On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:41:48 -0700, Joe Szilagyi <joe(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG