiguity is subconscious or not is irrelevant to the fact that there is language ambiguity. zen master T 16:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The "subconscious ambiguity" argument isn't mine, its ZMs. And this whole list thing above has been created to prop up ZMs strawman. What strawman argument you ask? That I have ever said that "conspiracy theory" has "only" one meaning. I have never said that, so I am confused about ZMs point here, apart from clogging up this talkpage. Here is an interesting diff Anyway, its the primary meaning of "conspiracy theory" that we are dealing with and its not being used in a prejorative context (consciously). Its obvious that we are all taking this article very seriously (even a little too seriously) so there is no way the secondary definition applies here.. Sigh. Please refrain from making things up about me and what I say. In the meantime keep building your strawman higher and higher...--Mrfixter 18:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Your labeling my argument a "strawman" is a slightly better attempt at mischaracterizing what I am saying. Mrfixter states above "Anyway, its the primary meaning of 'conspiracy theory' that we are dealing with and its not being used in a prejorative context" [21] so my list is proof the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used in a discrediting sense on wikipedia generally and frequently. The question then becomes how and why is this article somehow magically exempt from the secondary discrediting definition? If "conspiracy theory" is provably discrediting in and of itself generally on Wikipedia talk pages why use the phrase in an encyclopedia at all (especially considing the phrase is ambiguous and confusing additionally)? You will have to justify your uncited, seemingly random allegation designed to attack my argument without any logical basis: "there is no way the secondary definition applies here". That sounds nice, and was likely designed to sound very conclusive, but it actually does not make any sort of logical argument in support of anything (no evidence, no basis). zen master T 18:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mrfixter: My point has been dodged again with the same "argument." I repeat: you want to stick to the conscious level and ZM shows 20 cases on its use at the conscious level, and you write it off because it's not examples of subconscious use. Your argument is so specious that it doesn't even have a fallacy for it: it's utter inconsistency.

Person A argues X.

Person B says the debate is Y, not X.

Person A argues Y.

Person B discredits A because he's not arguing X.

Person B claims victory.

Closest thing I can label it is bait and switch. Regardless, it's a downright pathetic way to discredit an argument and serves no purpose to bring this ridiculous debate to a close.

And I believe your evaluation of what a straw man argument is needs to be reevaluated. ZM has never argued there is one defintion, but, in fact, quite the opposite that there's ambiguity, which you outright dismiss in what you've quoted. You may not have directly said that there's "only" one definition, but your quote makes it clear that you don't intend on recognizing anything beyond the "primary definition."

Let me get this straight: you're discrediting ZM's argument because he said that you said there's only one definition of "conspiracy theory," yet you've completely ignored the larger part of his argument. It is you commiting the straw man fallacy.

Furthermore, wouldn't you "keep stuffing the straw man" instead of "building [it] higher and higher"? Your mislabeling an argument as straw man and then commiting one in the same argument tells me you have no clue what one actually is... Cburnett 18:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this debate is ridiculous. How do we bring it to a close and work towards unprotecting this article? --Mrfixter 19:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It will never end so long as you (and others) outright refuse to listen to the other side. I think your responses here are indicitive as such with the whole straw man tanget you started and only narrowly focusing on one definition of a word and ignoring any connotation it has.

Can you agree that "creation" or "origin" are more neutral and don't have connotatively more disputable definitions as "conspiracy"?

Do you recognize ZM's argument at all? Specifically that "conspiracy theory" is not always used in the sterile legal sense of "2+ people plotting to do something" but rather denoting "crackpot" or "unfounded" or "baseless" theories.

Can you precisely state your objection to using any other word other than "conspiracy"?

Sorry, saying "it was voted" on is an invalid argument for the purposes of answering my questions. Cburnett 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Since other articles whose only connection to this one is the phrase "conspiracy theory" keep being referenced, I suggest that this matter be handled n a comprehensive basis. Maybe a page like Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Hey, wait a minute! That's already been done! I guess we don't have to keep discussing this here, endlessly. Thanks. -Willmcw 19:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a revote. Though, you once again perpetuate the mistaken belief that a denied policy proposal somehow creates an opposite proposal. Where in the counter argument was it explicitly noted that "conspiracy theory" is ok for all time, the vote result was to leave "conspiracy theory" titled articles as a group unchanged, we have done exactly that. zen master T 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: Argumentum ad numerum. But thanks for actually contributing to the discussion instead of making a flippant response. Hey, wait a minute! Cburnett 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you have read all of the thousands of words that I have written on this page and on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory in response to user:Zen-master's demand that we change this title, and if you still think that I have not contributed to the discussion, then you have grounds to complain. But I personally find the repetitive attempts, by people who have made no attempt to edit the article and who show little interest in the subject, to change this title to have gone on for too long. The same issues that have been addressed keep getting raised again and again. It's become a waste of time and, in my opinion, amounts to trolling. -Willmcw 20:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am actually trying to work towards true consensus on the talk page rather than stifle the other side's criticisms or arbitrarily edit an article knowing there is a highly likelyhood of being reverted. If you or anyone can convince me "conspiracy theory" is fair and neutral I will withdraw my complaint against it, I believe I have proved it is unfair and illegitimately discredits but you and your POV friends seem to repeatedly deflect away from any sort of neutrality of language analysis. zen master T 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw: how much you've written is irrelevant to you making flippant responses. My questions just above have yet to see answers posted below them. Trolling is bad-faith editing and you have a twisted sense of "bad-faith editing" when you're the one slinging accusatorial terms and making flippant comments. Funny: the straw man caller makes a straw man and the troll caller is derailing the conversation with flippant comments. Cburnett 21:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the entire discussion, here and in the other place? -Willmcw 21:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: how much you've written is irrelevant to you making flippant responses. Cburnett 21:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no." Flippant responses become more likely after repeating the same discussion points over and over to those who have not bothered to read the orignal discussion. I apologize if I offended anyone by drawing attention to the ridiculousness of this process. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Trolling is what it is, which is why I no longer bother responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, willmcw, for not reading the thread yourself. Specifically, #Title dispute. Kind of hard to make those claims without reading anything. Furthermore, you commited the Argument from silence fallacy. Cburnett 21:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, you are guilty of Argumentum ad argumentum. --Mrfixter 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I see you have no intention of actually making an argument and continue with the derailing. Funny. And I'm being the one labeled a troll. Pick any of my questions and make a discussion and I'll gladly chime in without resorting the logical fallacies like you, and many others here, tend to repeat ad nauseam. Cburnett 00:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Using the term conspiracy theory

I was asked to give an opinion here. Conspiracy theory is a distinct narrative genre recognized by people who work in political research, journalism, and the like, and so I see nothing wrong with the use of the term, so long as it's used descriptively, and not in a purely prescriptive way. To use it descriptively, any examples must fit an agreed definition. I wrote up the definition below for Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, which Chip Berlet (who's very knowledgeable in this area) agreed with, so it might be helpful here — not in the article, but as a rule-of-thumb on how to distinguish a conspiracy theory from an alternative theory:

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. [22]

The key features are that a conspiracy theory "represents a closed system and is not amenable to the standard rules of evidence"; that it's a "matter of ideology" and that "the difference between an alternative theory and a conspiracy theory is epistemological."

Looking at the examples on the page, I'd say the view that HIV does not cause AIDS is not a conspiracy theory; don't know about Hooper; William C. Douglas doesn't sound like one; and Hulda Clark is borderline, depending on how much she claims powerful people are trying to stop her. I'd say all the others are examples of conspiracy theories. You might want to ask Chip for his opinion.

Some editors have suggested having sections for different types of theory, including those that are definitely conspiracy theories. That sounds like a good idea to me. I hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you are just repeating the same misdirecting argument in favor of "conspiracy theory" as you did before in Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. In email to me you claimed your position had changed somewhat, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If an allegation or theory truly is not "amenable to the standard rules of evidence" then it should be deleted from wikipedia or neutrally caveatted as being uncited/dubious rather than left in an article to errantly be presented with the improperly discrediting phrase "conspiracy theory". To put it simply, if a theory or allegation is that dubious and/or uncited we should label it with "dubious" or "uncited" and note exactly who is counter-claiming the theory is dubious. For example, I would support historically accurate references to the phrase as in: "The science organization X publically stated that theory Y is a 'conspiracy theory'" but we should never use the phrase to describe something directly ourselves (though the insightful question then becomes would a true science organization ever resort to language such as "conspiracy theory"?). Wikipedia already has rules for dealing with uncited and/or dubious allegations, let's follow those rules rather than use "conspiracy theory". Wikipedia also requires neutral language, especially when describing or presenting information, allegations, and theories. Conclusions are inferred from neutrally presented facts, not assumed from improper language. It is irrelevant whether "conspiracy theory" is a type of "narrative" or a "genre" or an "ideology", the point is the phrase is additionally non neutral. You say "so long as it's used descriptively" but that misses the point as the phrase has more than one use, it is not just generically descriptive, it also discredits and is prematurely and improperly conclusive. If "conspiracy theory" meant only what you claim it does above then the phrase would be ok to use, but the lack of neutrality problem exists precisely because of all the other negative connotation secondary definitions that you don't mention. zen master T 14:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

