Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda/Archive 4

< Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Contents

[edit]

Archives


[edit]

Archive1

April, 2005

[edit]

Archive2

April, 2005

[edit]

Archive3

April-May, 2005


[edit]

Requested move on 26 July 2005

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory – {As noted in this discussion and vote, the use of "conspiracy theory" in titles should be consistent; in the case of this page the phrase is certainly accurate} — csloat 05:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) The suggestion is to move it to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory:

Editors may wish to review the previous naming votes here and here, and also discussion on the article name here, here, here, and here.

This vote is now finished

[edit]

Yes

  1. --kizzle 05:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --csloat 05:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. -- JamesMLane 19:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia policy should be not to use the term "conspiracy theory" in article titles. Nevertheless, our actual policy is to use the term, so we should use it objectively. It would be blatant POV to have 9/11 conspiracy theories for allegations that U.S. officials were conspirators, yet not use the same term when those same officials are the ones alleging a conspiracy.
  5. Yes per JamesMLane. 172 | Talk 05:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Ditto, per JamesMLane. Shem(talk) 06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (deleted by MONGO, restored by csloat)
  7. Ditto per ditto --ClemMcGann 11:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Though I would prefer something like "Allegations of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida" -- Rama 11:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. --Heraclius 21:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Very reluctantly. I would like to see a better name, but I'm not sure what would be better. My vote would be for merging this with the other Iraq/al-Qaeda page, but alas, most people don't want that. I can be swung the other way if I see just one good argument. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    Actually I think there is a consensus to delete the other page and merge anything necessary in here. --csloat 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    Well, if that means including all of the post-2003 invasion al-Qaeda/Iraq links, than the whole thing should be moved to Iraq and al-Qaeda, or something like that. Vote moved to no on the "conspiracy theory" title. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC) If this were a matter of my opinion, I would be voting no. But this is not a matter of my opinion, it is a matter of policy that has already been determined, and therefore this vote, being unable to overturn that policy, is effectively meaningless.
    almost all of the users that left a comment when voting for the title "conspiracy theory" said "case by case basis". In fact, the majority of users said that the term should either: a) never be used or b) only used on a case by case basis (24 to 20, by my count). I suspect that even those that voted with unqualified support would not support the use of the term for the "theory" that 19 hijackers "conspired" to attack the U.S. on 9/11, so I think that your appeal to policy falls flat. Dave (talk) 20:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, someone already brought this point up to me on my talk page, and I already addresses it: I took the liberty of counting all of the "case by case", and found, as you did, that even after subtracting these votes from their respective -yes- or -no- polls, c) always be used, still had the plurality of votes (much to my dismay). As you can see, I voted for a) never be used, voicing the same arguments that many of those opposed to the move are using here, but those arguments failed to convince those voting "c) always use" or simultaneously by vote "c) always use" and by word "b) case-by-case", and ultimately "c) always use" won out over both my first choice, "a) never use", and my second choice, "b) case-by-case". Kevin Baastalk: new 21:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    And let me reiterate that I am defending a policy that I am very much against, and would therefore like very much to believe that my "appeal to policy falls flat". This is why I tried to establish a "case-by-case" vote. However, a more aggressive approach to establishing such a vote was not socially/politically tenable at the time, and in the final analysis we can only rely on what people have expressed, as it would be unjust to try to trump what has been said with personal speculations as to what they "might have", said, if this name change was brought up as a point of consistency, which it was. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Does that vote really have any weight as a "policy?" It doesn't have the policy template on it like WP:NPOV, or even a "guideline" template like WP:POINT. Dave (talk) 23:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    It's being enforced, regardless of any superficial dressings or lack thereof, and regardless of the judgements of those like you and me who do not support the decision. That is what matters. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Ruy Lopez 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

