Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 10

We need a thorough discussion on using the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". Wikipedia should be a place for fair, unbiased and objective information to the extend (practically) possible. This goes for the language used too. The label "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" are widely used (in the west) as a rhetoric trick to frame "the others" as unreliable, dubious and untrustworthy. If we want Wikipedia to be a fair place for reliable wide-ranging information we need to start avoiding labels and framing that are actively used to disparage others. "Conspiracy theory" is extremely similar to the contentious words "heretic" and "controversial" which we advise against. While the words and terms to avoid are not limited to the ones on the list, there is still widespread uncritical and sinister use of "conspiracy theory" and its variants here on Wikipedia, and it has become quite worse lately. "Conspiracy theory" is pretty much as unfair as it gets, and using it like it is used now does not make Wikipedia better. Lukan27 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Points of discussion (discuss the specific points under each respective point, not straying off)

• What is Wikipedia trying to say when using the term? What do we want "conspiracy theory" to mean when we use it in general?
• The term is too vague.

"[the paper analyses] the epistemological effects of designating particular questions and explanations as a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is demonstrated how such a designation relegates these questions and explanations beyond the realm of meaningful discourse.", emphesis added, Theory, Culture & Society, Sage Pub., source. Lukan27 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying in the middle of your own opening post is not really

WP:TPG, but since you have done so presumably this is also where to answer my reply to your addendum. You have just inserted a reference to a Luhmannian theorist of gambling who wrote a paper on Wittgenstein and Conspiracy Theory discourse. If you don't have better sources, that is looking pretty FRINGE, yo. Newimpartial (talk

) 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem fallacy and has no relevance to the discussion at hand. Sage Publications/Journals is an extremely well-respected and highly used source for all subjects scientific and scholarly. Lukan27 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out when academics have published work outside their field is not ad hominem fallacy. Not all peer review is created equal, and not all published scholarship is of equal credibility. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You're basically saying that "they made research about something else, thus they're not qualified for this, thus this paper is bad". Plus, it's only Bjerg who has written about gambling theory. Further, when researchers publish something in an area, that inevitably makes that field one of their fields of expertise, at the very least in some sense. But Presskorn-Thygesen and Bjerg have a PhD in Sociology and Philosophy, respectively. Obviously it's well within their area of expertise. Not all peer-reviews are equally good indeed, but you don't point out why this particular review is insufficient, besides the already-mentioned fallacy. Lukan27 (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A single peer-reviewed publication does not make anyone an expert in a particular field. Bjerg, as I say, seems to be the Luhmannian expert in gambling theory, while as far as I can tell the second author is a philosopher-dilettante. Neither author seems to be knowledgeable about conspiracy theory, or about political discourse in general (and indeed, this is an example of a topic area that attracts a lot of non-expert commentary by academics writing outside of their specialization). Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were "experts" in the field. I said that they given their education, choice of publishing in that field of research, and succesfully become published by an extremely well-respected academic publisher, that makes that field one of their fields of expertise, at the very least in some sense. I generally find your argumentation here to be attempts to avoid fair and reasonable discussion. I will post more sources, but I will ask of you to have patience. Lukan27 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lukan27: Please do not throw fallacy-links around to refute arguments. Both of you have valid points, a discussion does not have to have just one side arguing "correctly". I have managed to get access to that article and tried to read through it, though I must admit I didn't manage to follow it completely. Lukan27, I agree with you that this is a scientific article and Sage a reputable publisher; so there indeed is academic criticism of the term "conspiracy theory". However, I also agree with Newimpartial that this paper is not particularly great at proving your point: As much as I admire Wittgenstein as a philosopher, I do not believe most people are familiar with his theories. And this paper discusses terms in a very specific matter, in a way that is hard for me to follow. (The paper draws a connection between terrorism and conspiracy theories?) In the end, it's just a single paper, which does not prove to me that "conspiracy theory" is indeed as vague as these authors suggest. --LordPeterII (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII:I honestly can't see the problem in pointing out informal fallacies in my coutnerpart's line of reasoning here. They demonstrate the invalidity of Newimpartial arguments, which is kinda the point of discussion. I do agree that some general evaluation of the authors themselves and their background, intentions, etc., is necessary, but in my honest opinion Newimpartial's objections are basically just ad hominem fallacies, which obviously doesn't constitute valid reasoning, neither in general or in this particular case. I know we're all about reliable sources here, but there's a difference between evaluating a source, and going straight for the authors and psychologize them right off the bat, wouldn't you say? Lukan27 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

@Lukan27: I think you inadvertently pinged yourself. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. :) Lukan27 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The term is too value-laden for general use.
• General use of the term gives the impression of a false balance/weight.
• The term is a rhetorical/dialectical maneuver.

The term can be understood in (at least) two ways, that is, neutrally "the theory/postulation that two or more people are conspiring" and pejoratively "a rediculous stupid idea that deserves no attention". Proponents of using this term may use/abuse this ambiguity on purpose, so when readers open up a (relevant) article on Wikipedia they understand the labelling in the pejorative sense, and the proponents know this, but when the editors/proponents argue for using the term they argue that it's merely being used in the neutral sense. Lukan27 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Struggles over [conspiracy theory attributions] can be analysed in terms of the tactics that powerful perpetrators use to reduce outrage over injustice: cover-up, devaluation, reinterpretation, official channels, and intimidation/rewards.", Social epistemology, Taylor Francis, source. Lukan27 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting piece, but what the author is actually doing is responding to the reception of the dissertation of one of his Doctoral students (

Judith Wilyman) which was labelled in the media as promoting vaccine conspiracy theories. There is nothing in the piece that suggests that conspiracy theory attributions are not susceptible to being evaluated based on evidence. In fact, in the case with which the article is most concerned, Wikipedia does not use a conspiracy theory attribution in wikivoice; rather, the WP article mentions the controversy with attribution (The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory). The obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that some conspiracy theory attributions are verifiable and essentially undisputed while others are more contentious: in the latter case, but not the former, attribution is appropriate. Newimpartial (talk

) 18:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't want to misinform readers by avoiding language that would properly contextualize a given explanation as unreliable or fringe. So we shouldn't avoid using the unqualified term, but we should have good justification for when we do so.

I agree that we should strive for proper contextualization. But I contest that using "conspiracy theory" in general like Wikipedia actually gives the proper context. Actually, it gives the wrong impression/context almost always. Lukan27 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a case where you believe the term is misused? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Some specific cases come to mind, but it's a core issue and a general problem on Wikipedia, which is why I started this section. I would humbly prefer to keep this as far away as possible from (discussion of) specific pages, although specific use-case examples are obviously unavoidable. Lukan27 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The editing history of Lukan27 shows that the case of Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene is very likely the one getting Lukan27 to bring the issue here. Of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene can and should be called a conspiracy theorist because of the high quality sources applying that label to her. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a

WP:FALSEBALANCE issues all over. I think that the current guidance that says to only use contentious labels when reliable sources consistently use them strikes a good balance. Loki (talk

) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We must definitely avoid false balance. We should never make anything look like it's, say, 50-50, when it's actually, say, 99-1. That much is clear. But inversely, labelling something as a "conspiracy theory" actually falsely gives the impression that it's, say, 99-1, instead of, say, 60-40, or whatever. Further, pseudoscience is without a doubt a much more precise and substantial concept than "conspiracy theory". The term is extemely vague, and that alone is/should be sufficient reason to avoid it, or to use it with severe consideration. Lukan27 (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There are a handful of labels like "conspiracy theorist", "climate change skeptic/denier", "flat-earther" and some others which are definitely labels, but less "value-laden" compared to things like "racist", "white supremacist" etc. because it is easier for RS to judge these by their statements directly, and thus compared to the other value-laden labels, as long as there's reasonable agreement on the RSes for the use of these terms, I see no issue with Wikivoice saying these factually. HOWEVER they must be considered still as characterizations and not neutral objective aspects of a person, and should absolutely not be in the lede sentence of a person's BLP, which is where these tend to end up being used. (The case in point I'm guessing this is coming from Marjorie Taylor Greene. A "conspiracy theorist" is not a career path compared things like politican or businessperson, and that's false equivalency to try to group it with those terms. But this is not to say that in the case of Greene that "conspiracy theorist" should be avoided in the lede, just not the lede sentence, as her ties to QAnon and other conspiracy theory groups is well documented and part of why she is notable more than just being a US Rep. It just not appropriate per BLP or NPOV to identify that term or any of these similar labels that I mention as early in the first sentence regardless of how much they apply to the person. --Masem (t) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