ZM, you are just repeating the same misdirecting argument in opposition to "conspiracy theory" as you have done ad nauseum, at great length and on a great many pages. Using the term conspiracy theory to describe a conspiracy theory is fine because that is what they are. That the term has more than one use is maddening, but that is the english language for you. Once someone reads the article which has the term "conspiracy theory" in it, there can be no serious confusion. A tiny minority view should not hold this article hostage forever. --Mrfixter 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm Mrfixter, your statement "using the term conspiracy theory to describe a conspiracy theory is fine" is circular logic. You also have to actually explain how my argument is "misdirecting" rather than just regurgitate my interpretation/summary of Slim's argument. The point is there are better ways of describing "conspiracy theories" since I've proved the phrase has more than one literal meaning and because not all theories of people literally conspiring are necessarily dubious. The phrase being literally true under its first definition is not enough to avoid a lack of presentation neutrality otherwise. I make no claims that any specific "conspiracy theories" aren't dubious, I just know we (an encyclopedia especially) are required to use straightforward neutral language and precisely note who is claiming or concluding what. We need to disassociate description of a subject from implied conclusivity at a language level. zen master T 21:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess that calling a tree a "tree" because it is one would count as circular logic too. -Willmcw 21:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy is flawed, unlike the phrase "conspiracy theory" the word "tree" is neutral. zen master T 21:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe a conspiracy theory is neutral, straightforward and widely used and understood because that is what it is. Do you think conspiracy theories don't exist or that conspiracy theories should be referred to as not conspiracy theories? I think they do exist and should be honestly referred to as such, this being an encyclopedia an all. --Mrfixter 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether they exist or not as some sort of "narrative" is irrelvant to the fact that "conspiracy theory" is not the most fair or accurate way of describing them. If something is conclusively dubious to the point of being worthy of the discrediting phrase "conspiracy theory" we still have to describe the issue neutrally and present things fairly, then conclusions are inferred (its a multi-step process that "conspiracy theory" violates). We also have to state explicitly who is concluding or counter-claiming what, that is why I am ok with usages of the form: "The scientific organization X claims Y is a 'conspiracy theory'". But an encyclopedia is generally required to use neutral language when it describes things directly, rather than perpetuate language confusion. You (and others) seem like some sort of bot designed to debate illogically to perpetuate an entrenched POV. zen master T 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

An encylopedia should not redefine terms just because they clash with someone's agenda/POV. Using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe a conspiracy theory does not violate NPOV because it is describing a conspiracy theory. The tiny minority view that a conspiracy theory is not a conspiracy theory does not need to written about, per NPOV. This discussion has become a meta-discussion about conspiracy theory, so lets move it over to Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. --Mrfixter 09:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

You must not have been reading this page, I posted just 20 out of 100s of instances where "conspiracy theory" was used in a discrediting sense on wikipedia talk pages alone. [23] You also keep mischaracterizing what I am saying, the issue isn't whether something is or isn't a "conspiracy theory" under its literal definition, the issue is what is the best way of describing the abstract theory or allegation being presented in each article. "Conspiracy theory" is obviously wrong given it's secondary definition and considering better and neutral straightforward ways of describing the same thing also exist. Your human bot handlers must have you on broken record autopilot -- if you aren't some sort of bot why do you debate this way? It makes 0 sense. zen master T 13:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this. The primary definition is the definition that I am talking about. Its maddening that "conspiracy theory" has a complex meaning, but thats the english language for you. "Conspiracy theory" is easily the best term to describe a conspiracy theory. "Conspiracy theory" is obviously right given its primary definition. Why do you insist on trying to deny WP the use of a term that is widely understood, is neutral and straightforward? Do you think that there is no such thing as a "conspiracy theory"?

No-one here is denying that "conspiracy theory" can be used in a disparaging manner, please do not trot this strawman out again! You seem to believe that because "conspiracy theory" can be used in a disparaging way, that negates its use and its primary meaning. There are many words and phrases like that on the WP, but that is the fault of the english language not of NPOV or WP. --Mrfixter 15:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a test of my theory. The term "conspiracy theory" is actually widely misunderstood. "obviously right" under a first definition is not enough, an encyclopedia should use non duplicitious language and fortunately in almost every case better descriptive and neutral language has already been suggested by someone. Wikipedia is under no obligation to accept and use directly any presumption inducing language merely because it exists in the english language. What do you have against neutral/better alternatives to the phrase "conspiracy theory"? As a side note to your operator(s)/designers: it's completely unclear what your motivation and your logical basis for disagreeing is, it should be apparent and arguably consistent. It seems like you are debating just for the sake of it without any motivation other than to use/try every misdirecting trick in the debate book. zen master T 16:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparing me to a bot is a personal attack, ZM. Please, no personal attacks.--Mrfixter 11:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We covered these exact issues months ago. This is going to go down in Wikipedia history as one of the the most repetitive editing disputes. Maybe we can number the arguments to save typing. -Willmcw 20:43, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The issues are still unresolved, neutrality violations exist, provably non neutral language is being used. Feel free to disagree (as always) but don't mischaracterize or try to portray the issue inaccurately. What happened to the plan to retitle this article but put some of the theories in a "conspiracy theory" titled sub section? If one of you bots had gone ahead and made the changes I might not have considered this entire debate to be worthless except for the purposes of bot testing practice and to make sure third parties aren't tricked by your arguments. Though, given the existence of AIDS reappraisal this article should be merged to it and deleted. It's also very interesting to note that not one of the editors defending "conspiracy theory" here on this page or was involved in the dispute notice edit war a few days ago has ever edited the AIDS reappraisal article, if your POV was consistent you'd have a problem with that article. You do not seem to care about making sure certain AIDS allegations are discredited you only seem to care about defending the propaganda usefulness of the phrase "conspiracy theory" on a language level. Why try so hard to defend "conspiracy theory" here when mostly the same content is neutrally presented elsewhere? Separately, how would the POV gang vote if I nominated this article for VfD (merge to AIDS reappraisal)? zen master T 21:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me as if the two articles complement each other. Please avoid questioning the motives of other editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid I can not avoid that, through it is really a question of consistency and plausibility than one of motivation. If the two articles complement each other why is one mislabeled as "conspiracy theories" and the other is not? you seem to be arguing that one article should be presented discreditedingly? That is not the wiki way (or should not be at least). zen master T 00:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the "propaganda usefulness of the phrase "conspiracy theory" on a language level."? --Mrfixter 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As if you don't know, I will play along though, it means: the way the phrase "conspiracy theory" can be used to discredit and taint anything that happens to be a theory of people literally conspiring. Theories and allegations can be presented and thought of in a myriad of different ways, it's intriguing that "conspiracy theory" is used so often and so exclusively considering it is an exponentially discrediting method of presentation. zen master T 15:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I think the question I was trying to ask was who is this "propaganda" useful for? Whose purpose does it serve to use the term "conspiracy theory", in your opinion? Thanks. --Mrfixter 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I only consider it highly probable and plausible that only those who would want to hide something about a subject would resort to using the insidiously duplicitous and discrediting phrase "conspiracy theory", the phrase seems engineered for exactly that purpose. A real scientist or someone genuinely interested in scientifically or logically disproving a theory or allegation would never use it (I'd like to think so at least). As I've said many times before any debunking or conclusiveness should be based on facts not on tricky language used in a subject's presentation. With politics in mind look at the list of articles that use it over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and look at how it is used unevenly to discourage an untainted analysis of some subjects but not others just within wikipedia talk pages alone (see list above). The phrase is perhaps a master key that unlocks many things. though that isn't to say all or even 50% of "conspiracy theories" are necessarily true. The first step is to realize the exponential degree to which the phrase is non neutral, various plausible political motivation theories for its existence and use come from that as a starting point. zen master T 01:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward

It's pretty clear that as long as the article contains the word "conspiracy" anywhere in it, (even if the actual phrase "conspiracy theory" is banished in favour of perfectly factual descriptions such as "theories which allege a conspiracy"), ZM's not going to be happy. (See his response to my question above: would you be OK if we labelled the sections, e.g., "theories which allege a conspiracy related to the cause and spread of AIDS"?)

Since i) a number of the theories described here are allegations of conspiracies, and therefore ii) any number of editors will (rightly) protest if they are not described as "theories which allege a conspiracy", we can therefore conclude that making ZM happy is impossible (at least without ignoring a whole flock of other editors). We should therefore try to reach agreement among the rest of us, and give up on trying to please ZM.

Moving on, therefore, I will repeat my previous position that the article includes descriptions of a number of theories which either i) do not involve conspiracies (and hence the title "AIDS conspiracy theories" is inappropriate), or ii) are not about the origin of AIDS (and therefore the proposed titles "AIDS origin theories" and "AIDS creation theories" also aren't applicable).

The article, as it stands, seems to be a dumping ground for various unaccepted theories about different aspects of the whole AIDS situation (of varying degrees of unliklihood and breadth of following). Given this, it seems to me that we can either i) change the title to accurately reflect what is in the article (and perhaps apply some sorting and subheaders, as I have previously suggested), or ii) remove all material that does not match the description implied by the title, and move it to new articles.

I really don't care which, but I do think we ought to do one or the other. Noel (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I support the first suggestion, retitle the article. There is no reason to excise material that belongs in the encyclopedia. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC) I do maintain hope that ZM will be satisfied if we properly title the sub-headings and explain precisely where the "accusations" of dubiousness originate from. We just need to be careful and ascribe any POV claims to the appropriate source so that it doesn't appear that the Wikipedia is making said claims. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I support this plan. As long as it's clear that "conspiracy theory" is not a conclusive determination and not used to describe a subject but is presented as a counter allegation against a non mainstream theory then I don't see a problem. Though I think the phrase "person X accuses theory Y of being dubious" or "theory Y is considered non mainstream" is exponentially more clear and informative on multiple levels than if we stated "person X accuses theory Y of being a conspiracy theory". If a fair person is truly trying to disprove something they would use facts and a logical argument rather than discrediting and objective analysis discouraging language. zen master T 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're severely confused. When it comes to a book sub-titled The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot, there's no "person X accus[ing] [it] of being a conspiracy theory" - the theory proclaims itself to be about a supposed conspiracy. Noel (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh the book is not proclaiming itself to be a conspiracy theory in the discrediting sense (unless it is disinformation), whether you realize it or not you are focusing on just the phrase meaning a theory of people literally conspiring which brings the discrediting secondary definition baggage along for the ride (subconsciously perhaps). Why label an allegation only generically (and discreditingly) with "conspiracy theory" when it should be described specifically as to exactly what it is: "The Secret AIDS Genocidal Plot"? If something is arguably dubious it would require a caveat, not improper language and presentation. And it is completely reasonable to allege that AIDS was a genocidal plot of some sort given the available information and the hype surrounding the disease and the mysterious deaths of AIDS researchers. Please note that Nobel prize winning scientists are the ones alleging AIDS equals biowarfare theories, you can't get more anti-discredit worthy than that. A corollary to what I wrote above: no scientist or honest person would chose to use "conspiracy theory" to describe their pet subject if they were genuinely interested in proving it. The propaganda phrase "conspiracy theory" was not engineered in a day, it's very convenient (and no coincidence) that any covert operation is a theory of people literally conspiring, makes it even easier to discredit potentially true allegations with nothing more than tricky misdirecting language. zen master T 05:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I missed this one on the first pass through: it is completely reasonable to allege that AIDS was a genocidal plot of some sort given the available information. Just out of curiosity, I don't suppose you think that it's "reasonable" to conclude that the great influenza epidemic of 1918, which killed more people than the Black Death, was a "genocidal plot of some sort"?