No

  1. ObsidianOrder 15:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Noel (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC) I would support a variety of new names, such as a number of the ones suggested by Zen-Master (a rare moment of agreement between us :-), but this one is just too combustible. Noel (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Klonimus 05:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. --MONGO 06:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC) Perhaps another name altogether, as mentioned below would be even better?
  5. gidonb 10:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC) The article deals with the alleged and the real ties of Saddam Hussein's regime with Al-Qaeda. It needs to be cleaned up from POV and get back to the non-facts and facts. The proposed name change only strengthens the POV.
  6. Dave (talk) 13:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC) I'm unimpressed with the argument that this is merely a "theory about a conspiracy." It's too widely believed to be called a "conspiracy theory."
    Wide belief does not make it less of a conspiracy theory, i.e. a theory that these entities conspired together.--csloat 18:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    I just said I didn't find that argument compelling. A conspiracy theory is not a theory about a conspiracy. Dave (talk) 18:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    Well then what is it, a theory about baseball? I'm not sure I understand your definition of conspiracy theory if it is something other than a theory that a conspiracy exists (or existed). --csloat 18:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    Calling something a conspiracy theory makes a statment about proponents of the theory, not the theory itself. As Phil Shearer noted below, the connotations are very different from "collaboration theory" or "theory about a conspiracy." Dave (talk) 19:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    That's certainly not denoted by the phrase though it may be a connotation that some believe. There are accurate conspiracy theories. For example, the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to attack the US on sept 11. A "conspiracy" is a concept in law that deals with collaboration to commit a crime. The connotations are a separate issue, but are you saying you would prefer an otherwise unweildy title like "Theory that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda Conspired to commit terrorist acts"?--csloat 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda seems to fit the bill, as does Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda collaboration theory. Dave (talk) 23:02, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yeah, I vote no on this one. "Conspiracy Theory" has its own connotation, and its own community of general believers, and they're pretty distinct from the folks who believe in this item. They'd probably get all insulted and start screwing around with the page and make a lot more work for everybody. Gzuckier 13:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Daniel11 14:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC) This isn't a political diary.
  9. WehrWolf 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC) The phrase "Conspiracy Theory" is by its nature essentially POV.
  10. nobs 16:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Historical evidence as of yet does not support partisan motivations
  11.  Grue  18:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Briangotts (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC).
  13. TDC 20:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC) What ever conspiracy theories may or may not exist can be dealt with in an article with a less loaded title. Let this be a warning to what’s wrong with voting consensus on Wiki with regards to inflammatory issues like this. TDC 20:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  14. A.D.H. (t&m) 23:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Voting is evil, but this is still a bad idea for a title. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  16. Too inflammatory and POV in this case. --TJive 04:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Perhaps another name but not "conspiracy theory" --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. Reluctantly. See my previous vote in "Yes". --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. --Silverback 07:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC) The facts would indicate more a collaboration on areas of overlapping interests than any conspiracy. Those alleging a conspiracy should document their views with facts.
  20. There are known connections between the two. Reporting those facts should be in an article named such as this. Reporting the theories of people who think saddam was involved in 9/11 and the like should be in an article named *-conspiracy theories. -bro 172.170.36.43 05:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    The only difference between collaboration and a conspiracy is that a conspiracy is collobaration towards the ends of criminal activity. look it up in a dictionary. Are you suggesting that terrorism is not a criminial activity? Kevin Baastalk: new 11:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    The proposed the title change includes the word theory and "collaboration theory" does not carry the same baggage of extra meaning that "conspiracy theory" does, in modern usage. Secondly the political and social implications of using collaboration and conspiracy are similar to using guerrilla and terrorist. Did Americans conspire or collaborate on the American Declaration of Independence? (no need to answer that one POV at a time is enough) Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    I will, anyways: Arguably, they conspired. They were conspiring to revolt against what at the time was their government. In a sense, it depends on your philosophy of law, and thomas jefferson was basing the declaration of independance on a radical new philosophy of law known as "natural law". at the time, this was not an established philosophy and certainly would not have passed any social test in anywhere but the fledgling nation. In any case, as I have stated, the question comes down to a question of a criminality. in certain cases the question of criminality itself becomes subjective. for example, as you alluded to, republicans and democrats might have different views on what constitutes a "criminal act". The question of what constitutes a "criminal act", is, as you point out, a political and social question. And in the case in question, terrorism: i ask whether anyone is disputing that terrorism is a criminal act, whether from a political or social perspective. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Too inflammatory and just plain wrong. The Clinton Administration held a working relationship existed between the two prior to 9/11. A fact that should be noted and sourced in this article. RonCram 13:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    That's not a fact, it's plain wrong. It contradicts known facts. Most likely that's misinformation you got from a right-wing propraganda source. Kevin Baastalk: new 15:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