On the question of Greene, I wonder whether editors would feel like she was less 'labeled' if the article began with something like "Greene is an American politician and businesswoman who is notable for espousing conspiracy theories while serving as a US Representative". This provides a bit of the bad person/bad action distinction that parenting manuals have been so fond of for the last half-century, and it's not technically "a label". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"A "conspiracy theorist" is not a career path" -- it's very much her career path, just as with such people as Alex Jones. MTG hasn't been a businesswoman for a decade, and she became a US Representative largely in response to the conspiracy theories she believes in. If RS describe someone primarily in terms of being a conspiracy theorist, it's not up to editors to overrule them. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are used by RS to describe a specific kind of behavior and declaeration. Note that "false balance would be "if 3 sources say it, 3 don't and none dispute it, its a consensus". No, if RS disputes its true its a false balance to say it is true, there are however many reasons why an RS does not say it, its does not reman they are saying it not true. What we must not do is ignore or whitewash outright falsehoods. If people do not want to be labeled "conspiracy theorist" by RS do not publicly pedal "conspiracy theories", its as simple as that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are also used by unreliable sources. The problem here is that what you and misc. sources call "conspiracy theory" is just your (biased) viewpoint. Labelling something "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory" or ludicrous. And I would also argue that sources labelling people left and right as "conspiracy theorists" actually makes those sources in those specific cases unreliable. Lukan27 (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• One of the things with "conspiracy theorist" (and nearly every label) when it comes to how we use them in our articles is trying to make sure that when these labels are being called out by RSes, that we are only cherry picking a few cases and then claiming it represents a whole, which unfortunately I see happen far too much. It would be inappropriate to highlight a person as a conspiracy theorist if only the New York Times used that label about that person and no other source at all (though this would be an unlike scenario). On the other hand, if out of 100 or so recent articles that are providing significant coverage of the person across the range of RSes we have, and at least 25 of them use "conspiracy theorist", that's probably a good reason to use that; if its less, then you probably have to be walking with careful attribution around the label and it should not be a highlighted "feature" of that person in discussing them. I've discussed the idea that editors should really engage in these type of source survey on talk pages to be able to document when a label applies and be able to point to that survey when the label is put into doubt by new editors/IPs that might complain. --Masem (t) 14:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with this approach is "how many" is enough? Moreover, how do we "attribute" 10 sources? I would agree, it is it only one or two RS (or a lot of fringe or weak sources) we should attribute, but if it is (to my mind) a case of "five out of 10 sources on a google news search" say it, so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The idea is that if you are able to show a significant number of different sources routinely agree with the label (eg the 25% metric I suggest), named attribution in the body should not be required as long as the immediate followup in prose explains why that label applies, and that one attached 2-4 highest quality sources otherwise not used to the statement with the label; in the lede, then, assuming this is done in the body, you simply need to reassert the 2-4 sources. If that 25% is not met, then you likely need to be specific on attributing sources.
    • Further, the size of this survey is important. If you can only find 10 sources about a BLP, and even if 9 of the 10 use the label, that's probably still caution to use named attribution and not the generalization I suggest, as 10 sources is far from vast coverage. If that survey was 100 sources, then that's a bit better sampling and clearly didn't exhaust the possible pool of sources for the topic at hand, that would be better to justify the generaliztion approach if the label was routinely used by those sources. --Masem (t) 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • • If its enough sources to establish notability its enough sources to establish they are not able for this. A person is notable for what they are notable for, and if that is being a "conspiracy theorist" then we note that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh, I'm not saying that having only a few sources total doesn't prevent you from saying a label, just the line between where it should be treated with clear attribution, and with the type of broader generalization. If you can only find 10 RSes about a person but have clear significant coverage to meet GNG/NBIO, and all ten discuss the person with respect to being a conspiracy theorist, I would still say that when identifying them as a conspiracy theorist, that you have to use named attribution as you don't have a critical mass of sources to know if this is generalized across enough RS voices, but you 100% have to include that label per WEIGHT. --Masem (t) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Just a generalized concern here. One of the failings I see in many Wiki articles is the desire to apply labels or mention facts that appear in RS but not tell the reader why that information is significant. Even worse is when the context isn't explained but is presented in a way that could lead the reader to conclusion not supported by RS material. How does this improve our articles? Is the objective to provide readers with a full set of facts and understanding or is it to list the negative things others have said? For example, "Mr. Smith" is called a conspiracy theorist. Most examples are by sources that say, "Mr Smith, a conspiracy theorist, said X about the Governor's speech." So we say Mr Smith is often described as a conspiracy theorist. Doesn't that beg the question why? I would hope that before we decide such a negative thing has weight for inclusion that we also make sure the article has sufficient content to explain why a rational RS might use that label. In the best case we would have a RS tell us why Mr Smith is a CT. My related concern is when we have something like "Mr Smith met with [bad group]". OK. Is that because Mr Smith wants to join, wants to support or perhaps wants to discuss their concerns even if Mr Smith doesn't agree. Basically when we present some fact it should be clear why it's significant in the bigger picture and should never be introduced in a way that could lead a reader to a false conclusion. Springee (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I agree. We should present the facts and sources in our work to the best of our abilities, and help readers make their own informed opinions instead of telling or hinting what they should think. And it is without a doubt more precise, and in most cases much more fair, to state that sources describe Smith as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of just going with how some generally reliable sources label Smith. Lukan27 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I question the utility of such labels, in that they have the potential to be cynically misapplied for nefarious purposes. "Disseminator of unproven allegations", or similar, while it could become a label over time, is a phrase with fairly clear semantic content, which may be parsed with respect to the behavior of an individual, thus avoiding the risky slickness of a label. I fear that numerical definitions of "conspiracy theorist" carry the risk of being cynically manipulated. Take the example of
              AIDS and HIV. Why tote up what RSes have said, when, clearly, he has disseminated unproven allegations?--Quisqualis (talk
              ) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
              • I can only agree. Saying "conspiracy theory/theorists" as it is normally understood is dubious to say the least, involving Vagueness, straw fallacy, ad hominem including guilt by association, begging the question, cognitive bias, media manipulation and red herring just to name a few. The typical semantic understanding of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" are nothing but rife with fallacies, bias and rhetoric/dialectical manipulation. Lukan27 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                • You are lucky that you specified near your opening of this discussion I would humbly prefer to keep this as far away as possible from (discussion of) specific pages; otherwise you would be expected to provide evidence that *any* of the wikilinked but unsourced claims you just made are in some way related to actual Wikipedia articles. Since you have not offered any evidence, though. we should presumably interpret your typical semantical understanding of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" as a pure straw man, and therefore ignore your intervention here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • Lukan27 has been banned from discussing post-1992 American politics (due to contentious editing and repeated attacks on editors' good faith around this very issue) so that disclaimer is understandable and we should not encourage him/her to violate the ban. You can check for yourself though that the article that was their focus that resulted in the ban does not have the problems that Lukan27 is calling out. I'm afraid this whole page is a waste of a lot of peoples' time, a consequence of several SPA ideologues claiming that it's biased to call a certain person a conspiracy theorist despite numerous reliable sources describing her as such. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
              • It's not only a label but a description and the above would be true about any claim made in a
                WP:BLP that is unsupported by acceptable sources, "conspiracy theorist" is no exception or special case. —PaleoNeonate
                – 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Conspiracy theory" is an established concept in high quality sources (e.g. academic textbooks[7]). If Wikipedia abandoned it it would put us of-of-sync with the kind of respectable serious sources we (should) aspire to. "Conspiracy theorist" is potentially a bit more problematic, especially in view of the need to respect
  talk
  ) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly the label applies on Icke's article, but as I mention above, giving "conspiracy theorist" the same weight of lede importance as his actual objective careers, and the subsequent weight of calling out his conspiracy theories in the lede, is absolutely not neutral per our policies. No one has a career as a conspiracy theorist. Icke should be mentioned as a former footballer and broadcaster, and then introduced, in a new sentence after that as a conspiracy theorist given that this is significant to his notability; it just cannot be the lede since there are other things he was noted for from a more objective standpoint. --Masem (t) 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • With respect, that's bollocks. Icke's fame in RS derives almost entirely from his "career" (yes) as a conspiracy theorist. His early life as a minor footballer/sports reporter is of negligible interest to RS. Your proposal would be a howling violation of NPOV.
      talk
      ) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But there is no such thing as an objective career in "conspiracy theroist", its why its a label. You can say to lede off "David Icke is a writer and lecturer, and a former footballer and sports reporter. As a writer and lecturer, Icke has engaged in promoting conspiracy theories...." or something like that. There is no policy that requires ordering the lede elements in terms of notability (outside of making sure the lede ultimately captures why someone is notable) but there is policy per both BLP and NPOV that articles must be written in an impartial tone and dispassionately. This would require destressing the conspiracy theorist aspects (which I agree are what he is most notable for) until after what we can objectively state about him. Leding off with the conspiracy theorist term before anything else - given that this is not the extent of what he is known for - gives the article the appearance of an attack piece on him. There are ways to still keep the lede focused on stressing that he is a conspiracy theorist without the tone the article currently establishes. --Masem (t) 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
        • But we can state objectively, and based on reliable sources, that Icke has only a questionable claim to be the child of the godhead, but that he is unquestionably a conspiracy theorist. Literally no reliable sourced dispute this, and consensus reality affirms it very clearly. Destressing observations that are objectively true and well-sourced is an immense failure of NPOV IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Agreed, we don't have to take "conspiracy theorist" out of Wikivoice for the case of Icke in this case because of the overwhelming coverage for that, per what I agree with above (as long as the body is explaining in full why this label applies w/ sources). It's just the ordering and wording of the lede, putting a judgement-weighted term ahead of non-judgmental career facets, sets a very negative tone, even if the term fully applies. Switching things around loses no information but reduces the tone from accusation to informative which is where we are supposed to be writing these articles. --Masem (t) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I just don't regard "conspiracy theorist" as a "controversial" term in the sense of WP:LABEL - it has a clearly-defined meaning and is rather well-documented in its application to particular cases. In the cases where it is appropriately used, the only sources objecting to it represent those who believe in the conspiracy theory, so it would be FALSEBALANCE to destress the term, except in cases where it is tangential to the subject's Notability. This is certainly not the case with Icke. Of course, if the reptilian Anunnaki reveal themselves and reliable sources confirm this, we will then need to rewrite a few articles, but that is a small price to pay for accuracy in the present IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
              • You may not see it as controversial, but the fact its listed among LABEL says we should consider it to be one. How many people claim to be self-identified conspiracy theorists? Pretty much no one. I do agree that we can designate it as a non-value-laden label similar to "climate change denier" or "flat earther", meaning that with sufficient sourcing, it can be said in Wikivoice without attribution in ledes as long as that claim is backed up in the body. But these are still terms that pass judgement on a person, and should not be the first things we are saying in their ledes. The only time this should be the case if this is absolutely the only notable thing that person is known for throughout their life, as the case typically with many criminals in prison on murder convictions or the like. We have to write neutrally and dispassionately, and throwing judgmental terms out the door as the first things said about a person is not neutral nor dispassionate. We should still strive introduce the term early enough as to not bury the lede to speak, given the weight of importance to Icke's article here, but laying it out after some rudimental objective statement , one consistent with nearly every other bio on WP, keeps the article far more neutral in line with BLP and NPOV. --Masem (t) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Eh? It's not listed anywhere. The person who created this section apparently wants it so listed; that's what the discussion is about.