I mean, the notion that it's "reasonable" to conclude that "AIDS was a genocidal plot" needs to overcome such small obstacles as the fact that i) the immune system was so poorly understood when AIDS started (circa 1960) that there is no way such a subtle virus could have been created back then, given the state of the knowledge of the immune system then, ii) before using bio-warfare weapons it's wise to have a vaccine at hand, so your own people don't get taken out by them, but again, even with the knowledge we now have, it's proving almost impossible to create a vaccine, iii) I could go on but what's the point?

Alas, in this particular case, I'm afraid that both meanings of "conspiracy theory" are 100% dead on target. And I'm pretty stunned to hear someone label this theory "reasonable". Noel (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You, like others in your POV gang before you, have mischaracterized what I said. I did not say that it was "reasonable to conclude" I said it was "reasonable to allege", which is exactly the distinction that "conspiracy theory" lacks. zen master T 22:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Noel, I support your idea, so long as we have agreement that the article will include a section titled "Conspiracy theories", and containing conspiracy theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Caveats are suppose to add specific clarity, not be generally conclusive and discrediting. What do you have against other better ways of describing a non mainstream or dubious theory? Why the insistence on "conspiracy theory"? Why is it so important to note that the theories are of people literally conspiring, there are many different ways of describing these theories... zen master T 18:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Jayjg, how about we title the section "Theories which allege a secret plot"? I mean, how much more NPOV can you get than a title drawn from the book's own title? :-) Noel (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How about we title the section "Theories which allege a secret plot, though Wikipedia does not assert that they are either 'secret' or a 'plot', and which some refer to as 'conspiracy theories', though this is a pejorative term which Wikipedia in now way endorses"? Do you think that would be of suitable quality and sufficiently NPOV to satisfy all editors? ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Theories which allege a secret plot" would actually be an improvement though not specific enough clarity wise like "AIDS biowarfare theories" is, but as long as the former was quoted or caveatted so it's clear to the reader that that was the actual title of a book and we note the possibility of disinformation then I don't currently see a problem with it (as a side note: I have ignored your mocking since it means you are no longer even trying to appear as if you are making a logical argument). zen master T 22:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"AIDS biowarfare theories" is giving them a veneer of intellectual respectability which they don't deserve; it makes them sound as if they were on a par with "punctuated equilibrium evolution theories", or some such. Wikipedia's NPOV doesn't mean (I don't have the exact quote at hand, and no time to look for it) that we have to treat all theories as equally respectable. Noel (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How about "dubious" or "non mainstream" or "not generally accepted in the scientific community"? zen master T 22:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that "dubious" is an improvement, and I oppose it generally (unless it is specifically sourced, i.e., "Joe called this theory dubious"). Either of the other two sound like they might be decent substitutions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, what about "fringe theories"? While this clearly marks them as non-standard, it doesn't quite have the "taint" of conspiracy theory. There are certainly cases of fringe science ending up being accpeted generally given advances in scientific understanding and new data. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Fringe" isn't accurate, since they are conspiracy theories, alleging conspiracies. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your assertion that "fringe" is inaccurate. These theories are only advanced by small numbers of people (compared to more mainstream theories). This would seem to indicate that they would be properly labeled "fringe theories". Also, I'm not certain why in your rebuttal to my suggestion, you repeat that they are conspiracy theories... the two are not mutually exclusive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:11, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Right. A "conspiracy theory" is a type of "fringe" theory. Let's be exact here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Making sure I understand: Fringe is accurate but too general. You prefer "conspiracy theory" as more specific? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

More specific and more accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of the proposal to source exactly who is counter claiming the theory is a "conspiracy theory" in the discrediting sense? zen master T 22:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but if I say you are a mammal and a human, both are equally accurate, even though the second is more specific. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dante, I think "non mainstream" sounds better than "fringe" but it's not that big of a deal and yes all descriptive adjectives should be sourced, even "fringe". Though our proposals are likely all moot since the POV gang seems to disagree with us. Jayjg, the fact that the theories literally involve people conspiring is just one aspect of the allegations, why do you and your POV gang repeatedly want to focus on only this fact? Answer: because that method of presentation using "conspiracy theory" is discrediting. zen master T 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you seek to give credence to conspiracy theories, zm? You represent a tiny minority view, therefore it doesn't have to be included, per NPOV. --Mrfixter 23:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed and I am not giving credence to conspiracy theories, I am saying the phrase is non neutral language and it is improperly biasing (it does not convey who exactly is counter claiming the theory is dubious), and there are better ways of describing the theories, being literally a theory about people conspiring is just one fact among many about the theories. zen master T 00:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the plan?

So... nothing for a week... looks like ZM hasn't even edited the Wikpedia in the last week (of course, neither had I). Anyone interested in trying to reach a consensus on a new name for the article? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:25, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

ZM has a view of "consensus" that differs radically from the one commonly used in Wikipedia; no progress can be made until ZM agrees to abide by the Wikipedia understanding of "consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd support Noel's idea. Change the name of the article to xxx AIDS theories with xxx to be decided: nonmainstream? alternative? and have sections that are neutrally headed: "theories that allege a conspiracy" is a lot less loaded than "conspiracy theories". Jay, in the world outside Wikipedia, consensus basically means everyone walks away happy, not that the majority steamrollers the minority and uses its empowerment on account of being the majority to stifle dissent. That's what makes consensus such a noble aim. It's come to mean "get a big enough majority and you no longer have to listen to minority voices" on Wikipedia but that's not something to be celebrated. A true consensus would bring Zenmaster on board, not seek to coerce him into accepting that his views should necessarily be subordinated to those of the majority. Grace Note 03:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Tiny minority views should not be allowed to hold articles hostage forever. Not using the term "conspiracy theory" is POV, especially when writing an article that includes conspiracy theories. No-one is steamrollering anyone else, just trying to abide by consensus. --Mrfixter 15:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, real-world consensus almost never means that everyone walks away happy. There's always going to be a certain percentage of people that don't agree with the majority. In the real-world, if 85% of people support X, then the 15% of people who oppose X probably will get steamrolled. On Wikipedia, consensus does not mean "everyone agree". The community is far too large to even attempt to get everyone to agree on anything. From what I'm seen in this particular discussion, Zenmaster hasn't really tried to compromise. He wants the term "conspiracy theory" out of the title (of this and many other articles) even though the majority feel differently. I'm not sure that anything short of removing the term will "bring Zenmaster on board". Carbonite | Talk 15:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, Zenmaster not only insists that "conspiracy theory" be removed from the title of the article, but from any sub-section within the article as well. He simply will not allow the phrase anywhere, without slapping a "NPOV" tag on things and insisting that it remain until there is complete "consensus", i.e., the phrase is removed. If there is anyone attempting to "coerce" people here, it is Zenmaster. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate interpretation of my position, I support Grace Note's suggestion of using neutral language in sub section titles as in words like "alternative" or "non-mainstream" and perhaps indirect usage such as "person X alleges that theory Y is a 'conspiracy theory'". A core requirement or essense of an encyclopedia is to describe the specific details of each theory or allegation directly and upfront rather than focus on the not even worth mentioning minor point that the theory or allegation involves people conspiring. How does it make sense in the language center of your brain that the minor and unnecessarily generic point that a theory simply involves people conspiring is somehow more notable than the specific details of the allegation itself?? Deeply focus on whether the language used itself is neutral, not on politics. Since wikipedia articles have to cite sources these non-mainstream theories are indeed more accurately called allegations anyway (until true consensus is reached). Also, presenting a cited allegation discreditingly by directly using "conspiracy theory" in a descriptive sense violates wikipedia's assume good faith policy. zen master T 15:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In other words, it's a completely accurate summary of your position; you will not allow the phrase "conspiracy theory" to be used in the article, and you will not agree that there is "consensus" until the phrase is removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your inaccuracy is that I am the only one and that "conspiracy theory" does not violate multiple WP policies. I can not support direct discrediting usage of "conspiracy theory" but indirect usage could be ok. zen master T 15:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

So... despite the fact that EVERYONE agrees on renaming the article, we're not going to? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm don't think it's accurate to say that "EVERYONE" agrees on renaming the article. I certainly wouldn't say that everyone agrees on what the new title should be. Carbonite | Talk 16:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was anyone involved in this discussion that still maintained that the article should stay under its current name. I thought we achieved consensus on changing the name, although the specifics of the new name have yet to be decided. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

And there no point in re-naming it unless we get agreement on the contents as well. As I've said earlier, zen-master's "Death by a thousand cuts" method of forcing his POV on the article simply won't work. We need to settle the entire issue, not just the title, and get an agreement on it that doesn't involve permanent "NPOV" notices inserted by zen-master on anything he doesn't agree with. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not pushing any POV, I am merely pointing out the POV inherent in "conspiracy theory". If you or others can make a convincing argument that "conspiracy theory" is not ambigiously confusing, presumption inducing and biasing language I will withdraw my complaint. zen master T 18:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I rest my case. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that Jayig and others HAVE made arguments that they consider convincing, while zen-master considers them unconvincing. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed from this point, except to note that it seems as if there is consensus on an article title change. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus on an article title change. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected. I thought that when you said "Noel's idea was pretty good", you were asserting an agreement with an article title change... a rather central aspect of Noel's suggestion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Noel's idea included more than just title change; as you are well aware (and as my comments have made clear), I agreed to a holistic solution to the issue, not a death by a thousand cuts solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, what do you mean when you say "death by a thousand cuts", that does not make sense in this context. For direct use of "conspiracy theory" to be acceptable you have to prove it is neutral, which will be hard given all the evidence it is not. Though I was temporarily ignoring the fact that you don't actually debate fairly, you and your bot-like gang deflect and mischaracterize. zen master T 22:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives to "conspiracy"?

ZM seems to argue that there is little point in focusing on the fact that a theory purports a literal conspiring amongst a group when describing said theory. Nevertheless, there does seem (to me at least) to be some descriptive value in noting that a certain theory alleges a conspiracy. If the concern is over the perceived pejorative taint that comes along with the phrase "conspiracy", I would suggest alternative language in an attempt to allay those fears. What about subject headings titled thusly, "Allegations of Clandestine Creation of HIV/AIDS" and "Allegations of Clandestine Dispersion of HIV/AIDS"? This both recognizes that certain theories have common threads (that there is a conspiracy involved in one or more aspects of the AIDS epidemic), avoids the highly charged term in question, and makes it clear that there are at least two different "flavors" of conspiracy theories about AIDS... with regards to creation and dispersion. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredibly wordy and confusing. Why not just use the term everyone knows and understands? That would be "conspiracy theory". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what part of it was confusing? I'd be glad to explain it more clearly if I can. Also, why go with my proposal instead of "conspiracy theory"? Well, to quote a great mind, because splitting the "conspiracy theory" section into two chunks would be "more specific and more accurate". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There was a vote on the matter, and it was decided that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was perfectly reasonable, specific, and accurate. The article should use this term, which is well understood, as opposed to wordy circumlocutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm, Jayig, did you forget the part where you yourself agreed to an article title change and constantly argue for more accurate and more specific labels? This is aside from the fact that the vote you're referring to did not in fact conclude what you've been claiming it did. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agreed to an article name change in concert with agreement on titles. One doesn't work without the other; they are complementary edits and necessary for the contents to be accurate and accessible to the reader, and to put an end to constant insertion of NPOV tags on the article. As for the vote, I recall it being 32 to 12 in favour of keeping "Conspiracy theory" in titles, and that 12 included one rather dodgy vote. Rather unsurpisingly, you were one of the small minority who voted in favour of removing it from titles. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we would need to agree on the title before we changed it Jayig, stating the obvious is unhelpful. My point is that since we have agreed to change the title, we ought to get busy coming to some agreement on what it ought to be changed to.

Your recollection is interesting but inaccurate. What 32 people voted for was maintaining the status quo in the sense of defeating an initiative to remove all occurences of the phrase from article titles. This is not the same as saying that it should, perforce, remain in EVERY article title, but rather that it shouldn't be removed from them all en masse. This has been explained to you a number of times and you have yet to address it. I simply do not understand why you CONTINUE to maintain that there is a vote that decided that "conspiracy theory" is "perfectly reasonable, specific, and accurate". Such a vote does not exist, Jayig, your own recollections not withstanding.

Also, FYI, 12/32 is 3/8 or 37.5%. Most people familiar with numbers and math do not consider this a "small minority". In fact, it's rather closer to a simple majority than anything like a small minority. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

We didn't agree to change only the title of the article; I'm not sure why you persist in misrepresenting what was agreed to. BTW, it takes a mighty unusual POV to consider 37% to be anything like a "simple majority". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I misunderstood your above statement. When you said "agreement on titles" I guess you really meant "agreement on subject headings". I now understand your reticence to change the article title sans an understanding on subject headings.

Aside from that, I didn't say that 37% was anything like a simple majority, and no reading of my text could support such an assertion. What I said was very clear... that 37.5% is CLOSER to a simple majority (12.6% away) than it is to anything that could be considered a small minority (since 24.9% would STILL not be a small minority, this is easy to prove via simple math). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Note to third parties: this thread completely mischaracterizes the issue of "conspiracy theory". I now consider "Dante Alighieri" to be secretly pro "conspiracy theory" or desgined to mischaracterize the issue. The core issue is whether the phrase, analyzed on a language level, is neutral. Anyone that deflects from a neutrality or language analysis should be banned from Wikipedia as a propgandist (I have an increasingly large list). zen master T 22:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're going to be the first to volunteer. I have an increasingly small list, currently containing just one name, in fact. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how I've become secretly pro "conspiracy theory" ... I thought I'd made it clear a number of times that I think the title should be changed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, by what rationale do you think the title should be changed? In your view, does the phrase "conspiracy theory" have a high propoganda value since the phrase can easily be used to illegitimately discredit any theory or allegation that is simply a theory of people conspiring? zen master T 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've already told you that I think it is used in a discrediting manner. The only real place I've disagreed with you is that you seem (correct me if I'm wrong) to be arguing that it is *only* used that way, or that people using it improperly are *always* consciously attempting to discredit a given theory. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

From the first paragraph in this thread I quote you, "Nevertheless, there does seem (to me at least) to be some descriptive value in noting that a certain theory alleges a conspiracy". If the phrase is not neutral by what rational would there be descriptive value in noting that a certain theory alleges a conspiracy? Aren't the details of the theory itself exponentially more worthy of being noted? Why is "conspiracy theory" the first noted fact (when used in titles)? "Conspiracy theory" is an overly generic way of describing a theory, an encyclopedia should describe things more specifically and state clearly who is counter alleging that the theory is dubious. The apparent propaganda goal in noting that a theory involves people conspiracing is to taint that theory through guilt or dubiousness by association. zen master T 23:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you re-read what I wrote, I did not advocate using the phrase "conspiracy theory". I do think there is some value in noting that a theory advocates a conspiracy though, because there are more than one that do. This is a form of categorization that seems perfectly appropriate to me. I don't think that the taint of the phrase "conspiracy theory" is so far-reaching that it would attach to a subject heading like "Allegations of clandestine creation of HIV/AIDS". The fact that SOME people will still dismiss such a theory out of hand is lamentable but there is also nothing we can do about it. There are some people who are not equipped for critical analysis and therefore seek to think as little as possible. The fact that there are some theories that DO involve an alleged conspiracy is going to make some people consider them rubbish, regardless of how careful we are in our language. Even so, I think that my proposed language is about as neutral as we're going to get. Besides, I even suggested partioning the "conspiracy theory" subject heading (as proposed by others) into TWO different subject headings, because the different theories belong to (in my opinion) two basic families. Those that argue a non-standard origin for AIDS and those that argue a non-standard method of transmission. I suppose there could be theories that fall into both camps... so there's a third family as well. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I mean, really, what's the alternative? Not mention anything about conspiracies at ALL? Then what happens when someone comes along and says, "Hey, don't these theories involve some sort of conspiracy"? What do we say? "Yes, but don't mention it because even the mere mention of it could bias certain people who aren't good critical thinkers"? I understand this is an exaggerated example, but my point is that regardless of how we present the information, people who want to find reasons to dismiss a given theory will do so... no matter what. I think we can help by avoiding specific language (such as the phrase "conspiracy theory") that are highly likely to evoke an emotional rather than rational response... but I don't think that denying that there is a common thread to some theories (that there is a conspiracy amongst a certain group of people as to the origin of HIV/AIDS) is going to be helpful, ulitimately. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Gone for the day... please don't mistake silence on my part as anything other than absence while I eat and sleep. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

What is this descriptive value of "conspiracy theory"? The minor point that a theory alleges a conspiracy is a conclusion and does not belong in the description of that theory. The word "conspiracy" itself is not neutral either as it groups a specific theory with the entire dubious "conspiracy theory" genre (dubiousness induced through association). We should require descriptive words and phrases to have a pristine level of presentation neutrality, especially considering Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. The minor point that a conspiracy is alleged is a conclusion about a theory and does not belong it the theory's description. Why should every article seemingly have to have a check box for whether a conspiracy is alleged? You seem to be arguing in favor of every conspiracy article including the sentence "This theory alleges a conspiracy"? I actually would be ok with that if it is presented as a conclusion outside of titles or section titles and is definitely not used to describe something. Though merely noting that a theory involves a conspiracy is a less subtle method but still implies dubiousness through association with the larger "genre" of "conspiracy theory". Why encourage a generic grouping with conspiracy for a specific theory when that can only subconsciously imply dubiousness (and how would that be neutral)? The entire concept of, and word "conspiracy" may be so tainted, language neutrality wise, to the point where it shouldn't be used anywhere in an encyclopedia (encyclopedias should have higher neutrality of language standards, especially as far as presentation is concerned). There would be more people that would be equipped for critical analysis if they were encouraged to be consciously aware of language. There is/has been a de facto prohibition on the internet against calling someone a nazi in a debate, though it's been my experience that that word is an accurate description for the pervasiveness of language propaganda these days. However, the word nazi is still completely not acceptable for descriptive use in a random article, just like "conspriacy theory". zen master T 23:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted to follow the debate. My opinion is that the term "conspiracy" in the title and the introductory paragrahp for this article is inaccurate, as at least some of the most prominent alternative theories do not (or not necessarily) claim that the virus spreading was intentional. Perhaps it would be better to resort to a more inclusive title like "alternative AIDS origin theories" or "AIDS origin theories". Michele Bini 08:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to retitle the article but the pro propaganda POV gang will likely revert. What about the allegations that do allege that someone conspired (a minor point that is hardly noteworthy in the real real world), how can those allegations be presented fairly? What of the need to correct and make people aware of the historic taint from "conspiracy theory"? zen master T 12:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This was voted on, and a large majority of editors felt there was no reason to remove the phrase "conspiracy theory" from article titles. Attempts at compromise were met with an unyielding insistence from zen-master that the phrase had to be removed from the article entirely. As a result, no progress can be made. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