    Even if true, all it would prove is that Clinton got that wrong too. As it is, it is inaccurate anyway. But I fail to understand why conspiracy theorists always claim "Clinton believed this too" as if that were meaningful. He didn't even know the definition of "is." --csloat 21:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    Conclusions by the Clinton Administration are just as valid as conclusions by the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence or US District Court Judge Harold Baer. To seek to deny the readers access to those conclusions just shows your partisan effort to control the flow of information. RonCram 20:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    You're being ridiculous - please assume good faith. I do not seek to "deny readers access" to these conclusions; I just question their relevance. All major figures from the Clinton Admin who posited an al Qaeda-Saddam link have since changed their minds. You have to realize that our understanding of al Qaeda was in a pretty primitive state before 9/11, because so few took them seriously, and the ones who did, perceived them through older models of analysis (the "state sponsored terrorism" thesis) that are not as relevant to a diffuse network like al-Qaeda. People cite the fact that Richard Clarke used to think there was a link as if it proves that the link must be true. Oddly, these are the same people who dispute Clarke's credibility now. It seems they're incapable of understanding that people can change their minds about something when confronted with new evidence about it. I'm also unclear why you say I want to refuse people access to the conclusions of Judge Baer. But don't pretend these opinions have the same weight as a bipartisan commission assigned with the specific mission to investigate these sorts of things, especially when their conclusions have the benefit of years of hindsight (as opposed to the opinions of some Clinton admin members back in 1998). Some Clinton officials -- e.g. Daniel Benjamin -- investigated the al Q link with the belief that they would have found links to Saddam, and were surprised when their research proved the opposite. I think it's silly to think that we should give greater weight to what these people said in the mid- to late-1990s than their conclusions after years of further research specifically focused on the issue. --csloat 23:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    Newspaper articles linking Saddam and Osama were published even before 9/11. The linkage was accepted as fact before it became a political football. Now you want to paint the numerous substantiated contacts between the two as a "conspiracy theory." The reason people dispute Clarke now is because he changed his view purely for political reasons. No new information came out to change his mind. No old information was impeached. I normally do assume good faith but your comments and those of Ryan have shown you want people to have some pertinent information but not all. I don't do that. You cannot pretend to have a NPOV when you are constantly trying to suppress information or denigrate it without cause. As for giving information weight, that is for the reader to do. An encyclopedia does not tell people how to think. RonCram 17:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    What can I say - you are flat out wrong about this. There is no evidence Clarke changed his mind for political reasons. He changed his mind on this topic well before 911 - probably in 1999 after Benjamin's Red Team study. Also it's not just Clarke, it is Benjamin, it is Scheuer, and most of the Clinton administration that dealt with terrorism. And every nonpartisan journalist that has investigated the issue has also reached this conclusion -- NYT, WP, AP, BG, CT have all published notable articles on it. And the only times nonpartisan investigations specifically addressed the issue -- Benjamin's study and the 911 Commission -- the conclusions were clear that no connections were found. Shadowy meetings do not a conspiracy make -- meetings took place in the mid-1990s that led nowhere. How can you say no new information came out between 1998 and 2005? I am not trying to suppress any information, and the only information I "denigrate" is based on evidence, which I present. I cannot believe you still cling to this conspiracy theory in the face of all the evidence, but that is your choice. And remember, Benjamin's study went in trying to prove that their was a connection but their conclusion was that the evidence did not support the claim. You whine that Clarke is politically motivated yet you want us to believe notorious hacks like Feith and Hayes. Get a grip! Look, if you have specific information that you think I have left out of the timeline then please add it. I will not and have not deleted legitimate and pertinent information. But if you post things that are known to be untrue, I will either delete them or add explanations. And yes it is the encyclopedia's job to give information proper weight. Not all information is equal. Should an encyclopedia refuse to evaluate the flat earth theory or the Holocaust denial theory?--csloat 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    There is no evidence Clarke changed his mind before 9/11. He didn't change his mind until after Bush rejected the Clarke supported doctrine of measured response. Remember Bush saying "I'm not going to fire a $2 million cruise missile at a $10 pup tent just to hit a camel in the ass!?" Clarke took that as a stinging rebuke to his advice. I do not cling to a "conspiracy theory" but a reasonable explanation of the facts. The same conclusions reached by a US District Judge, the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence and the Clinton Administration (prior to politics being involved). An encyclopedia does not need to "evaluate" the "flat earth theory" any more than it needs to "evaluate" Adolf Hitler. You certainly do not begin the article saying "Adolf Hitler was a bad man" or "Adolf Hitler believed in conspiracy theories." Refer to NPOV. An encyclopedia simples lists the facts good and bad and the readers gets to make up their own minds. RonCram 02:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    