arbitrary break 4

Self-identification is irrelevant--e.g., few people self-identify by the crimes they commit but that may still be the primary reason for their notability. The article that prompted the person who started this section to do so is about someone for whom being a conspiracy theorist is a major claim to fame--she would be a minor and insignificant freshman member of the U.S. House of Representatives if she weren't also a conspiracy theorist. Before winning election, she was a conspiracy theorist prominent for the fact that she was likely to win election; that's the source of her notability. It should be one of the first things said in the lede because it's one of the first things said by reliable sources. This whole section is just an attempt to hobble reports of reality. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • You say "it has a clearly-defined meaning". I can only disagree severely. Could you maybe point out what this clearly-defined meaning would be? Lukan27 (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                • The plain, lexicographic meaning of "conspiracy theorist" is "person who believes in a conspiracy theory". Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • And "conspiracy theory"? Lukan27 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per Alexbrn, when we have multiple high quality academic sources describing a person as a conspiracy theorist with in depth analysis of their theories, NPOV requires us to include this description in the lead. Examples are folks like
  James H. Fetzer, etc. I think a problem arises when something like "Senator X promoted a debunked conspiracy theory" appears in reliable news and commentary sources. In this case, the person is typically not primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist, so describing them as such in the lead isn't appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk
  ) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  LuckyLouie, I'm not sure about the Senator X point; at some stage there's a threshold where Lieutenant-General Y ends up being such a notable proponent of the delusion that it would be wrong not to label them as such in the lead, nay, in the lead sentence. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  And in this particular case, that prompted the above, the lead has: "She has voiced support for conspiracy theories including Pizzagate,[4] QAnon,[5] false flag shootings as a means for Congress to legislate for gun control,[6][7] 9/11 conspiracy theories,[8] and the "Clinton Kill List".[6]", that and supporting sources appear enough to support the description... —PaleoNeonate – 19:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  If you're talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene, I agree, conspiracy theories is what she's primarily notable for in the majority of reliable sources. In fact, it's hard to find sources that don't describe her as a conspiracy theorist. Re my example, I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Ted Cruz, who isn't primarily notable for allegations of giving credibility to conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Please note that the editor who started this discussion did so with the specific purpose of supporting their effort to not label Marjorie Taylor Greene as a conspiracy theorist. They have tried multiple tactics, including claiming that the blog posts were by an imitator (MTG told people on her Facebook and Twitter pages to read her blog posts), that we only have evidence that she used to be a conspiracy theorist (the blog articles were in 2017 and 2018 and MTG has never repudiated them) that every source is left-leaning and biased against democrats (both left-leaning and right-leaning sources call her a conspiracy theorist) and now this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's not true. It's correct that I've been engaged in M. Greene's talk page before I started this section. Consider this. But I didn't start this section just to escape closing or whatever of that talk page section or to forumshop. This has been a point of worry for me for a very long time, and I genuinely believe that this is a subject something everyone should join in on and discuss. Lukan27 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Lukan27: I am afraid this link to your diff only makes it worse: Are you actually campaigning since 2013 to remove content that is contrary to conspiracy theories? Now, I do not mind this discussion, and I believe you brought up a fair point. But the wording in the diff is quite problematic: Removing content that tries to "save" ("redde") the "official explanation" is basically content that WP:RS agree on. Sure articles should be NPOV, but in my opinion that specifically does NOT involve to include only supportive information - we have criticism sections in articles about companies, in articles about just about anything. Maybe I am misunderstanding your motivation there or the Danish Wikipedia has some different guidelines. But I am not convinced that a criticism section should be on its own page, so that a conspiracy theory (and "9/11 was an inside job" is a prime example of a conspiracy theory that WP:RS agree on) is presented just as a theory, without criticism. Again, I won't take this against you here, because the discussion here is a valid one. But it does not prove the point that you are neutral/impartial on the subject. --LordPeterII (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Note that Lukan27 is banned from discussing post-1992 American politics and their comment above mentioning Marjorie Taylor Greene's page is a violation. It's probably best to avoid engaging them here as it would be a provocation to further violations. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 5

• "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are fair descriptions. We can use them if and when
  talk
  ) 22:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Pseudoscience has a clear definition, but in my experience, some of the sources we cite are apparently unfamiliar with it. If someone says that the Moon is made of green cheese, that's not pseudoscience; it's just plain wrong,

  Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition notwithstanding. It is, however, not difficult to find sources that claim all sorts of things are pseudoscience (e.g., economics), even if they do not claim to be any type of science at all (e.g., art history). It seems to get used as a term that means "stuff I don't believe in". I think we should avoid labels when the facts suggest that the source does not use them with precision. However, when the label is used with precision – when the pseudoscientific claim comes with a story about string theory causing the toxins to leave your body, or when the conspiracy theory claim names the specific conspiracy theory that the person promotes – then I have no concerns about using those labels. WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 02:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theorist

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory

Note these are very basic, but do give a clear defintion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote: MoS does not need to be changed