When someone makes an in good faith neutrality complaint you have to respond with a logical argument and prove that "conspiracy theory" is neutral, or at least justify why you prefer it over better and more neutral alternatives? Maybe it's time for a new vote on the issue. zen master T 16:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to recap, what are your top three alternative titles? Also, do you believe that the term "conspiracy theory" should be used in the article itself? Carbonite | Talk 16:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative AIDS origin theories is fine, so is the already existing AIDS reappraisal, and AIDS biowarfare theories perhaps. I am against direct descriptive use of "conspiracy theory", the phrase's biasing nature means it requires a caveat every place it is directly used, which, for the sake of clarity, should exclude it from titles and section headers. Indirect usage could be ok. zen master T 16:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out; he insists, against consensus, that term cannot be used in the title, nor even in the article itself. Thus, the impasse. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus for non neutral language and you misinterpret my position, read it again above, indirect usage is most often ok. zen master T 18:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, there is no consensus for non-neutral language, but there is strong consensus for usage of the accurate and descriptive term "Conspiracy theory". Please desist from sophistry, and from constantly repeating your old arguments, which have already been rejected time and again by consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus that "conspiracy theory" is an accurate and descriptive term, feel free to propose a policy change on that. What you call repeating old arguments is really the continued existence of my challenge for someone to explain the lack of neutrality over "conspiracy theory". You can't even make an argument it's neutral. There are 100s of talk page examples of the phrase "conspiracy theory" being used non neutrally, and some of the most non dubious worthy allegations are very suspiciously presented in discrediting fashion on wikipedia with "conspiracy theory", why is that? Theories and allegations should be debunked with facts, not with tricky language. zen master T 19:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2. Keep conspiracy theory and related titles as is: 32, Rename "conspiracy theory" and similar titles: 12. Consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The vote result was that no policy would be created for dealing with "conspiracy theory" articles as a group, a negative vote does not magically invent some construed opposite policy, especially when the against option did not explicitly note it was a counter policy proposal. Separately, the word "theory" is a Wikipedia:Words to avoid so there is already a wikipedia policy that supports removing it. zen master T 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's very disappointing that a Lord of the Wiki thinks that there is a consensus when 12 editors disagree with a majority view. To my view -- and I recognise it's in itself a minority view, incredible as that seems to me, given what a "consensus" actually is (a general agreement) -- the vote should be taken to indicate that we do not have a consensus on this issue. It's very difficult to achieve a true consensus on some issues, and yes, that means that there will be those who think a vote should be taken and the minority disregarded if they lose it sufficiently. What would be interesting would be for Jay to give a good reason for opposing "Alternative AIDS origin theories"? Jay, by "good reason", I don't mean simply repeat that the other title has a consensus. If you like, we'll take that as read. Just explain why you wouldn't support the alternative title without reference to there having been a vote. Given that not all of these theories even are "conspiracy theories", why do you think your preferred title is better? Grace Note 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, I rarely respond to you, and your note above demonstrates one reason why. If you bother to read the whole Talk: page you'll understand my reasoning quite clearly, which is explained at length. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You rarely respond to me because you prefer assertion to discussion, Jay, as demonstrated on most of the pages that we meet on. I have read the talkpage, of course, although I admit to my eyes glazing over halfway through some of Zen's longer comments, and I genuinely do not see a coherent description of why you think it is better. I see your argument that "conspiracy theory" is not pejorative and merely describes a theory about people conspiring, which is a bit odd, and certainly contestable ("Colloquially, a conspiracy theory is any non-mainstream theory about current or historical events, with the connotation that that theory is unfounded, outlandish, or irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration." seems reasonable to me.) I see lots of assertions that it is the consensus title, Jay, but I'm asking you to give a good reason not to use the title suggested. I'm not disputing that you have a majority on your side. I'm asking you to discuss why you do not feel that the alternative title suggested is a good idea. "We won the vote" is not an answer to that question.

You rarely respond to me, Jay, but whenever you do, this is more often than not your response. You do not actually bother with discussing what you want. You simply argue that you must have your way because you form a majority. Well, Jay, of course you will have it, and if Zenmaster doesn't desist, you'll probably have him banned from this page. But do you truly think that that is the right way to resolve a dispute? Do you not think it would be more satisfactory to give a coherent defence of your position? Might doesn't necessarily make right, you know.

Yet again, I have laid out a discussion for you, Jay. Now you need to call me a troll and insist that you have a "consensus" because you won a vote and go back to rarely bothering to respond. Happy editing to you, Jay. Grace Note 02:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Grace, and just because there was a vote against removing the phrase "conspiracy theory" from titles doesn't prove it's neutral, on the contrary the pro side didn't even make that argument (because that would have been obviously wrong). There is overwhelming evidence that the phrase is not neutral but various (already suspicious) users downplay or misframe the issue by simply misinterpreting the old vote or (mis?) framing the issue solely in terms of majority vs minority (ignoring any mention of the lack of neutrality concerns). A random true wikipedia user/admin would care if someone was making an in good faith neutrality complaint and directly agree or disagree with that, rather than invented a silly argument in favor of something that is obviously discrediting. Also, members of the POV gang always seem to show up, usually in pairs, around the same time for maximum bullying effect (the effect being to decrease the chances third parties are made aware of the core issues). Though, I wonder why the pov gang goes to such lengths, I assume it would be much easier to selectively sensor information that it deemed unacceptable, how would anyone know? Perhaps this is a test for a time when communication and integrity is secure and can be assured? I don't see how there can ever be any gaurantee that anyone is anyone on wikipedia or that other people are ever allowed to read what you write. There are likely very few people that are testing/verifying wikipedia for integrity of edits/posts censorship wise. Centralization only makes the data warehouse/propganda masters's job easier.

To return to the issue, there is undisputed evidence that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral, the best the pro "conspiracy theory" side can argue is that we should note (and for some reason be the most important point that is noted) that an allegation or theory is a part of the "conspiracy" genre, but that argument is designed to ignore the fact that the implied dubiousness through mere association with that "conspiracy" genre is exactly how the phrase's non neutral discrediting works. If something is truly dubious/incorrect it should be discredited with facts that are specific to it, not discredited by association with a generic genre. Only those that want to hide something would use "conspiracy theory", but I digress, hopefully everything turns out ok. zen master T 02:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, let me read through Zen's statement to see if there are any new arguments there, or merely a re-hash of old arguments combined with bald assertions and personal attacks. Darn, it was the latter, again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Latest unilateral move

Once again, an editor has moved the page without getting consensus. This is right where we started back in May. I have moved it back, and am looking forward to hearing an explanation for this latest move. -Willmcw 00:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" violates NPOV policy (unscientific presentation of a subject). I had been waiting for a pro "conspiracy theory" person to justify the phrase's use in a title but no reasonable/logical argument has been offered? zen master T 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That is an insult to the dozens of users who have written tens of thousands of words in response to your quest to change the name of this article. -Willmcw 00:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Words != logical argument. I apologize for acting unilaterally but the status quo has issues. The only bad faith I see is a coordinated gang of editors perpetuating what I interpret to be a glarring neutrality violation. Please justify the use of "conspiracy theory" in this title if you can. zen master T 00:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I already have. -Willmcw 00:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and justify the use of "conspiracy theory" in this title or provide citations to where you did this previously. Thanks. zen master T 01:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I will assume good faith when you stop acting as if the previous discussions had never happened. Please see this page and its archive, plus other conspiracy theory discussions, including your rejected proposal, if you want to see "citations". Gimme a break. -Willmcw 01:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed elimination of "conspiracy theory" in the title

Will the proposer of a move please give new reasons, not previously considered and refused by the community, for moving this article? -Willmcw 00:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not how NPOV policy words. When someone has an in good faith lack of neutrality complaint a neutral editor would seek compromise rather than defend the status quo illogically. How can I convince you "conspiracy theory" is inappropriate in titles? zen master T 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So far, you have not been able to convince me or the community that it is POV. Your previous request was rejected, and you moved the page anyway. That is not good faith. If you want the move then come up with a reason that hasn't already been dealt with. -Willmcw 01:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the new reason is that "AIDS reappraisal" and "AIDS conspiracy theories" are related closely enough and should be merged together at "AIDS reappraisal". What do you think? zen master T 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

AIDS reappraisal is an article about a small movement that gets very few Google hits, and many of them Wikipedia or its mirrors, and specific theories it advances. That article, in fact, should be called "AIDS reappraisal movement". It is not this page, which lists a large series of AIDS conspiracy theories. If anything, the other article should be merged here, but because it is large, it could be summarized here and linked to instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You labelling allegations by scientists as "conspiracy theories" is your POV and POV does not belong in a title (not to mention your method of presentation does not adhere to the scientific method). zen master T 02:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How the hell does a scientis claim of HIV not being the cause of AIDS become a conspiracy? It is a claim of a effect not having the belived cause; in what way is that a conspiracy theory? It is a "Alternative theory", the entire theory does no even mention people conspiring! Man, NPOV is myth in this section... --Striver 23:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? All of the theories (plural) involve many people acting secretly. -Willmcw 23:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Which theory are you talking about? Carbonite | Talk 23:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There are 13 theories discussed in the article:

1. Duesburg theory - Requires the "AIDS establishment to be conspiring to conceal the "truth" "The non-funding of non-conformists has not changed in the US. I assume it would be fatal for the current AIDS establishment if they were proven wrong, and that is why it will not change soon." [24]
2. The only one that is possibly not a conspiracy theory. However, it has been almost completely discredited.
3. Proposes that HIV was engineered at a U.S. military laboratory.
4. HIV virus was created by Western scientists for biological warfare.
5. Soviet Union planted disinformation suggesting the CIA or other agencies created AIDS.
6. HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists; that it was introduced into the population through Hepatitis B experiments performed on gay and bisexual men.
7. Hepatitis B vaccination experiments of the late 70's caused the AIDS epidemic.
8. World Health Organization created the AIDS epidemic by administering contaminated smallpox vaccines to people in third world countries.
9. AIDS was the culmination of biowarfare research conducted by the U.S. Government (and later, by the Soviet government) throughout the 20th century.
10. AIDS was made in the laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The virus was spread by putting the AIDS viruses into the smallpox eradication program by the World Health Organization, and that AIDS did not exist before 1978.
11. AIDS virus was engineered by such U.S. Government defense contractors as Litton Bionetics for the purposes of bio-warfare and "population control".
12. Dr. Hulda Clark claims that the medical establishment seeks to suppress her theories and cures.
13. The U.S. Government has an established history of performing experiments on its own citizens without their knowledge or consent.