Are you kidding? There is no time "prior to politics being involved." And Clarke being ignored as chief of counterterrorism has nothing to do with his views on whether Saddam worked with OBL. Are you suggesting Clarke was lying, selling out his entire country (after working in public service for decades), just because he was pissed that Bush blew him off? I can't believe I'm even responding to this. Look - you're not just claiming "politics" here. For your hypothesis to be true, not just Clarke but also a number of people who worked in the Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan administrations would have to not just be "playing politics" but to be outright traitors, willing to sacrifice this country's ability to fight and win a war in order to achieve some nebulous, undefined political advantage. How the hell lying about Saddam and al Qaeda would help anyone politically is never explained. And what political advantage was gained by Clarke (a man who left politics), or others (like Benjamin, O'Neill, Kwiatkowski, and Scheuer, who were never in the public eye to begin with). You bring up the district court decision again -- this is not the conclusion of a district judge; there is simply a ruling on the books due to the other party never showing up to court. Yes it is true it is possible to sue Saddam and win, because he won't show up to defend himself; that does not prove truth and you know it. We had that argument on another page and you lost it there too. You bring up the SSCI -- <a href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf">here's the report</a>. Feel free to add its conclusions to the timeline. It's a Republican-dominated committee and certainly can be more credibly charged with "playing politics" than Richard Clarke. Additionally the committee was not charged with finding out whether a Saddam/AQ relationship existed, but rather with a different mission, and this question was a subset. But even so, read their conclusions on this topic, pp. 340-349. The committee concluded that the CIA's assessments that there was no operational cooperation between Saddam and AQ were reasonable. In other words, the SSCI concluded the exact opposite of what you believe they concluded. This is most likely because folks like Stephen Hayes have incorrectly quoted passages from the document out of context to support this claim. The report is critical of CIA activities in many instances but it does not present any evidence to question the lack of a Saddam-AQ conspiracy, and it concludes that the CIA made reasonable assessments of the evidence here. It even (p. 363) refutes your comment that there was no reason other than politics anyone changed their views after 9/11 -- it specifically says that after 911 there was pressure to be more accurate when reviewing the evidence. Finally -- I agree the encyclopedia should present the facts. I did not use Hitler being "bad" as the example -- I said holocaust revision. Which is an incorrect interpretation of the facts, that should be refuted or simply not taking seriously in such a work. I also mentioned the flat earth theory. The point is, if the evidence suggests something is true, that is what the encyc should report, not just give credence to any old crackpot theory just because some nut believes it. --csloat 04:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    Politics were not involved prior to 9/11. There was not two sides to the issue of the connection between Saddam and Osama. It was reported in the papers and accepted as fact by most everyone. Certain people had doubts mainly because of their religious differences but both are known to have worked with people who did not agree with them religiously. Heck, Osama did not even agree with the Taliban on religion. Your claim that SCCI did not find proof of "operational cooperation" is false. You know these conclusions because they were in my previous article you had deleted. Here they are again:
Conclusion 94. The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably and objectively assessed in Iraqi Support for Terrorism that the most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons. – Page 346
Conclusion 95. The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment on safehaven – that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control – was reasonable. - Page 347
Conclusion 96. The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise. - Page 347
Conclusion 97. The Central Intelligence Agency’s judgment that Saddam Hussein, if sufficiently desperate, might employ terrorists with a global reach – al-Qaida – to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable. No information has emerged thus far to suggest that Saddam did try to employ al-Qaida in conducting terrorist attacks. - Page 348
Conclusion 94 says Iraq trained al-Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons. Conclusion 95 says Saddam extended safehaven to al-Qaeda. It is pretty hard to read that and say there was no "cooperation" between the two. This was a bipartison committee. The Democrats had every right to issue a minority report if they felt the facts were not being presented fairly but these conclusions were not in doubt. I don't have time to argue the case decided by Judge Baer. But your attack on him is an attack on the American judicial system that allows trials in absentia. RonCram 06:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, Ron, read conclusion 96: "The Central Intelligence Agency’s assessment that to date there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective. No additional information has emerged to suggest otherwise." Many of the other conclusions are speculative (i.e. whether Saddam might use terrorism if attacked); the real question relevant to us is whether there was operational cooperation which the SSCI explicitly said the CIA was right about (i.e. there was none). And it's really exactly the kind of distortion that I am talking about that you exclude conclusion 93: "The CIA reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts b/t Iraq and AQ throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The stuff about chems and safe haven are specific points that have all been refuted (over and over again) and I am getting sick of repeating it. They are of course already in the timeline where they belong and dealt with in turn. What is really silly is people like you continuing to rely on the claim that al Qaeda operated in northern Iraq, meaning MEK and the Kurds, a place where Saddam could not operate, and on top of it MEK was (and still is!) supported by the US! In any case, if you have evidence of something not in the timeline, you are invited to put it there, as I have said over and over. But don't insist that the introduction dwell on your little conspiracy theories.

Now on to Judge Baer - you're whining that I'm attacking the judicial system. I am not. I am explaining how it works. There is nothing wrong with having trials in absentia. There is, however, something wrong with assuming that an assertion becomes true just because nobody shows up to court to refute it. It is one thing for Saddam to lose the court case; it is quite another to assume that since Saddam lost, he must have been connected to al Qaeda. We need real proof, not a big nelson "ha-ha, you didn't show up, therefore you lose" kind of argument.--csloat 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  1. No. Conspiracy theory suggests that there's nothing to back up the claim, which is false. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Conspiracy theory suggests that it is not reasonable and objective, which is true (read Conclusion 96). Also, notice that Conclusion 96 says that there's "no evidence" to back up the claim. So it appears that you've also been misinformed on that point. A lot of people have been seriously misinformed about this topic, and it seems that they've all been misinformed by the same source. Let's not promulgate that misinformation. Let's keep this article "reasonable and objective". Kevin Baastalk: new 00:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


"How the hell lying about Saddam and al Qaeda would help anyone politically is never explained." I'd like to point out that there's evidence to suggest Bush had gained politically by lying about Saddam and al Qaeda. There's also evidence to support that that CIA fucked up and by extension Bush fucked up by not having the CIA present better evidence. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on it is indisputable that the reason we went to Iraq was because of "a smoking gun, which could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" and it's also indisputable that we have found nothing. It's not, however, indisputable, that they aren't still hidden somewhere, or they got shipped to Syria or Iran. I don't personally believe this, but it's disputable. Anyway, the point was, it should be fairly clear how lying about Saddam and al Qaeda could help someone politically. It's unfortunate all this two-party nonsense has lead to anyone on either side lying (or even misleading, if not lying) to the public about such matters. This is why everyone should vote for the Socialist party, Nader, The Green Party, The Conservative Party or the Libretarians. BOYCOT the TWO MAJOR PARTIES! There's not a lot I would agree with the Conservative Party about, by my God, it's got to be better than all of this partisan bullshit. Vote for me, '08 Dawhitfield 01:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Other, titles should not use "and"

  1. -- We can come up with a better, more neutral title than the above two options. zen master T 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's most unfortunate that any attempt to rename it (again!) was not preceded by a discussion to find an alterntive name that might be a) suitable, and b) agreeable to most; I suspect a lot of your suggestions, while not as condemnatory as some might like, might have been acceptable to people who opposed the "conspiracy theory" name. Noel (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Noel. ObsidianOrder 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      ObsidianOrder, you supported the use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles, and when told that this would mean that this article would have to be renamed, you continued to support that position, without disputing the assertion that this article would have to be renamed. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
      "this would mean that this article would have to be renamed" - I fail to see why. I have always held that "conspiracy theory" should be used very selectively. You are taking the "always or never" position, not me. If you're claiming that I said something else, cite it. ObsidianOrder 21:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      You misconstrue me, I am claiming that you didn't say something. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Discussion moved from WP:RM

This proposed use would not be accurate or consistent with other uses. The current name is the result of extensive discussion and several votes, the last one of which was overwhelmingly in favor of the current title. ObsidianOrder 06:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:This should probably be moved to the Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda page, not here; the name is accurate and consistent with Wikipedia policy established at the above link (from my post). The current name change proposal is different from the one voted on at the link above (in ObsidianOrder's post). --csloat 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

What counts as consensus on a new name

Please see What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_majoritarian_democracy for the relevance of voting to consensus in Wikipedia policy. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

4 to 3 (as of 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC) - Zen-master's clearly not in favour of the proposed new name, although they aren't happy with the existing one either, something I can sympathize with) does not count as rough consensus on a new name, especially when the new name includes the inflammatory phrase "conspiracy theory". I have therefore moved it back. Noel (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need more input -- 7 votes is not enough to settle anything I don't think. It would be nice to have input from others in the wiki community who aren't as obsessed with this topic as the 7 of us. I also would like to see input from Kevin Bass who did the renaming originally as well as from the otehrs on the discussion about "conspiracy theory" pages in general. It appears Kevin was renaming the page in response to another vote on such names as a general category. Anyway I don't want to say this is settled after such a small sample voting; I'm not going to muck with the title again but I don;t think we can call the voting over. Isn't there a way to officially request that others take a look at the arguments here?--csloat 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, post it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. I agree that this is an insufficient number of votes. Thank you, it's very reasonable of you to say that. ObsidianOrder 05:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
OK I am in the process of posting it now. I just added the move tag at the top of this page.--csloat 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT I MUST HAVE ACCIDENTLY OVERRIDDEN OR DELETED A YES VOTE...I APOLOGIZE AS IT WAS ABSOLUTELY UNINTENTIONAL.--MONGO 07:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Further discussion on the requested move