• "Conspiracy Theory" and "Conspiracy Theorist" are a strict enough parallel to "pseudoscience" that I would like to see them excluded from
  WP:LABEL in the same way that "pseudoscience" already has been. Similar to "pseudoscience", these are objectively accurate terms that the figures to whom they apply cannot accept, for their own (cognitively understandable) reasons. Newimpartial (talk
  ) 12:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. These definitions are dictionary definitions and merely (try to) point out what some people mean when they say "conspiracy theory/theorist". Wikipedia/voice should make up it's very own mind what Wikipedia/voice means when it says "conspiracy theory/theorist" in general, and whether they want to partake in derogatory labelling or not. Wikivoice should definitely consider these dictionary definitions, but not blindly follow them nor blindly ignore them. Further, these dictionary definitions above are in the neutral sense, which would mean that theories like the official explanation of 9/11 would be called a "conspiracy theory", given that it's a theory about a handful of foreign conspirerers plotting against the US govt., etc., which would mean that official theories should be labelled as "conspiracy theories" as well. That alone is sufficient for rejection. But it's not the dictionary definitions we are discussing in this section in general. We're discussing the general and typical use of the label, which include (but is not limited to) the derogatory sense of the terms, and Wikipedia/voice's stance and use on/of it. Further, these dictionary definitions are quite useless when it comes to evaluating specific cases of (alleged) "conspiracy theories". Lukan27 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The circular nature of your argumentation on this subject is impressive, not to mention the moving of goalposts. You literally asked what is meant by the term, and when provided with the standard definition, you reject it for being "useless in evaluating specific cases" (although this has been alleged rather than supported with any evidence). You presume that the term is used in a "derogatory sense", without showing evidence of this from RS (or anywhere), and without pointing to a single case where WP has "blindly" followed these supposedly misleading sources. You also raise the red herring of cases where actual events were caused by covert action, according to reliable sources, which are excluded from the "conspiracy theory" category because they are true. The moment an explanation is provided with convincing evidence that makes it part of consensus reality, it is no longer a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I asked what we say, or try to say, when we say "conspiracy theory/theorist". There's no "standard definition" like that, you can't just point to a dictionary entry and state that this is what everyone means when they say "conspiracy theory/theorist". When I write that labelling people as "conspiracy theorists" is done derogatorily, it's because, as everyone knows, that when someone calls somebody a "conspiracy theorist" it's to denigrate them. No one labels anyone a "conspiracy theorist" because they think that Jack and Jane conspire to make a practical joke (or whatever). When you label someone as a "conspiracy theorist" you label them as fringe, and that's not necessarily the actual case. Further, distinctions have to be made when others label people as "conspiracy theory", what are they trying to say and do, and why? Lukan27 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• But if non-reliable sources label someone a conspiracy theorist, we don't use that attribution at all. If some reliable sources label someone a conspiracy theorist while other reliable sources contest that attribution, we don't use that attribution in Wikivoice. The only time we use "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice is when many RS do so and no RS contest the attribution. In such instances, with respect to WP policy, it is the actual case. That's what
  verifiabiltiy is all about. Newimpartial (talk
  ) 07:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are clearly value laden as they are terms used to suggest claims made by the subject are not credible. Additionally, they are often applied with cynicism in sources. As an encyclopedia we really shouldn't be using tabloid type labels. Unlike pseudoscience these are labels that are (almost) always applied to people, not a theory. Springee (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: In reply to LordPeterII's correct concern below, I'm clarifiying that I was thinking of "conspiracy theorist" since that is applied to people. I'm less concerned with "conspiracy theory" when applied to a thing since there are no BLP concerns. Springee (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just a question, what do you mean with "are (almost) always applied to people, not a theory"? Afaik they are applied first to theories, and only secondary to people who adhere to these theories. Has there ever been an example of a person being accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", without also giving a conspiracy theory which they follow? I have not heard of such a case - and which convinces me that the similarity with pseudoscience is quite striking. (That's solely about your second point, I can understand your concerns about tabloids.) --LordPeterII (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• You are correct, I was thinking of "conspiracy theorist" since that is how I often see this used. Conspiracy theory can still be problematic but it is rarely applied to a BLP. I've added a clarification note. Springee (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support The parallel is accurate. Caution is warranted when labeling a person in this way, but that's true of many other entirely valid descriptions. Talk pages are there to debate the borderline cases if necessary; the basic principle is sound.
  talk
  ) 15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I do agree that "conspiracy theorist" is less a value-laden label and more a decently defined term. This would also apply to things like "flat earther" or "climate change denier" and thus don't fall into the same class as the other value-laden labels as LABEL currently points to. We still should be making sure that enough RSes use the term before we can use it as there are subjective edges to these terms. But my issue is that these are terms that are not neutral descriptors and remain pejoratives. Similarly, there are terms that are positive, non neutral descriptors that work in the opposite way, like "philanthropist", "savant", and "genius", which we should also be similarly careful about in the same manner. All these fall into a class of descriptors that we may be able to say factually in Wikivoice (not being the LABELs), but absolutely need to be justified in article body text somewhere using the RSes that use the terms, and which should not be treated as objective terms to introduce the topic in the lede. Thus, the oppose for this is that this points to the need for a new class on this page (WTW) to deal with these types of terms. --Masem (t) 15:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neither Support Nor Oppose. "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" should be used with
  in-text attribution, as it tends to vary with the perspective of source issuing the characterization; it is far from objective. Bus stop (talk
  ) 16:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's silly. What about
  talk
  ) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support.
  WP:NPOV and is far more important, so when the two conflict LABEL should always and without question be disregarded, and should make that clear in its own text. It is good to seek less dramatic wordings, but if doing so involves sacrificing even the tiniest sliver of accuracy or moves us even the tiniest step away from the consensus of the sources then it is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just on a point of detail,
  talk
  ) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It is a valid (and probably overdue) discussion, but I have not been convinced that there actually are major problems with its usage on Wikipedia. I commend the attempts by
  WP:BLP
  , so there is no need to amend the specific guideline here.

As a side note, this vote is currently not very easily visible; could this be formatted a bit better to be separate from the primary discussion which advocates the polar opposite? --LordPeterII (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The sciences and the social sciences are not the same. You are saying "Additionally, I am convinced by the similarity to 'pseudoscientific', so I do not see how 'conspiracy theory' should deserve a different treatment." Wouldn't "conspiracy theory" more likely be associated with the "social sciences" and "pseudoscience" more likely be associated with that which purports to be science? Bus stop (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I... am afraid I can't follow you

natural sciences. But as with e.g. vaccines and autism, where the natural sciences have disproved a correlation, it gave birth to a conspiracy theory. So I believe the two are related, although it probably falls into the realm of social sciences to investigate why a conspiracy theory becomes popular. --LordPeterII (talk

) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there are absolute answers in science. Not so in the social sciences. The social sciences are dominated by opinions. We can speak of something being pseudoscience with more assuredness than we can speak of something being a conspiracy theory. You are saying "I do not see how 'conspiracy theory' should deserve a different treatment". But it should deserve slightly different treatment. We can be confident in saying something is pseudoscience. If we are going to say something is a conspiracy theory, we are going out on a limb. We may be wrong. Just because a bunch of opinion-makers dismiss something does not mean they are right. I understand that we adhere to the findings of reliable sources. But opinions should be treated more carefully than the facts that emerge from the hard sciences. Bus stop (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, as an aspiring physicist I can say that I do not personally believe in absolute answers in

natural sciences (I believe that's what you mean with "science"). I do believe natural sciences can give us very good and substantiated answers, but any of these might be overturned (or amended) in the future in the light of new research (for example, there even is tentative evidence that the laws of physics might be spatially variable [8], which could have all sorts of implications similar to science fiction

). I understand your point, and in a way you may be right. However, take my example - or better, let's take three examples:

1. Vaccines and autism: This is a theory about medical effects/correlations that should in theory be subject to the scrutiny of the natural sciences. And indeed, the scientific community disproved this correlation as a myth. We even know who started it; the whole thing is scientifically debunked (which, ofc, doesn't mean that any vaccine ever will be safe from any side effect). Yet the conspiracy theory persists - it's directly going against natural science. Just as with pseudoscience, there's not much involvement of social sciences except maybe to investigate why the myth persists.
2. QAnon: This arguable is a prime example of your stance. It's completely unrelated to science, and revolves around a conspiracy within society that is not related to the natural sciences much. It's basically just a claim that you either believe or not, and frankly I don't see many options to ever disprove it completely.
3. Ockham's razor, flat earthers struggle to explain this. I'll give another anecdote on how natural sciences are very important for that one: In a video I watched about "flat earth" that tried to explain it, the narrator suggested that gravity was a wrong concept because it would only work with a spherical earth, and thus promptly tried to replace gravity with Aristotle's concept
   . However, as a physicist I can assure anyone that gravity indeed works very well with a flat earth! There's no reason to criticise gravity here, the physical theory does not require a spherical earth. But it's likely that the narrator was not sufficiently accquinted with physics to realize this.