It seems rather obvious that it's entirely appropriate for this article to be titled "AIDS conspiracy theories". If any change should be made, perhaps #2 should be removed, but there's no evidence that the title should be altered. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if something is false or at best dubious why use dismissive language to present it? Shouldn't any debunking or conclusions come from facts presented rather than discrediting and ridiculing language used to present it. In the best case "Conspiracy theory" violates the scientific method. Why risk tainting the presentation of a subject by using abiguous language if you can disprove it with plain simple facts presented neutrally? There is also the possibility people will assume those that use duplicitious language aren't telling the truth, on at least some level. zen master T 00:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's as if you've never seen the pages and pages of discussion that occured on this in the past. And yet, you did. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My point wasn't that the theories were false or dubious, it was that they're about conspiracies. If you're concerned that a theory in this article isn't about a conspiracy, remove that theory or merge it to another page. It's perfectly reasonable to refer to theories about conspiracies as "conspiracy theories". That's precisely what this article is about and that's what it will remain titled. Carbonite | Talk 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, ok, i take that back then, #1 was a theory of conspiracy. However, i protest against having a pejorativ and pov article name. --Striver 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is sometimes used in a pejorative manner. However, it is certainly not perjorative when an article actually describes theories about conspiracies. The only way to accurately title this article is "AIDS conspiracy theories". If this article contains a theory that you believe is not about a conspiracy, perhaps we should discuss removing it. Carbonite | Talk 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a minor point that a conspiracy is alleged, you point that out because you want to discredit the allegation through association with the dubious "conspiracy theory" narrative genre. The fact that a theory literally alleges a conspiracy is insufficient evidence that the dubious narrative genre is applicable to it, it is inappropriate to discredit something that way by using confusion over the literal definition of a phrase. You are using the psychologically tricky language of a disinformation artist. Why use what is at best ambiguous language if the allegation can be debunked with facts, do you fear what would happen if the facts were presented fairly on this subject? Why taint any conclusions formed from an unscientific method of presentation? A neutral encyclopedia is required to present facts directly using neutral, unambiguous and unbiasing language. zen master T 04:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is no Proven conspiracys or the like proves that the title is not about it being a conspiracy. --Striver 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If they were proven then they wouldn't be theories. -Willmcw 08:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that there is no problem to make a list of conspiracy theories, but no intrest of proven conspiracys, which shows that it is not them having or not having the "theroy" status that is relevant, rather, them having the pejorative term.--Striver 09:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I simply think that calling an article containing theories about conspiracies concerning AIDS should be called "AIDS conspiracy theories". Let's look each word in the title:

AIDS Do you dispute this article pertains to AIDS? It's blantantly obvious that it does, thus the title should contain the word "AIDS".

conspiracy The list I compiled above shows that a dozen (or more) conspiracies are described in the article.

theories They each attempt to explain a group of facts or phenomena.

I'm really not understanding why we'd also have to have page of "proven" conspiracies in order to have this article. I'm also getting a bit tired of having my own motivations decided for me. This article has it's most logical title right now. It's going to take more than a few ad hominems to get it changed. Carbonite | Talk 10:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because a theory literally alleges a conspiracy is insufficient evidence that it is a part of the dubious conspiracy theory narrative genre. But more importantly, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to attempt to discredit a cited allegation with nothing but implied dubiousness through association. Instead, we should describe the issue neutrally, present all facts, fairly describe what points are disputed, and cite who is claiming or counter-claiming what. Labeling an argument a "conspiracy theory" is someone's counter POV against an allegation, which can't be cited in an article's title. Carbonite, why do you seemingly intentionally perpetuate literal definition vs abstract issue confusion? zen master T 16:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that the majority of editors do believe the issue is being described neutrally. This has been discussed for nearly six months now and it's quite tiring to have it dragged all over Wikipedia. Unless you bring some brand new arguments to the table, it seems rather pointless to continue this conversation. At the very least, I'm not interested in going around in circles with you any longer. Carbonite | Talk 17:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The majority is certainly imposing its will, but that doesn't mean the phrase is neutral. Someone that truly cared about Wikipedia's neutrality policies would not respond to an in good faith criticism of "conspiracy theory" the way you and your buddies have. Why don't you support utilizing the scientific method to present a scientific subject? Why use what is at best ambiguous language if clear and direct alternatives exist? Why try to confuse people by saying a "conspiracy theory" is a theory that literally alleges a conspiracy (conveniently ignoring the secondary completely discrediting and hence non neutral definition)? Only duplicitous people would use and defend duplicitous language. zen master T 17:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is accident theory (Koprowski) listed under conspiracy?

I like titles to accurately indicate content. But maybe there are good reasons why an accident theory is included in this article. Would anyone care to share these good reasons? (I have spent 5 minutes wading through arguements about consensus looking for this info but so far no luck). SmithBlue 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the thinking was that with the Koprowski theory that there was a conspiracy to cover up the accident. That's implicit, but but it seems to fit in the scope of the article. -Will Beback · † · 03:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time in replying to my initial question - looks like things get a bit tense around here at times, and I wasnt sure what sort of response I was going to get. So this article is about "Conspiracy theories involving AIDS" - not just "Conspiracy theories about the introduction of AIDS into humans"? SmithBlue 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was one big dust-up a year ago. Otherwise this article has been pretty uncontroversial. The stated criteria for the article is:

• There are a number of theories about AIDS which make claims about the origin and/or nature of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS that differ radically from mainstream beliefs. These theories range from claims that HIV is not the principal cause, to suggestions that AIDS was the inadvertent result of medical experiments, to claims that HIV was deliberately created.

So yes, you could say that his article covers purported conspiracies related to AIDS and is not strictly limited to allegations that the virus was intentionally spread. -Will Beback · † · 05:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that there is "conspiracy" claimed by each theory; conspiracy to mislead the public and turn them against their governments, active conspiracy to kill with deliberately produced virus, conspiracy to cover up accidental release of deliberately produced virus, conspiracy to cover up deliberate release to humans of a natural virus, conspiracy to cover up accidental introduction to humans of a natural virus and conspiracy to cover up the "true" nature of AIDS. Sometimes these "conspiracies", however, do not appear to be direct "claims about the origin and/or nature of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS..." but rather claims of conspiracies to coverup hypothesised accidents related to "the origin and/or nature of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS". I guess this point has been raised before but I would appreciate someone sharing the reasoning that includes these coverup conspiracies under the stated criteria; "claims about the origin and/or nature of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS..." SmithBlue 08:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I think I've answered my own question; Hoopers CHAT OPV theory can be restated as a conspiracy by establishment scientists to cover up the origins of AIDS. If no one objects or does it first I will rewrite Hoopers OPV theory section as such. SmithBlue 15:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

With a little more experience on Wikipedia I now see that restating Hoopers theory would amount to [WP:Original research]. I also note that the title of this article is inconsistent with its lead and some content. And given the possible pejorative nature of the title I will now support either a name change or a limiting of content to AIDS theories that explicitly and centrally claim a conspiracy about AIDS. SmithBlue 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added material on Mbeki's views. Can you imagine my surprise when on an article, whose discusion page takes about 1 hour to read through, I find no References section? This lack of a References section, and the space devoted on the discusion page to disputes over the title of this article, reinforce my concerns about this article. SmithBlue 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Wikipedia:Verifiability says in a nutshell:

• 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
• 2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
• 3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Has anyone got reasons why this policy is better not applied to this article. If there is an absence of response I will begin removing uncite material in 6 days. SmithBlue

If you do that, there'll be nothing left! Seriously, this article is completely undersourced and I think that's a good idea. In fact, it's probably borderline for WP:AfD. MastCell 04:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have removed uncited material. Please cite all material you add to this article. SmithBlue 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of article and lead not consistent

The name of this article and the lead appear not to be consistent. I propose to rewrite the lead to refer explicitly and solely to conspiracy theories around AIDS. And then remove material that does not come within article's scope. Comments? SmithBlue 07:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

Do any of those links match WP:ATT? I'd say not. --Fredrick day 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they should probably all go. Actually, hardly anything in the article meets WP:ATT. I think the whole article is probably deletion material; the most notable stuff is already in AIDS reappraisal, and the rest is basically poorly sourced baloney. Occasionally people feel strongly enough about a particular conspiracy theory to add it, but no one's felt strongly enough to source things. But there's enough going on around Wikipedia that I don't spend much time here. MastCell 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something

I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"scientific theories" vs "conspiracy theories" - accepted by editors?

MastCell is drawing a clear distinction between "scientific theories" and conspiracy theories, reverting the name of this article back from "AIDS origins theories" to "AIDS conspiracy theories". If this distinction has the consensus of editors on this page then "scientific theories" need to be removed from this page. Specifically OPV AIDS hypothesis which, with multiple scientific publications, and being the focus of multiple meetings of top national science bodies, is a "scientific theory". SmithBlue (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

yes I have tried to revert those edits but I am not experienced enough to know how. and changing all the redirects (how that affects links I have no idea)... I disagree with all these changes as well. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The OPV AIDS hypothesis was formulated as a scientific hypothesis. None of these are scientific theories. Some elements of the OPV/AIDS proponent camp have elements of conspiracism about them, but it is probably not appropriate to include OPV AIDS here. "AIDS origin theories" is completely misleading - these are not scientific theories, and they are specifically minoritarian to completely fringe ideas rather than the actual widely accepted version of the origin of AIDS. "Conspiracy theories" isn't ideal, but it's an improvement. One possible alternative would be "Alternative AIDS origin hypotheses"; this would include OPV/AIDS as well as potentially the more... colorful ones. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy" has been used because each of these theories involves some concerted action by individuals or organizations to keep some secret or to engage in improper activities. In the case of the OPV AIDS hypothesis, the purported conspiracy concerns the coverup of a faulty vaccine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case the reframing/redefining of Hoopers presentation of the OPV AIDS hypothesis, (which focuses heavily on the mechanism/process by which OPV may have been contaminated and addressing the refuting science/evidence), to a purported conspiracy concerning the coverup of a faulty vaccine will require explicit VER and RS or we risk including OR. At present there is one sentence in this article, (The 2004 Emmy-nominated documentary...), that might be relating "a conspiracy". If you see an AIDS conspiracy here please bring the material and the sources to the article. Further I suggest that the "OPV AIDS hypothesis" is not a "conspiracy theory", as this article alleges, and that the implied conspiracy occuring in response to OPV AIDS is outside the hypothesis, not part of the hypothesis. As such, even if sources can be found, then the conspiracy is not accurately called "OPV AIDS" or "OPV hypothesis" as this is something separate to the conspiracy. The current heading misleads readers into thinking that OPV AIDS is a conspiracy theory.