I am personally ok with moving it, but i'm a bit tired of arguing on Wikipedia for a while so just going to drive-by vote. --kizzle 05:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Me too but the point of going to the requested page move route (someone provide the right link?) is to get other voices evaluating this question.--csloat 05:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is errant language from that start plus there is more than one way of interpreting who is conspiring which is additionally ambiguous (the iraqis or the neo-cons conspiring to set them up). Something along the lines of Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda controversy or Pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda controversy or Alleged links between Baathist Iraq and Al-Qaeda would be more neutral than any suggestion or title I've seen to date. zen master T 09:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I like Zen's suggestions here; I don't have a particular favourite, but all of them are fine, and an improvement on the current title. The suggested "conspiracy theory" title is just going to cause enormous controversy; it's easy to pick something non-imflammatory that still makes it plain that there was no significant tie. Noel (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing ambiguous about who is considered to be conspiring when "Saddam Hussein" and "al Qaeda" are part of the title. "Controversy" is not accurate, whether or not it is neutral. This is a theory that the two entities conspired. I am fine leaving the title as is though I think the other is more accurate. But please not "controversy"; it's too unweildy and ambiguous. Would you have a Holocaust Controversy page to have neutrality on the question of whether the holocaust occurred? A Moon Landing Controversy page for neutrality about whether we landed on the moon? Established facts are reported as such and conspiracy theories have such labels attached. Your suggestion of Alleged Links is good but why "Baathist Iraq" rather than "Saddam Hussein" who of course ran Baathist Iraq? Seems to obscure the issue. --csloat 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
None of the alleged links have Saddam meeting with Al-Qaeda directly, instead it was members and agents of the former Iraq government which is why the title should be more general to reflect this fact. Also, these arguably dubious links to Al-Qaeda were used as a justification for the invasion of an entire country, not just the removal of one dictator/leader so the title should be more general to reflect this fact (signify Iraq not just its former leader). Baathist Iraq is another way of saying pre 2003 invasion Iraq. Note the title of Celebritites with links to the U.S. Democratic party. The POV problem with the title centers entirely around the word "and" as it hints at a relationship or a conclusion. How about World governments with links to Al-Qaeda? (the U.S. and Rumsfield's 1980s handshake would of course be included) zen master T 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Zen's suggestions are not bad, I would support any of them except "alleged" which I feel also pre-judges the issue too much. "Controversy" is fine since the significane of the links is indeed controversial. "Alleged" is not, because the existence of (some) links is established beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this is not what we have to vote on right now. ObsidianOrder 06:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
How does "alleged" prejudge anything? The whole point of the word is the opposite. It states these are allegations. Stop pretending there is any evidence of links -- we've gone through the tedious task of researching and refuting (or at least contextualized) every last one of them. How can you say the existence of some links is established beyond reasonable doubt? That's hogwash. The only evidence of this is some shadowy meetings in the early 90s that everyone agrees led nowhere. When these points are brought up in discussion you selectively refute something and then ignore the rest, and you just keep pretending the matter has been settled in your favor. Why is it you are so attached to this conspiracy theory? I know we could argue forever and it won't change your mind, which is fine, but you can't lose the arguments here but then still insist that everyone pretend you're right anyway in order to maintain the illusion of "balance." Anyway I would support "alleged" in the title, or "conspiracy theory", or nothing -- though perhaps it is time for someone to seriously work on an article The CIA and al-Qaeda just for "balance." Sheesh. --csloat 07:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Judging from the source of the allegations OO posted, and the nature of his web site, I'd guess he'd actually support an article entitled The CIA and al-Qaeda, since after all, the CIA oppose the PNAC (Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and all the neo-cons), and anything that does not support the premise must be eliminated. I'd suggest an article titled 'The PNAC and al-Qaeda' to explore just how many curious overlaps between al-Qaeda and the individuals who hold our country in the fire of war while changing the reason we fight. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little torn here. If we want the article to be about the theory that Iraq had some role in the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, then the page should be moved. Why not just have this page as it is and talk about the "conspiracy theory", the evidence Bush did, or did not, produce, the role al-Qaeda has played since the invasion of Iraq, and any other percieved connections between the two. Is it really necessary to have an article about a conspiracy theory? Give facts, show evidence, and show all sides. Perhaps I'm way off-base here. Please feel free to reprimand me here. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps neither choice is optimal, but the current situation is that there are a few people who want to make this article into a "debunking" instead of a balanced presentation of the evidence as we know it (and I think it is pretty good at the moment). Calling it a "conspiracy theory" (which is pejorative) definitely plays to that, and that's the only reason for the proposed move. That's why I would ask you to vote against this move. By all means, let's think of a better title - but also let's not pick a title that would make keeping this as a reasonably balanced article really difficult. ObsidianOrder 15:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's not pejorative. It's a theory (with some evidence to support it) that two groups (Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda) conspired to attack the U.S. on occasions like 9/11. And hearing you (the original poster) call this article 'balanced', and decry other users' 'debunking' is completely laughable... the article now consists of attempts to contextualize and inform the one-sided intelligence allegations you pasted here without undergoing the effort yourself to fact-check them, and stepped back as others sorted out your propaganda.
Frankly, it's like someone who caused a traffic accident commenting on how happy he is that no one was hurt. You're entitled to your opinion, as always, but there comes a time when idle words simply don't reflect truth, and when the title of the article doesn't reflect the nature of the facts within. Like now. If this were not based on leaked classified info, it would be far easier to find and 'debunk' every untruth, until whatever is left is irrefutable. So we're left with disinformation and countering fact. Hardly encyclopedic. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan here. A "balanced presentation of the evidence as we know it" - which is what OO calls for - is in fact a "debunking", since the facts as we know them are that this conspiracy theory is bunk. We should not "balance" truths with lies or distortions, and it is simply false to say that this conspiracy theory has any evidence to support it. The contacts that these entities had over the years - like the contacts al Qaeda had with Germany or the CIA - have all been examined by intelligence analysts and journalists and everyone but a few ideologues have concluded that they could not have amounted to any kind of cooperation (and certainly not in the case of 911). The only people who still cling to this theory are like Stephen Hayes and Douglas Feith -- absolutely unwilling to give it up no matter how many times they turn out to be wrong. Anyway I am glad OO believes this is a balanced article because I agree - every single bogus claim of cooperation has been refuted, tedious chore that it is.... So we are left with no substantive links between pre-2003 Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Sadly, the US invasion, based partly on the kind of misinformation that some are trying to spread here, has now ensured that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists now roam freely throughout Iraq, where they were once persona non grata. And of course they now have access to weapons that the US invasion "liberated" at facilities like al-Qaaqa and possibly nuclear material from facilities such as the Baghdad nuclear facilities previously administered by the IAEA before the war. But the ideologues were too busy distracting us with disinformation about an Iraq-al-Qaeda conspiracy to bother to try to guard those facilities. Meanwhile things in Iraq have gotten bad enough that it's not even fun to say "I told you so" anymore.... --csloat 01:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Before you accuse me of being a Bushie, a right-wing nutjob, or a Nazi, let me say that I wasn't in favor of going into this war. That being said, I feel that you are trying to mislead people. You say that "things in Iraq have gotten bad enough that it's not even fun to say "I told you so" anymore." You cannot be totally serious, right? Why do people forget the good that has come out of this? Schools, roads, etc. For Pete's sake, the ability for women to vote, drive, and be free to do what they want!!!! That's amazing stuff. I am not even going to mention the Kurds, who I am sure don't mind having Saddam out of power. 2,000 soldiers dead is not good, but how many people did Saddam kill? I agree there should have been some other way of going about ousting Saddam, but none seemed to be working. I lost my train of thought now. Well anyway, just my thoughts. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? Roads and schools? You think they didn't exist in Iraq before the war? We're helping to rebuild some of what we destroyed, which is good, but that's hardly a benefit to the war. And you must be joking about women's rights -- or you are confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. Baathist Iraq under Saddam was a secular country. As Juan Cole writes, "Contrary to the propaganda Bush's team is so good at producing, the secular, Arab nationalist Baath Party had passed some of the more progressive laws and regulations about women in the Middle East. Iraqi women in the 1970s had unprecedented opportunities for education and entry into the professions." What's happening now is the US liberation has liberated some of the more reactionary fundamentalist forces who were otherwise kept in check by Saddam -- oppression of women by fundamentalists today makes the situation in Iraq far worse for women than under Saddam. Don't get me wrong -- I opposed that murderous thug Saddam since the mid-1980s when I first learned about him (and when Reagan was supporting him) -- but oppressing women's rights was not one of the things to hate about him. And I am glad he no longer rules Iraq -- it was an authoritarian state under Saddam, and there were many murders by the state. But let's not make things up in order to praise Iraq's liberators. We set loose a hornet's nest, and we are now dealing with the fallout, and one piece of fallout is women's rights.
Anyway I was just ranting -- none of this has any bearing on the encyclopedia entry -- but it makes me nuts to continually read propaganda stated as fact by people who are presumably being honest about what they think -- whether it has to do with womens rights in Iraq or whether it has to do with terrorism. My little rant above was about Iraq and terrorism -- to everyone who believes the war was somehow an attack on al Qaeda, look at the real situation in Iraq now and realize that it has made al Qaeda (and other extreme Islamist terrorist groups) far stronger than ever before. Bush says we fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in America (or London) -- well, he has ensured that we will be fighting them in both places for a long time to come. --csloat 16:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it must be AAAALLLLLLLL Bush's fault. Quit it! It is not the western world that causes terrorism. al-Qaeda is to blame (for this example, not all terrorism). It would be nice to see people quit blaming people for other people's actions. There must be some personal responsibility. And when you say "the secular, Arab nationalist Baath Party had passed some of the more progressive laws and regulations about women in the Middle East..." Wow, does that mean they don't stone them to death for venial crimes? Being a lesser evil does not stop you from being evil at all. Okay this discussion has moved way off topic, and I think we all should get back to the matter at hand. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Fact: There was no suicide terrorism in Iraq prior to the US invasion. NONE. There were no Iraqi suicide bombers. Not a single one. Now we have both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Muslims blowing themselves up. Secular baathists who used to get drunk and watch Western TV shows are becoming more fundamentalist and are blowing themselves up fighting for Allah. I didn't say al Qaeda was not to blame for terrorism; I said that the US invasion has dramatically increased terrorism and made al Qaeda stronger. I am not blaming someone else for what they do; I am blaming the Bush administration for a counterproductive strategy that has only made things worse. As for the position of women in Iraq: you are basically misinformed. Iraq was not some kind of 14th century throwback or Taliban type country. I was responding to your argument that the war had liberated women -- it is quite the opposite. I'm not saying things were great in Iraq before the war but I am saying conditions for women's rights have gotten worse -- they really are in danger of being stoned to death now; there have been several incidents of fundamentalists throwing acid on women's faces who don't wear the veil, for example - like they do in Afghanistan. This sort of thing did not happen under Saddam. I'm not playing the blame game here I am just insisting that we keep the facts straight. And in this case the facts seem to suggest that the invasion was entirely counterproductive, at least as far as fighting terrorism goes.
And you're right this is all offtopic but again I just can't watch people repeat propaganda without contesting it. --csloat 18:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Right, and what you're saying isn't propaganda. Nice work there. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Correct. Propaganda is systematically distorted communication. This is not. It is opinion based on facts. If you know of different facts please feel free to present them. Not all opinion is propaganda. --csloat 18:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Before I type the rest of this, let me say I agree with csloat on most of this and I'll also confess to being a Socialist, so I think that puts me left of left. Anyway, the definition of propaganda is:
  1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
  2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
curtesy of dictionary.com
No where does it mention "systematically distorted communication." However, I would argue that it bears that connotation too often. "Propaganda is bad." Please. *rolls eyes* "Systematically distorted communication" is bad, but that's not the definition of propaganda. I can't think of a piece of "propaganda" that SOMEONE wouldn't disagree with though, which in his/her eyes, would make it bad (The Bible, AIDS health info, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Dawhitfield 02:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not change the name while voting is still going on. Thank you. ObsidianOrder 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In comment on my vote of no change...just wanted to clarify that I would also be in favor of a complete title change. The arguments I am reading above in this discussion are both valid and represent the pro invasion/anti invasion of Iraq mindsets. I was always under the understanding that the invasion of Iraq was due to Saddam's obtuseness in complying with the weapons inspections and that the purpose to invade was due the the alleged WMD's he was accused of having. The Al-Queda links were just a small portion of their argument to substantiate the invasion. Nevertheless, I don't see that there the words "conspiracy theory" should be part of the title. Let the article be the place to discuss whether this is true or not.--MONGO 07:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