I apologize for the digression. But in conclusion, I do believe that in many cases the two concepts "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory" are closely related. There are slight differences, and certain alleged conspiracies are beyond the realm of the natural sciences. That doesn't mean there is much of a difference in treatment: Pseudoscience is a theory that is rejected by scientific consensus. Conspiracy theory is a theory that is rejected by scientific and/or societal consensus. Whichever consensus is reported by reliable sources, that's what we work with. We don't have to have absolute answers in either case - and if flat earthers are ever proven correct and achieve scientific consensus, well, I'll be dammned, then I'll vote to remove that conspiracy label from them and report that the earth is flat (but I still reserve the right to not believe it personally). --LordPeterII (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not so in the social sciences. since Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be doing the science, it doesn't really matter, so we depend on sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinions and facts are different. In Natural science we deal with facts; in Social science we deal with opinions. This is a simplification, perhaps a gross simplification, but I think it is generally the case. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This may he a tangent, but opinions and facts are different. In Natural science we deal with facts; in Social science we deal with opinions should be a self-disqualifying statement in terms of

WP:CIR. Health data, for example, do not magically change from "fact" to "opinion" and back again depending on whether a biologist or a health geographer is working with it. Nor does an interview become more or less of an opinion when it is given to (or from) a journalist, an historian or a scientist. Confusing "natural science" vs. "social science" with "fact" vs. "opinion" (or with quantitative vs. qualitative data) is a simple category error that no competent editor should be making, IMO. Newimpartial (talk

) 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is requiring you to accept my observations as to where "pseudoscience" differs from "conspiracy theory". But they are two different terms. And they are not interchangeable. Starting from this premise it stands to reason that one of the terms more often is contingent on facts and the other of the terms is more often contingent on opinions. But I don't really want to belabor this point any further. It is an observation that I am making and it is your prerogative to disagree with it. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop, I think you're wrong. A statement like "Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll started in 1946" is not a scientific statement. Depending upon your POV, history is either a social science or non-science. But no matter how you choose to classify the academic field, that sentence still reports a fact, not an opinion. The relationship between Supply and demand is a matter of social sciences, not natural sciences, and it's a fact, not an opinion. When you tax an optional good more, people consume less of it than they would if it was cheaper: that's a fact, not opinion, and not natural sciences. The average American woman's annual income is lower than the average American man's income: fact, not opinion, and not about natural sciences. US mothers have been more likely to stop working during the pandemic than US fathers: fact, not opinion, and not about natural sciences. People might have opinions about these facts (e.g., some people believe that income differences matter, and others don't; some people believe that it's desirable to use taxes to reduce consumption, and others don't, etc.), but the facts are still facts, even if those facts are not determined through the scientific method.

This is IMO not an unusual error. There's been a huge cultural shift over the last couple of decades, in which "science" is The Truth™, and everything else is wrong or merely a subjective opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing—as I said, "This is a simplification, perhaps a gross simplification". I don't want to dwell on the distinction between "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory". You are obviously making some good points. I regret even weighing in to the distinction between "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory". But it is good that we are having this discussion. I think there are special concerns that go with the use of the term "conspiracy theory". I am definitely not saying we can't use the term "conspiracy theory". But here is the problem: the characterization of something as a conspiracy theory is a conclusion. I do not think readers come to Wikipedia for conclusions about topics that may be characterized as conspiracy theories. In my opinion readers come to Wikipedia to get up to speed on a topic. In my opinion readers come to Wikipedia because they want to become well versed on a topic. If we only tell them that something is a conspiracy theory and fail to tell them why it is considered a conspiracy theory, we aren't really fulfilling our role. And while telling them why it is a conspiracy theory, I think we should also tell them of countervailing opinions, if any exist. They want to come away informed. They want to know what factors apply in addition to learning that something is a "conspiracy theory". Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that why readers come to Wikipedia differs according to the subject. If you're here because someone called and said "We're at the hospital – the baby has Scaryitis" then you might very well just want to know the "conclusion". If you're trying to "get up to speed" about whether your demented relative's story about dozens of people being secretly involved in John F. Kennedy assassination has any basis in reality, then you probably want to know the "conclusion". You probably don't want Wikipedia to pussy-foot around and "bury the lede" so you can make up your own mind later.

I do not think that the evidence indicates that most readers want to become well-versed on a topic. The median reader spends mere seconds looking at an article. That is not the behavior of someone who wants to become well-versed on a topic. There might be a few readers who read whole articles, and there's no harm in explaining everything for those people, but I doubt that most readers, on most articles, read the entire first paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing—I'm speaking colloquially. I have no idea what "readers want". It is interesting to me that some want to have no dos and don'ts associated with the use of the term "conspiracy theory". Why does that sentiment exist? Is there no guidance that can be offered on the use of this term? It is a term rife with possibilities for abuse. Not only is it sloppily defined but it is used to place ideas out of the realm of consideration. I have been concocting guidelines on how to use the term responsibly. In the final analysis I don't know what those guidelines should be. I would recommend caution when applying the term in the context of current events, especially not-totally-resolved current controversies. This is a polarized discussion. The prevailing sentiment is that the term should be used freely. I dissent from that opinion. Bus stop (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are a variety of reasons. Perhaps some don't think written guidance is needed because they don't see any serious problems. In the absence of problems, written guidance would be

WP:CREEPY

.

A more significant concern appears to be that any such guidance is likely to make it harder to write accurate, actually-neutral articles, because the guidance could be a cudgel in the hands of crackpots. Imagine that you're writing about an ardent proponent of the idea that a shadowy group of people secretly control the world. Imagine that every single reliable source you can find uses the exact term conspiracy theorist. And imagine that a POV pusher (who "just happens" to believe in this dubious idea) shows up and says "Oh, no, you can't say that! That's a 'value-laden label', and it's not 'neutral' to use the everyday, normal, plain English term for someone who believes that a group of people secretly control the world, especially not in 'wikivoice'. That's not neutral because you're 'taking sides' by believing the reliable sources." Wikipedia is actually supposed to 'take sides' when all (or nearly all) of the reliable sources agree on a given point: The Earth is not flat, The Da Vinci Code is fiction, QAnon's claims about satanic cannibals are false, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not at the mercy of POV pushers who believe dubious ideas. In my opinion Wikipedia is at the mercy of well-established editors, even administrators. I don't place a strong emphasis on policy. Policy is subject to abuse. Nowhere in this thread have I argued the use of the term should be banned or even curtailed in any way. Language usage is what we are discussing, in my opinion. There is no harm done in erring on the side of providing more rather than less information, when the term "conspiracy theory" is used. And there is no harm in erring on the side of providing

in-text attribution when the term "conspiracy theory" is used. Most of our policies say "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Bus stop (talk

) 01:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Technically, most of our guidelines say that.

I think you're familiar with the problem of Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free for paid editing? It's the same thing with POV pushers. Policy (and guidelines, and advice in general) is subject to abuse by POV pushers. As a purely practical matter, if we write down that this is a Bad Word™, then we will spend time justifying its use to people who do not want Wikipedia to be a neutral encyclopedia.

Yes, there is a harm in providing in-text attribution. Here's an example: Where do you put the in-text attribution for the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories title? Let's say that you decide the title is exempt, but you need in-text attribution in the lead. How to do you write that in-text attribution without any of the following happening:

• filling the article with the thousands of sources that use that term for that subject,
• making it sound like this is just some people's opinions and that other, possibly reasonable, people disagree,
• sounding stupid?

Keep in mind that phrases like "the overwhelming majority of sources and all reliable scholarship" is not

WP:INTEXT

attribution.