In short, the heading "OPV hypothesis" is misapplied and most of the material under that heading is not germane to "AIDS conspiracy theories". I suggest removal to avoid misleading users of WP. SmithBlue (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of overlap in the case of OPV/AIDS. The hypothesis was certainly logical and falsifiable - that is, scientific. A handful of prominent scientists urged that it be examined, most famously W. D. Hamilton. Then it was investigated, and many of its underlying assumptions falsified. Continued belief after that point was less scientific and more about claiming that there was a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the vaccine. For sources, one could look at the Nature editorial from 2001, when a number of the studies falsifying the hypothesis were published: "The new data may not convince the hardened conspiracy theorist who thinks that contamination of OPV by chimpanzee virus was subsequently and deliberately covered up. But those of us who were formerly willing to give some credence to the OPV hypothesis will now consider that the matter has been laid to rest." (PMID 11323649) MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mast Cell and I disagree on the neutrality of the Nature editorial. See [here] and [here] if you wish to understand why. However if Mast Cell is able and willing to bring sources showing that OPV AIDS is inherently a conspiracy theory then that material must be included on this page. SmithBlue (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that it's not inherently a conspiracy theory - it was a reasonable scientific hypothesis. With the accumulation of evidence, it looks less reasonable and its supporters have shifted more towards conspiracism, which I believe was the point made in the Nature editorial. I'm not sure that we should say "Nature isn't neutral, so forget it." MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is an accumulation of DNA evidence against OPV AIDS. I don't say "Forget Nature". Do you see the "Nature" editorial as saying that OPV AIDS is a "conspiracy theory"? I read it as attacking continued support for OPV AIDS in face of the DNA research. If "Science" says "Only conspiracy nuts now support Ptolemaic cosmology", does that make Ptolemaic cosmology a "conspiracy theory"? I think there is a difference between a theory and its supporters. If this article was Conspiracist supporters of theories on AIDS the Nature editorial would have a place. SmithBlue (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. I just think that if current support for OPV/AIDS contains a strong element of conspiracism, then it might appropriately mentioned here in that context. But I don't feel strongly either way; OPV/AIDS is not just a conspiracy theory, nor has it been supported solely by "conspiracy nuts", so I see your point. MastCell ^Talk 06:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy is a pejorative and should be avoided in the title if at all possible. I propose calling the article Other AIDS origin theories or AIDS origin, other theories. TheslB (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been over that issue at great length, both for this article and for the general issue of "conspiracy" in article titles. Please review the talk page. The editor who pushed the issue was eventually banned for making a nuisance of himself and wasting the community's time. See Zen-master. I don't think there's much appetite to renew that debate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate AIDS Origin Theories seems fine to me and more NPOV than the original. True it doesn't have that word "conspiracy" that some editors cling to. I will review the talk page but I agree with the several other editors that if not all theories are conspiracy theories per se, then the page needs retitling or to be split. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the archive and i saw ZERO consensus there so try again. Most of that discussion is from 2005 (!) -Consensus can change and with SEVERAL users here advocating a new title I think it already has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FURTHERMORE, if I am reading the logs correctly it has been named "origin theories" since that discussion in 05 ! 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. That name change occured on March 18 of this year.[25] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

has there been much discussion since 2005. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, which is why the page move was inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From here:

Take the events of September 11, 2001. I assume that most people,

or at least most people reading this article, accept an explanation of these events that appeals to the significant causal agency of a conspiracy involving Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to bring about those events. But this explanation is unlikely to attract the label “conspiracy theory.” Why does it seem wrong to call “our” explanation of September 11th, despite its obviously conspiratorial

nature, “a conspiracy theory”?

We can come up with a definition of conspiracy theory that limits the scope of this article. But that does not remove the prejudicial and negative connotation of the term. TheslB (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

agreed and I would like clarification on whether consensus was reached in 2005, because my reading of the archive did not find any consensus whatsoever. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to enter into this discussion, I think slowly working towards consensus on this issue is highly desirable. The fact that this issue has a volumous history indicating a great difficulty in an easy consensus being reached makes me wonder if it worthwhile beginning this process - maybe we can all put our WP time to far better use? That said the non-inclusion of the "mainstream view" of 9/11 from "9/11 conspiracy theories" clearly shows that in WP, at this time, the functioning definition of "conspiracy" is POV, using only a small range of the common and legal uses of the word. As such I support the widespread removal of "conspiracy" from titles that, by selectively applying the word, are NPOV. That said I doubt its worth my WP time to continue with this discussion. 06:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of OPV AIDS hypothesis

This article is specifically on Conspiracy theories. OPV AIDS has not been shown to be described as a conspiracy theory. We have found no WP:RS reliable sources saying so. So I've removed OPV AIDS from this article. Please leave this article for theories which are described as conspiracy in reliable sources. SmithBlue (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or people can think outside the square? I find it real funny that humans who have direct contact with animals for thousands of years, suddenly apes start attacking humans or spread the virus through contact with humans, if it was such a occurrence, it would be contained easily, not spread to millions of African people in a short period of time to Asian people and African Americans so quickly. History WILL tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.121.74 (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the title, AIDS conspiracy theory, which is POV. It causes the illogical result that you are removing a well-known theory because it is not "conspiracy" enough, i.e., not POV enough. The solution is to change the title to a NPOV title, AIDS origins theories, which was its original title.--Tkhorse (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to SmithBlue comment on talk page. You assume that there is a scientific consensus on the origin of AIDS, which as you know, seemed to have suddenly appeared out of nowhere in the 1980's, which is extremely unusual (though some scientists think that there were traces of it slightly earlier). There is NO scientific consensus on the origin of AIDS. All theories about the origin of AIDS are theories, not fact. There is a tremendous amount of controversy concerning which one is the correct theory. Some theories are CURRENTLY more mainstream than others, but that does not mean they are correct. So the title of the other page, AIDS origins, is somewhat problematic. Also, that entry is rather poorly organized. --Tkhorse (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be using "theories" where you mean "hypotheses". But beyond that, AIDS origins theories is not a good title. This article focuses solely on fringe or minoritarian hypotheses on the origin of HIV/AIDS, and that needs to be clear in the title. Many of them are, in fact, "conspiracy theories", and labeling them as such is not POV. However, perhaps Alternative AIDS origin hypotheses would be a better compromise title. I'm going to be bold and move it there; I can accept alternate titles, but AIDS origins theories is incorrect on a couple of levels. MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright

Should this article mention the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's assertions that the US Government created AIDS and spread it in the Black community? Also, shouldn't the article mention that this sort of belief is fairly widespread in the Black community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.42 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It does seem like it might be worth mentioning, per The AIDS Conspiracy Handbook. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But is it at all notable? Or serious? My next door neighbor thinks Jews did it to remove Christians from the planet. And he's serious. And deranged, but that's beside the point. Every crackpot who has a theory can't possibly be notable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But hasn't Wright attained notability precisely because of these statements? Tarc (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be used as an example. This particular conspiracy is held by a large number of African Americans. Just make sure not to violate WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out that guideline! As the principle author of Leonard Horowitz, who was mentioned by Wright in support of the AIDS-as-genocide hypothesis, I might be in violation of it. I've known for a while that the AIDS-as-genocide theory was not original with Horowitz (and Horowitz himself makes no such claim on it). It's always tempting to write "the author's theories" because ... well, if the theory has no accepted, recognizable name, and you don't feel comfortable naming it, what do you do? I know what I do: I get lazy.

In any case, yes, it appears from various poll results over the years that belief in the AIDS-as-genocide theory is shockingly widespread among African Americans. Of course, the way to balance this observation is to show evidence that theories of government conspiracies against a given ethnicity are often popular with that ethnicity when it has been subject to persistent discrimination and impoverishment. Along with the undeniably execrable Horowitz, Wright mentioned the far more credible Harriet Washington (Medical Apartheid), and the Tuskegee syphilus study. Neither Medical Apartheid nor the Tuskegee study provide any direct support for the AIDS-as-genocide hypothesis. However, in context, it seems that Wright could have been relying on them only for support of the credibility of AIDS-as-genocide, given past outrages, not as direct support for the hypothesis per se.

A full treatment of AIDS-as-genocide should show the genealogy of the idea and its variations. Yakushima (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Present title: what is the scientific consensus?

The most recent title change was made boldly, without consensus. So I ask that the editor concerned defend the present title:

• What is the present "scientific consensus" on the origins on AIDS?
• What RS is there that these theories/views are opposed to this consensus as distinct from offering alternatives?

