Hi,
There's a dispute going on that relates to the defamation discussion that is ongoing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.2...
Specifically, the question is whether labeling someone a conspiracy theorist is pejorative and a violation of policy, and if it's sourced--if he is considered one--whether it should be in the article lead. I agree with this: "It should not be WP editorial position to characterize anyone in such a pejorative term (no matter how accurate), but presenting outside characterization is OK."
But other editors are strongly disagreeing on this article and related ones, and I would like some clarification, especially as the subjects of these articles are known to read these articles.
Sorry, this sent out by mistake--my original mail was moderated as my first post and got caught, from yesterday.
Regards, Joe
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
Hi,
There's a dispute going on that relates to the defamation discussion that is ongoing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.2...
Specifically, the question is whether labeling someone a conspiracy theorist is pejorative and a violation of policy, and if it's sourced--if he is considered one--whether it should be in the article lead. I agree with this: "It should not be WP editorial position to characterize anyone in such a pejorative term (no matter how accurate), but presenting outside characterization is OK."
But other editors are strongly disagreeing on this article and related ones, and I would like some clarification, especially as the subjects of these articles are known to read these articles.
On 22/08/06, Joe Szilagyi joe@rootology.com wrote:
There's a dispute going on that relates to the defamation discussion that is ongoing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.2... Specifically, the question is whether labeling someone a conspiracy theorist is pejorative and a violation of policy, and if it's sourced--if he is considered one--whether it should be in the article lead. I agree with this: "It should not be WP editorial position to characterize anyone in such a pejorative term (no matter how accurate), but presenting outside characterization is OK."
I'd say presenting *notable* outside characterisation is OK, if you're sure it's notable. I think even strong supporters of [[David Icke]] would have a hard time seriously arguing the point, for example.
- d.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:41:48 -0700, Joe Szilagyi joe@rootology.com wrote:
Specifically, the question is whether labeling someone a conspiracy theorist is pejorative and a violation of policy
If someone is verifiably identified as a conspiracy theorist by reliable sources then of course we can say the same, with attribution as necessary. If the balance of informed opinion is that is what he is, then attribution becomes unnecessary and we simply identify him as a conspiracy theorist, with citations to back it up. If the conspiracy theories are a major part of the subject's notability - for example, some members of "scholars for 9/11 truth" - then I see no reason why it should not go in the lead.
That is not to judge any one individual case, but NPOV does not mean *uncritical* POV.
I wrote the above before I checked the individual article under discussion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones - guess what? He's from scholars for 9/11 truth. To call him a conspiracy theorist is not in the least unreasonable, and to do so in the lead is fair, given that physics professors from Brigham Young University are not generally considered notable simply for being professors of physics at Mormon U - his principal claim to fame is propounding absurd and implausible theories about the WTC.
And hot damn if there isn't a cold fusion connection! A friend of mine worked in Fleischmann's lab in the late 80s.
Anyway, this guy is right up there on the grassy knoll with the "magic bullet" crowd.
Guy (JzG)