And once you say that, okay, we should have INTEXT attribution when it's disputed, but not in these obvious cases, then you have added absolutely nothing, because that is exactly what the current rules are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We should be circumspect in our use of this term. We should not casually and blithely label an idea in a currently unresolved hot topic of discussion a "conspiracy theory". Under such circumstances certain restraints should apply. We do not want to be giving short shrift to an idea, even if a source dismisses it as a "conspiracy theory". Encyclopedias tread lightly on currently unresolved questions. Readers can think for themselves. Our role is to provide them with good quality information relative to issues, not to "inform" them that something is a "conspiracy theory". We really have to fulfill the proper role of an encyclopedia. That's what this is really about. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The term « conspiracy theorist » should be used in lede only if several
  WP:RS do, identical with « rapist » and « dictator ». No more, no less. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk
  ) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: LordPeterII pointed out a flaw in my statement which I think points out a significant distinction. There is a difference between calling a thing a conspiracy theory and calling a person a conspiracy theorist. A theory has almost no BLP implications. Labeling a person a theorist is clearly in the area of BLP. Also a theory is generally applied to a singular thing while actions, activities, etc of a person are more complex and it's harder to classify them as clearly. Regardless, I can see the arguments for saying "conspiracy theory" should be treated as a non-contentious label while I think "conspiracy theorist" must be treated as a contentious label. Springee (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This, in general. We have chosen to be "proactive" to making sure that flawed science and medical ideas as well as false malicious theories involving public figures are called out quickly, as per SCIRS, MEDRS and BLP, so identifying things as pseudoscience, fringe theories, and conspiracy theories as fact (assuming well-backed as such) in a lede sentence is appropriate. But BLP requires us to treat living persons far more carefully and be less aggressive towards calling them out on being "bad people"; we are required to write about them in a dispassionate voice. We are not here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make sure that the reader immediately knows said person is "bad" because they are a conspiracy theories. Which means, that while we still can call a person a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice when the sources support it without attribution, this must be treated with a lot more care and consideration and hence be placed later in ledes (eg second sentence if that's what they're primarily notable for).
• Also, as pointed out above, we still have to watch for cases where these labels like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist" are poorly/inappropriately added either as OR by an editor w/ no support from sources, or where only a couple sources rather than many sources support the term. I'm working on the assumption that we can use these terms in Wikivoice only when a large number of sources explicitly use the term so that we're not evoke OR or cherry picking here. --Masem (t) 14:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• A project-wide and general problem is taking unclear sourcing and running with it and in the process turning questionable support in sources into a full-fledged assertion. At Talk:Jordan Peterson#Philosophy it was debated whether Peterson should be called a philosopher. Multiple poor quality sources were presented. This is an instance I think in which we are not justified in stating something in Wikivoice and without attribution. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's also a good example where the body of the article doesn't support the label. I think this is often missed in article level debates. We really shouldn't be asking what external sources say before adding a label to the lead. We should be acting as if the article body is the only source for writing the lead and then ask if the label is justified. If not based on the body of the article then either the body needs to be fixed first or the label shouldn't be used. Springee (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, in the case of Peterson, "YouTube philisopher" is a reliably-sourced but not universal label, which could therefore be used with attribution. The problem with the Talk page proposal, as I recall, was that some wanted to extract "philosopher" to include in the lede based on "YouTube philosopher", which would make about as much sense as extracting "philosopher" from "armchair philosopher" or "barstool philosopher". Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is a problem. People might reliably call me an "NFL armchair quarterback" but that doesn't make me an "NFL quarterback". Springee (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think sometimes the lede of an article is used as a billboard. Summarizing is different from advertising, which is what billboards are good at. We should err on the side of summarizing. Based on this reason I am not sure terms like "conspiracy theorist" should ever appear in ledes. More oblique language is preferable for use in the lede. The danger of using "conspiracy theorist" in the lede is the danger of pigeonholing a person. A more openminded approach should be taken. As Masem points out "we are required to write about them in a dispassionate voice". Pigeonholing and dispassion are mutually exclusive. The prominence of the lede section of an article exacerbates potential problems associated with pigeonholing. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

break: Vote – 29 Jan

• I retract the following suggestion. Further discussion has revealed that this approach would not be helpful and rather seems to confuse people. @Springee: That is actually an interesting observation, that I wasn't even clear on myself. But I agree that this is right: "Conspiracy theory" for a thing is not contentious, "conspiracy theorist" for a person might -potentially- be a contentious label. But that brings me to a follow-up problem: What if we describe someone as a follower of a conspiracy theory?

Like, for example instead of saying someone "is a Christian", we would say they "are a member of a Christian congregation". This basically means the same thing - is there any difference in the two phrasings?

Now if instead of saying "Person X is a conspiracy theorist" (generic label), we would say "Person X is a proponent of conspiracy theory Y" (specific label) - would that improve the situation? I honestly do not know, and would be glad to hear some opinions.

Personally, I am leaning towards that this would be an improvement and less contentious. Because someone who, for example, has publicly voiced their believe in and support for QAnon, would probably not feel slandered if they were described as a follower of QAnon, with QAnon itself being described as a conspiracy theory. Same applies to flat earthers; I do not believe we are breaking NPOV if we describe them as adhering to the flat earth conspiracy theory as opposed to just generic "conspiracy theorists". But this is thinking pretty meta and yeah, I would love some feeback on this. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" should probably be reserved for when the person is known to adhere to multiple conspiracy theories. If the people is only known to adhere to one specific conspiracy theory, that doesnt make them a conspiracy theoriest in broad terms and likely better to say alternative wording. --Masem (t) 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. If we would need to list several conspiracy theories in a row, it would be more elegant to just use "conspiracy theorist" so as not to block the reading flow. But that would already be the first exception to the rule - the more I think about it, the less I believe that this would actually be an improvement or a solution. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know most sources don't use it this way but I would distinguish between those who believe/promote a theory with those who originate a theory. I promote Newtonian physics but that doesn't make me a physisist. If I promote a well established theory but add nothing to it am I a theorist or simply a proponent/promotor of? Beyond that, I do agree that it should probably be more than two theories before we even consider the theorist label. We should also consider the balance of their work and time span. Springee (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No @Springee, that's not what I meant, and I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this. This is only about the potential of it being a contentious label, not the term's meaning. (You can ofc have your own opinion about this, but we cannot simply go against both reliable sources and general usage in the MOS. It would confuse the heck out of ordinary people like Wikipedia's readers.). What "conspiracy theorist" means is used consistently within reliable sources, and also clearly defined, for example here: Cambridge Merriam-Webster (as was already quoted above). So "conspiracy theorist" is equivalent to "proponent of a conspiracy theory". This is a notable difference to other cases, like in your physicist example. The definitions also specifically refer to "a" (single) conspiracy theory, so there is no need to wait until they support multiple conspiracy theories. And really, how could the label be contentious if used while the person believes in one conspiracy theory, and not contentious if they believe in multiple? I don't really get anymore what this is about; just that my suggestion would probably do more harm than good. I'll retract it. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. That wasn't meant to be a reply to you and I also understand that how I was defining it (the person who creates/invents the theory) is not how it is normally used (a person who promotes a conspiracy theory). I was just putting that out there. Springee (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It may be true that "conspiracy theorist" is equivalent to "proponent of a conspiracy theory", but that truth may not be known to all of the readers. Since "_____ theorist" in other contexts often means that the person originated or significantly developed the theory, it might be clearer to use a slightly different phrasing, even if it's not strictly necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that alternative wording should be preferred. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support not a value judgement, if reliable sources indicate that someone who engages/has engaged in concocting, espousing, promoting, or profiting from conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist, we can fairly, and accurately, refer to them as a conspiracy theorist. It's non-controversial. Acousmana (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Given the importance of this discussion, should we maybe make this a
  WP:RFC
  to give other editors a chance to voice their opinion? I stumbled upon this discussion by pure chance, and I believe we should give more people a chance to participate. However, I am not sure how to initate such a thing and would prefer an experienced editor to open a RFC, if possible.

Also, I have added a line to indicate where the voting starts, to avoid confusion with the discussion above. I hope this is appropriate. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Including it in the list of words to avoid would seriously impede writing about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. It would be the wet dream of whitewashers. The term is not an arbitrary label, although it can be and is occasionally used as such by people who do not know what they are talking about, typically in "so are you!" retorts. Conspiracy theorists do not like the term because it unmasks them, and they have fought against its use since it exists, just as pseudoscientists did and do against the term "pseudoscience". We should not fall for their self-serving rhetoric, we should not repeat their bad logic, and we should go on calling a spade a spade when reliable sources call it a spade. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Should we apply that same logic to "racist", "neo-nazi", "pedophile", etc? I mean we need to expose those people! Who cares about IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  If all reliable sources agree that someone is one of those, of course we should. If you are trying to argue that Wikipedia editors know better than reliable sources and we should second-guess them, that stance will not get you very far. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• That depends on does it violate our rules on crime. But yes if a majority of sources use a label that is not an accusation of criminal activity, yes we should say it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

break: Vote – 1 Feb

• Support An article about someone who was recently elected to national office and is prominent primarily because they subscribe to numerous conspiracy theories (as documented by numerous reliable sources) was attacked as "biased" by several people (who presumably are politically aligned with the subject or their party) solely because the subject is described as a conspiracy theorist. One of the complainants was broadly banned from discussion of post-1992 American politics because of tendentious edits and attacks on the good faith of Wikipedia editors, specifically and broadly, in connection to that specific article. Subsequently they created this discussion. There was nothing wrong with the abovementioned article or its use of the term "conspiracy theorist", and no evidence has been presented here of any such problem with any other article. When asked for evidence, they write here "Some specific cases come to mind" without mentioning any such cases or that they aren't allowed to mention them, and "but it's a core issue and a general problem on Wikipedia" which simply isn't true. I think the change is baseless and unwarranted, and that this entire discussion is a poor use of Wikipedia resources. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia articles need to be able to use clear language to describe fringe viewpoints and those that hold them, and there is nothing wrong with labeling these things with the commonly accepted terms. --Jayron32 20:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this illustrates an issue with this question. Are we asking if it's contentious to call a thing a conspiracy theory or a person a conspiracy theorist. Based on the discussion above editors aren't decided if they should be treated the same way or not. I do tend to think even "conspiracy theory" qualifies as a contentious label but I also feel the bar for calling a particular theory a conspiracy theory is much lower than calling a person a conspiracy theorist. Even if RS say the label applies I don't think anyone would see "conspiracy theorist" as a good/positive label. Do we think a BLP subject would agree to being called a conspiracy theorist? If the answer is "no" to either question then I would say the criteria for being a contentious label has been met. Anyway, I think LordPeterII is correct, this needs a proper RfC. Springee (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• If a thing is not good or positive, it would be incorrect to use words that imply that it is. --Jayron32 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we should make it clear something is negative if RSs say it is. I'm also not as worried about calling a particular theory "conspiracy". I'm more concerned when a person is labeled a conspiracy theorist. We may agree with RSs that the label has been properly applied but that doesn't mean the label isn't contentious. Contentious labels aren't something we should never use, just something we should use with care or with clear attribution. So it would be no issue to call the faked moonlanding theory a conspiracy theory. Springee (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support no change - Since we infer using reliable sources it's unnecessary. —PaleoNeonate – 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new class for words like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist"?