Without these questions being satisfactorily answered we should begin to consider better possiblie titles or a merge for this material. SmithBlue (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The present scientific consensus is that AIDS originated in Africa in the 1930s from SIV. Anything that differs from this is opposed to this consensus. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The figures I know give roughly 1915 to 1941. What RS you got thats so specific? SmithBlue (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave a best fit value, you give the error bars. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that the definition you put forward and accepted by me amounts to partial AIDS denialism. You wouldn't think it of either of us but the presentlead denies/ignores a widely scientifically accepted beginning for AIDS. SmithBlue (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The big problem with the present title is that is grammatically flawed, confusing - fine for note taking but "AIDS origins" is not something that can be opposed to a consensus. Ideas about AIDS origins or theories or positions might be "opposed to consensus" but not "AIDS origins". SmithBlue (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The title "AIDS origins that are opposed to scientific consensus" is unweildy. Typically, omitting "that are" is standard for titling articles. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Or would you prefer: "Speculations on AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus"? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Speculations ..." reads much clearer for me. I'm in no hurry and maybe other editors will have a better title... SmithBlue (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have paid attention to this article. I've noticed like 4 or 5 name changes over the past month. I never liked "scientific consensus" because the word consensus implies some negotiated decision. Well, science doesn't work that way. Simply put, it's either science or anti-science denialism. This article should be named AIDS origins according to denialists. Or something like that. Let's quit using terminology like "opposed to scientific consensus." That gives succor to the anti-science POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the fact that you and I are interested, and MastCell is a nice guy who won't block me for making the name change, I'm going to be bold and go where no man has gone before. Sorry, I digress. I'd probably spend more time editing Star Trek Wiki if they weren't more passionate than CAMmies. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to get a new name every day. I don't see agreement on any one of them. I'm inclined to move it back to its original name, "AIDS conspiracy theories". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are they all conspiracy theories? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked they were all conspiracies to create, spread, or cover-up the accidental spread of HIV. That's easier to determine than whether they're "opposed to scientific consensus", which first requires establishing the scientific consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Might I suggest, however, AIDS origins conspiracy theories since there are probably other AIDS conspiracy theories which do not deal with AIDS origins (e.g. certain urban legends about AIDS being spread by certain plotting people: [26]). ScienceApologist (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Duesberg and his minions are not conspiracy theorists. They disagree on the science. Webcowboy (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with the analysis that "they disagree on the science," it is clear that they are denying science, period. However, it's not a conspiracy. Denialism yes, conspiracy, not so much. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The ANC is the focus of that section. ...Mbeki claimed that the CIA, "is part of a conspiracy to promote the view that HIV causes AIDS". So the ANC posits a conspiracy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this. Of course, I found a news story about a speech by Mbeki, with a claim that the speech text was leaked. Curiously, however, I couldn't find the text of that speech anywhere. I suggest you read the article. There are no direct quotes from Mbeki's speech to this ANC caucus group. Check the context: it's hard to rule out the possibility the claims made about the supposedly leaked text were spurious and politically motivated. (Especially when you read other reports saying it was "rambling", which is more a characteristic of extemporaneous speeches, not scripted ones.) I think what we have here are unsubstantiated claims about what Mbeki said (or was going to say), possibly made by his political opponents, based on "leaks" that were never substantiated. This was a persistent problem in some of the press at the time, it would seem. In [Politics in South Africa: From Mandela to Mbeki the author, Tom Lodge, couches this episode in very ambivalent terms: "If newspaper reports are to be believed ..." (p. 259). It looks like Lodge has read more than any of us has -- this comment is footnoted on p. 298 with "...see letter from Aziz Pahad criticizing the report's accuracy, as well as the editor's reply". I really wanted to see that letter, and the editor's reply. So I checked the Mail & Guardian online archives. Well, whaddya know: perhaps conveniently for themselves, the original report is there, but Pahad's letter of complaint and the editor's reply are not. Hm. What are we to make of this? Here's what I'd say: WP:BLP compliance calls for reporting these supposed Mbeki comments about the CIA and HIV-as-AIDS-cause with a little more circumspection, and avoiding directly calling Mbeki a conspiracy theorist. Denialist, yes. Put me down for that one. Conspiracy theorist, though? Not so certain. Where is this "leaked text" for the speech where he supposedly said this? There's been more than enough time. If anything, this is circumstantial evidence that the only conspiracy here was one to make Mbeki look even worse than he already did over AIDS issues -- greasing the skids. I.e., the kind of thing that happens in politics all the time. Yakushima (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. See all that I wrote immediately above this? That's called "source-based research". It's what we're supposed to be doing in writing Wikipedia articles. And special care should be taken when there's any significant WP:BLP involved, as there is here. Wordsmithing article titles can be great fun, I'm sure, but there's more to getting it right than that. Yakushima (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Farmer a proper candidate for inclusion?

As far as I can tell, Paul Farmer has only addressed the issue of where AIDS in Haiti came from, not where HIV and/or AIDS itself, as a disease, originated. This is really stretching the sense of the word "origins" in the title of this article. "Origins" here should be understood as "ultimate origins" (how and where AIDS started), not as "extra-national origin of a particular national epidemic". If "origin" is to be stretched this way, I suppose you'd have to include the hypothesis that Patient Zero was the single source of the early phase of infections in the U.S., if there are any existing believers in that.

Moreover, and far more important to my mind, Dr. Farmer is described here as asserting that HIV was "sent" to Haiti. To me, "sent" implies "intent", as in "intent to give Haitians AIDS" (in this case, by summarily deporting known-infected illegal immigrants back to Haiti, if I understand the episode correctly.) If he actually said something tantamount to AIDS-as-genocide, I suppose he should have some place in this article even if we all agree that "origins" here means "ultimate origins". (At least, it belongs here to the extent that the article generally concerns itself with conspiracy theories about AIDS and not just anti-consensus theories of AIDS origins.) If, however, Dr. Farmer never said anything like that, to assert it here (especially given the general stigma of AIDS conspiracy theories in most places) would violate WP:BLP.

The original edit was anonymous. This is unfortunate, because this person seems to be acquainted with Dr. Farmer's work, and might be better equipped to clarify. Given the edit's ... uh ... "origins", and the poor sourcing, I'm tempted to revert. Furthermore, on the face of it, any assertion tantamount to "Paul Farmer believes in AIDS-as-genocide" doesn't pass what I think of as "the Web Sniff Test": if he actually said something like that, why isn't he notorious for saying it? A famous humanitarian doctor, saying that the U.S. government has mounted a secret biological warfare program against Haiti? Still, maybe somebody here knows better, and can fill us in -- and strengthen the sourcing in this case. Yakushima (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If it turns out Paul Farmer doesn't say anything tantamount to AIDS=genocide, it could still be the case that his AIDS epidemiology is bad or marginal. But even in that case, why not add it to his bio, or to articles about AIDS epidemiology, rather than here? Yakushima (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Paul Farmer, but I agree that this is not really an "AIDS origin hypothesis" so much as a particular conspiracy theory. I'd agree with you that it's better excised from the AIDS origins article, at least until a more easily verifiable source can be found. It may have a place on Paul Farmer, but I wouldn't know. I would support you if you want to remove that paragraph from the AIDS origins article, pending better sourcing and a response to your talk page post. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Who moved this page

We've moved this page back to a stupid name, there is no scientific consensus, that is an invented word used by denialists. Yakashima, please do not make a move in title again. Remove the people you don't want, but the consensus of this group was the name that you removed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See #Present title: what is the scientific consensus? above. One proposal is to move it back towards its original name, perhaps to AIDS origins conspiracy theories. I'll move it there unles there's objection, in which case we can follow the contested page move protocol. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I really must be missing something here, Orangemarlin. Reread our discussion. Will Beback, I suggest you also take a look at it, because it shows that Orangemarlin must be suffering from serious memory lapses or something. Orangemarlin, you change the title so that it libels certain people. When I point that out, you claim that you checked the citations. We dicker, and then you advise me to "be bold" in changing it back as long as there's still some deliberation required on the question of who merits mentions in the article. But then here I find you complaining that some mysterious editor moved the page again? I already told you what I was going to do, and why I was going to do it. Paul Farmer is not a denialist; if anything, he's a latter day Albert Schweitzer. Leonard Horowitz is paranoid creep, but he is not a denialist. Both have AIDS origins theories (in some sense) that conflict with established mainstream views (though in Paul Farmer's case, the sense of the term "origins" is geographic and epidemiological, whereas in Horowitz it's blaring conspiracy theory about engineered viruses.) From my researches so far (still in progress) Paul Farmer mentions Haitian conspiracy theories about AIDS, but doesn't subscribe to any such theories as far I can tell. I don't see the basis for calling him a conspiracy theorist. Yes, you might have gotten some kind of consensus about changing the name. But name changes should be made by people who are actually reading the entire article and thinking about whether the title applies to those mentioned in the article. Especially when there might be WP:BLP violations in such a change. I see evidence here that people here aren't doing the necessary reading. In fact, they are doing such a lousy job of reading the actual article that their name change would be an egregious slander against at least one of the people mention in the article. I suggest you take this issue to Mastcell (with whom I've already discussed the issue of talking about Paul Farmer in this article.) But before that: BOTH OF YOU -- READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE. THINK ABOUT WHO YOU'RE CALLING A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, OR A DENIALIST. ASK YOURSELF WHETHER THE TERMS ACTUALLY APPLY TO THEM. And if you're still confused after that, try reading conspiracy theory and AIDS denialism, then read this article again. It's that simple. Yakushima (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now kicked over to Mastcell for his consideration. [27] Yakushima (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're waiting, let me point out a few things:

• Under the definition of AIDS denialism, the only entry in the article that wouldn't be deleted is the one for Thabo Mbeki (which should probably be for ANC and rather than just Mbeki specifically). In "removing the people I don't want" (as OrangeMarlin suggests, confusingly), the article would be largely gutted, and redundant with (not to mention conflicting on some points with) the article for Thabo Mbeki. Moreover, since there's no slam-dunk evidence that Mbeki believed there was some CIA plot to push HIV=AIDS (see my carefully-sourced comments above, and my recent edit), and some evidence to suggest that reporting on the S. African political scene wasn't very reliable at the time, AIDS conspiracy theories would end up redirecting to an article that mentions (but can't quite WP:VERIFY) that Mbeki (alone?!) had some conspiracy theory.

• If you have a problem with the term scientific consensus, I can understand. So do I. If, however, you are going to claim that "scientific consensus" was a term invented by "denialists", you should probably go check with Naomi Oreskes, who defends the scientific consensus on global warming against denialists, and explains that scientific consensus doesn't mean unanimity, nor does it mean a negotiated position. Like all languages, English changes in ways we don't always like. Get used to it.

• "Consensus" in a discussion about an article doesn't mean "agreed upon by everybody here who agrees with me". If the group claiming to WP:OWN the article under this notion of consensus makes a change that leaves the article a target for litigation against Wikipedia under WP:BLP (really, under any actual libel laws you can think of), so much the worse for that notion of "consensus".

• A surly command to me to take out any mention of people who aren't AIDS denialists says, in effect, "I declare Yakushima not part of our consensus group, but he is somebody I'm ordering to take out our trash, because ... well ... I can't be bothered to actually re-read the article to figure out what's trash now and what's not." OrangeMarlin: why don't you boldly take out your own trash? You're the one boldly doing the damage that's creating that trash. Why do you think you can tell me to clean up after you? Is it because you think I'm intimidated now? Yakushima (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

lol monkey sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.238.12 (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention anywhere on this page about Boyd Graves and his information regarding the U.S. Special Virus Cancer Program, the Special Virus Cancer Flow Chart, and the cure for AIDS which was patented by the U.S. Government in 1997 - Patent # 5676977?

Here is the link to the patent itself at the U.S. Patent and Trademark's website:

Here is a link to the 1971 Special Virus Cancer Flow Chart from Boyd Graves' website. 71.227.219.150 (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Boyd Graves's theories could be mentioned here if they are covered in reliable sources, but not if they are based only on personal websites and synthesis of primary sources. This article should include prominent out of the mainstream theories. It should not include every conspiracy theory under the sun. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)