I think there's agreement from above that words like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist" and others are terms that are not value-laden labels (though may have edge cases we have to watch for from editor OR and weak sourcing) which likely can be said in Wikivoice when the sourcing and prose is sufficiently there to back it. But I think we should still recognize that these still overall fall into "Words that may introduce bias" - they are simply not neutral/impartial terms even if backed by sources when describing persons. So I would suggest if we should need another category within WTW to include these terms, explaining they can be used in Wikivoice when appropriate backed by sources and where caution should be used on these terms. --Masem (t) 15:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Opppose suppression of academic term with a well defined history of usage in peer-reviewed publications.--Moxy 🍁 21:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish out of a general desire to avoid
  talk
  ) 03:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My concern is that sorta related to Moxy's oppose, we have a series of terms that do not fall into value-laden labels, some which I would fully agree that in time, gain academic usage, but in the short term, NOT#NEWS concern, may be applied far too early or with far too little sourcing. (That might point to RECENTISM as a better place). --Masem (t) 03:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, OK, but
      talk
      ) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist are used to dismiss ideas and people. This language is opaque instead of being informative. But there is an important point associated with these terms—that is who or what is leveling the charge. This is from 2 days ago. Bret Weinstein is an educated man. Notice how he uses the term "conspiracy theory". He says "this was never a conspiracy theory in fact that term is used to make it go away". He is implying that a hypothesis is called a "conspiracy theory" to "make it go away". That is the reputation the term has, at least in the mind of this educated man. Shouldn't we use it with caution? Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please note that Bus stop has been banned from Wikipedia for, among other things, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Anastasiya Astapova; Onoriu Colăcel; Corneliu Pintilescu; Tamás Scheibner (29 October 2020). Conspiracy Theories in Eastern Europe: Tropes and Trends. Taylor & Francis. pp. 232–233.
    ISBN 978-1-00-021479-6..--Moxy
    🍁 18:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Opppose We should not be mealy-mouthed, if people don't like it, they can always stop peddling conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That is logically flawed. That we say people are engaging in peddling a conspiracy theory doesn't mean the term is any more or less contentious, especially if we call a BLP a theorist. Also, I think we have already decided that just because a BLP has said they stopped engaging in something we don't like we don't retract the label. Springee (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it may be policy flawed (but then I have nothing to add in that regard to what's already been said (by me and others). But its not logically flawed, its really only contentious because people who peddle conspiracy theories want them to be taken seriously, and thus do not like it when they are not. If they were not conspiracy theories RS would not call them thgat, that would call them conspiracies (or theories). We shoulds not and cannot mince our words when we talk about people who peddle Qaunon or Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that the exact same reason we say that terms like "racist" or "white supremacist" are contentious? Isn't that the same reason RSs call people racist or white supremacists? Just like "racist", there is no clear line between what is or isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't see how treating conspiracy theorist (the BLP label) the same as we treat "racist" (attributed when RSs broadly say as much, not mentioned if only some RSs say it) is going to harm our readers. BTW, I'm not specifically advocating for or against Masem's proposal. I don't think I understand it well enough to voice a vote one way or the other. Springee (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying its not "contentious" we are saying if enough RS say it its only contentious in the same way flat earthism is contentious. We are talking about things that fail

wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk

) 14:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The issue is not that these terms shouldn't be used (and in Wikivoice) when they apply because they have more objective nature to them as per the prior section, but they still must be words to watch and used only when there is appropriate backing of sources (as has been outlined above, there are cases when editors may OR-ly applies these terms appropriately, and if only or two sources use these terms compared to dozens, that should stay in the realm of attributed labels), and should be recognized as either pejorative or puffery terms (depending) and thus have an impact on tone and neutrality when writing an article. --Masem (t) 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because
  WP:LABEL already de facto covers it, and it should say it more clearly rather than making cutouts for specific exceptions. Our policy on contentious labels should cover all such labels, and not have cutouts for each specific word. Loki (talk
  ) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I understand the concerns, but I think that this would just add another category that covers "anything with a connotation". It doesn't matter if people like to be called conspiracy theorist - the term is not insulting the persons themselves, just denoting that they are peddling ideas which mainstream society/science rejects. Reliable sources use the term, and they use a lot of other terms as well - like philanthropist. Does that mean I agree that every person to whom the term philanthropist is applied by reliable sources is a good person in my personal opinion? No it doesn't; but my personal opinion does not matter, what matters are usage in reliable sources. There are hundreds of other words that carry some sort of connotation - heck, even calling someone a scientist implies that they have a certain attitude towards the world.

Also, this MoS guideline is not a "law". It's a general guideline to which we adhere, but individual cases will still get discussed on individual talk pages. There may be cases where the usage of "philanthropist" or "conspiracy theorist" is called in question, and a discussion might determine that in this specific case, the label is unwarranted. But I have yet to see a single example where that was the case - currently, there seems to be no problem with its usage on Wikipedia whatsoever, and thus I believe that this discussion was valuable, but there is no need to act differently than before. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The thing though are these are still "words to watch" - they should not be added without the backing of RSes (as with value-laden labels) even though once backed we can state them in a more factual voice; further, they set a tone, and thus can improperly affect the impartialness of an article if misused, in contrast to more objective terms like "activist" or "businessman", further making these "words to watch". We presently don't have advise on these but going from the above section it would seem to make sense to be clear on these types of words that they can still be potential landminds if misused, though far less of a problem than the value-laden labels. So it seems logical just to set out this class of words just to explain where they sit and that editors are still cautioned about their use. --Masem (t) 17:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LordPeterII—scientists go where the facts lead them. That is not what I would generally think of as an "attitude". Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bus stop: You are right, "scientist" is a bad example. I believe I originally meant to say something else, but by now I have forgotten. But my statement still stands.

@Masem: I think it is becoming clearer to me now that I simply do not share your concerns: To me, "conspiracy theorist" is not a value-laden label as some of the other examples. In my opinion, the term simply states that a person has publicly voiced their support of a theory that is accepted to be a conspiracy theory. This is not intended to denounce the person, or imply that all of their views are to be discarded. The term can thus also very precisely be applied, as opposed to other labels: For example, is someone who actively works to help refugees and people of colour, but still uses the term "Eskimo" or other outdated and racially charged terms a racist? Maybe, but maybe not - I would guess they are an elder person who still hasn't adjusted to the change in usage for e.g. Eskimo. Here, applying the term "racist" could be very well unwarranted. On the other hand, is someone who says "I believe QAnon is the truth and the earth is flat" a conspiracy theorist, even if they otherwise work as e.g. a mathematician that tries to advance science in his field? The answer is a clear yes, because the term "conspiracy theorist" is so precisely defined. They can still be a great and non-pseudoscience mathematician, but their support of at least one conspiracy theory makes them a conspiracy theorist. That's it.

Thus I fail to see how the label could be actively misused, except in a form of blatant vandalism that just adds the label at will to articles without giving any explanation. It's a label, but it's not contentious. And if there ever is a disagreement over its usage - like on the article of some politician - we do not need to judge whether the percentage of sources calling them a conspiracy theorist is sufficient. If they actively and publicly endorse e.g. QAnon - they are a conspiracy theorist. If they do not publicly endorse any conspiracy theory, they are not. There is no ambiguity or nuances as with e.g. "racist". --LordPeterII (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The very specific problem with the "non-value-laden" labels like "conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist", and so forth is these are terms that are a form of characterization rather than classification. We can factually say these in Wikivoice with enough sourcing to back it, something we cannot do at all with value-laden labels -- but the issue is that they do not career the same type of tone and neutrality as typical terms we use to normally classify individuals which usually are based on the career and profession. A "businessperson" is a neutral classification, whereas a "philanthropist" is not. An "activist" is a neutral classification, while a "conspiracy theorist" is not. To that end, ledes on BLPs even where these terms 100% apply should not be leading off with these terms in the lead sentence as they are characterizations and not classifications. For example, whereas "conspiracy theorist" fully applies and backed for Marjorie Taylor Greene, its presence in the leading sentence conflated with "businessperson" and "politician" immediately sets a tone that the article is an attack piece, violating NPOV. That she is a conspiracy theorist (one of the primary things she is noted for) likely can fall into the second or later sentences without losing the information but significantly improving the tone. Hence why these are still "words to watch" because they affect article's tone and impartialness. Again, to stress, this is not about requiring attribution for these types of words. --Masem (t) 16:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@

in-text attribution, and rarely in ledes. Bus stop (talk

) 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I think I understand what you mean, but I simply cannot follow that argumentation. I simply do not see any examples where the term might be "exaggerating". As I explained above, it is a term that is very clearly and narrowly defined, with little room for mistakes - provided, of course, it is agreed upon what a "conspiracy theory" is. I believe the latter is quite clear, and the discussion above indicates that the term relating to the theories is not under much scrutiny. (I certainly do not wish to discuss whether reliable sources are biased - that is another discussion, and would lead to far away from the question at hand.) This discussion isn't about specific articles, but again, I have not seen any article ever where there was a concern that the label "conspiracy theory" was an exaggeration: Either it fits without doubt, or not at all. As a result, I believe that we need not change the MoS at all. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" may be an easy case that it's nearly always used in black or white, but I know there have been past concerns on terms like "philanthropist", particularly when it is absent the backing of sources using the term. "Oh, this is a person that donates a lot, they must be a philanthropist" is not a sufficiently good reason to use the term in Wikivoice, since there could be other factors involved (numerous business leaders "donate" but these often go to PACs which is absolutely not philantrophic activity.) More so, just a single source using the term isn't sufficient. We should always be using these words 1) when well-backed by sources -- but not requiring attribution and 2) as long as we have a body section that uses those sources in depth to explain the support for the term. --Masem (t) 19:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Good point, I forgot about that: I actually agree that "philanthropist" is a more difficult term as it isn't as easily defined. I would not mind adding that, but tbh it could just go to the old "value-laden" label. I don't think we need a separate category for that. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still thinking we need that. The terms here ("conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist") are words that have well defined meaning and aren't based on values, but they are terms that can be readily misused, in contrast with value-laden terms which by definition are not well defined to start with. We want value-laden terms to be attributed to some manner while for these non-value-laden terms, we at least want some demonstrate that multiple RSes agree the term correctly applies so that its not a mischaracterization; once we have that, we can use the term factually in Wikivoice, no attribution. --Masem (t) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The potential problem with these terms is the possibility of distilling information unjustifiably. There are more wordy ways of asserting the applicability of concepts such as conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorist, philanthropy, and philanthropist, and those wordier ways are preferable unless the distilled version of these concepts are supported by multiple good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:TERSE? Ofc this is a discussion/vote, so everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. But I personally do not believe conspiracy theorist is unduly "distilled" - I rather think it is precise and a clearly defined term which we should be using instead of alternatives. --LordPeterII (talk

) 10:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. We should go by what the sources say, and generally avoid encouraging editors to make personal value-judgments on the terms the sources use. I know this is meant well and intended to encourage neutrality as you see it, but in practice this sort of categorization or overreach of
  WP:LABEL encourages situations where editors end up second-guessing the sources and effectively try to downplay things they personally feel are false, dubious, or objectionable. That's not how we should be deciding our weight and focus. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You missed the point of the proposal completely. I've agreed that these are terms that as long as the sourcing is there, can be said in a factual manner w/o attribution (no need to downplay), but they are still words that 1) editors may sometimes misuse without the backing of proper sources and 2) even when backed by sources, carry a perojative or puffery tone and thus should be carefully included in language particularly in places like ledes to watch on tone, and require prose explanation in the body to support. --Masem (t) 21:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reliable sources determine if they should be used. —PaleoNeonate – 05:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support so the truth about the covid labLeak and use of Ivermectin is nor suppressed.--204.237.48.192 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@

it never was. Editors like Masem and Springee have provided arguments that constructively contributed to the discussion, even though consensus might in the end not agree with them. Your point, IP, does not contribute to the discussion at all, and it feels like you aren't even aware what we are discussing. So yeah, please consider going elsewhere; Wikipedia might not be the right place for you :/ --LordPeterII (talk

) 09:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: In my opinion, we are not discussing the "suppression of truth". This is the talk page for a guideline of the Manual of Style. This discussion is not directly about content on Wikipedia, although ofc content may be affected by it. However, this is and will not be a discussion about truth. Above I linked to an essay, but

WP:FRINGE

states that "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources.". We are not discussing "truth" here or how to prevent it from being suppressed. If they feel concerned about it, IP should start a discussion at one of the pages I just linked. But I reckon they are very unlikely to get a consensus for change there.

Wikipedia is not censored, and the discussion at hand is not aiming to remove or suppress any information on the site (unless I am missing the point of this discussion completely...), we are merely discussion whether or rather how to apply certain labels. Thus IP should have given a reason to their vote that is related to the discussion, not their personal preferences or fears in regards to certain (conspiracy) theories, no matter how warranted these fears may be. If someone asked you for your favourite dish, you wouldn't answer with "But I'm allergic to fish!" would you? Maybe it's a valid and important piece of information, but it's not an answer to that specific question. (This allegory might sound a bit weird but I'm not sure how to illustrate the discrepancy otherwise.)

Maybe the answer was harsh, but I feel it was reasonable and still polite. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia (
  WP:AOBF) – conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist are valid terms for identifying ideas outside the mainstream – we don't want them misused, but valid mainstream sources should determine what is a conspiracy theory and what is not – cheers, Epinoia (talk
  ) 18:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. We follow reliable sources on this issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose An encyclopedia should inform readers and if someone reads an article to see what is known about claims, for example, that Obama was not eligible to be POTUS, the article must identify the core fact, namely that such claims are what is popularly known as a conspiracy theory—baseless nonsense that people repeat and which the media reports as being repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This betrays a misunderstanding of what
  WP:NPOV
  even is. The proposal states,

  But I think we should still recognize that these still overall fall into "Words that may introduce bias" - they are simply not neutral/impartial terms even if backed by sources when describing persons.

This is utter rubbish; just because something is a critical or negative statement, does not make it non-neutral, if it is supported by the majority of

reliable sources. Does the following sound neutral & impartial to you: He was a "serial killer and sex offender, necrophiliac, and cannibal."? That is an abridged version of a quotation from John Wayne Gacy, and it's perfectly neutral and impartial. Condemnatory and damning, yes; but neutral all the same. You can be neutrally described as a conspiracy theorist, just as you can be neutrally described as a flesh-eating, necrophiliac, serial murderer. Nothing inherently biased about either description. Mathglot (talk

) 09:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Except those are all different classes of words that have objective definitions without any vague areas; at worse, for things like "sex offender", which is a legal term related to convicted crimes, you may have commentators jump the gun in describing people as that before conviction, but we already have BLP to tell us not to do that until a conviction is made. The terms at the center of concern here are ones where there are subjective bounds (exactly when does someone that peddles falsehoods become a conspiracy theorist? exactly when does someone that donates lots of money become a philanthopist?) but once clearly past those bounds to the point that the terms are well-used in RSes, its not as much a problem. Its not about those terms being biased once they are used regularly in RSes, but unless that is the case, including these terms before then or off the backs of only a few sources is a problem. --Masem (t) 13:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The answer to your question,

exactly when does someone that peddles falsehoods become a conspiracy theorist?

is easy: they become a conspiracy theorist, exactly at the point when the preponderance of reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. And the beauty of it is, we don't even have to define conspiracy theorist or evaluate truth or falsity, in order to determine that. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose As others have said we go with RS, we do not second guess RS, we assume that if they say something they have checked (it's why they are RS).Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You already voted over a month ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose But I did not. This is still going on?
  WP:SNOW... --Hob Gadling (talk
  ) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is why I voted again, I did not realize this was still the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay, how on earth is this still going on? We've had a lot of discussion and voting now, and I think it has become pretty clear that consesus is against any change. Can we close this already and move on? --LordPeterII (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)