this has already been voted on to the affirmative here. (among those voting yes were ObsidianOrder) Kevin Baastalk: new 12:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, Kevin, this has not been voted on. That vote was about whether anything should be called a conspiracy theory, and I voted yes with some rather important qualifications which you neglect to mention. This vote is about whether this should be called a conspiracy theory. You may think it is, others may disagree. To assume that the general vote applies in this particular case is unwarranted, and to represent it as though it definitely applies with no further details is disingenuous at best. ObsidianOrder 15:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
You voted yes with some rather subjective qualifications - so subjective as to be completely meaningless - you pretty much said "yes, but only when it seems appropriate". and then you gave yourself a pat on the back for such precision! i read your qualifactions, and let me assure you that as long as you continue to speak that way, i, and everyone else in the world, will fully agree with every such qualification you make! however, such self-described "important" qualifications as you made with your vote do nothing in the way of determining what any given article's name should or should not be.
With regard to the discussion on "conspiracy theory", let me reproduce here a snippet:
Jayjg, others, including me, have a much simpler definition for "conspiracy", and therefore "theory of conspiracy", often written "conspiracy theory" for brevity: conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. a "conspiracy theory" is thus: a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Some people have supported the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in articles that do not fit either this definition of "conspiracy theory", or your more narrow definition thereof, elaborated above. That is why we are having this discussion. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:10, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Wonderful. Using this argument we can agree that pages that have the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title are appropriate when they discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Finally, a breakthrough!--Cberlet 21:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
There remains the problem that the phrase has acquired a social stigma that may inappropriately prejudice the article, and thereby make for a POV title, and that this stigma and prejudice should be avoided for the sake of accuracy and neutrality (and what one might call "political correctness"). That's a tricky issue. Certainly I agree that pages that do not discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act should not contain the phrase "conspiracy theory" in their title, but when it comes to logical bijection, we have to seriously consider whether we are genuinely willing to accept put the phrase "conspiracy theory" in the title for all article that discuss a theory of an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act, such as the Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda article, which does exactly that. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:47, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
With respect, I don't think it has anything to do with "political correctness." There's no sensitive constituency anyone is trying to avoid offending. It's just a matter of not prejudging article content. Building titles around a phrase most readers will strongly associate with the obsessions of insane and/or seriously unbalanced people will in fact cause the prejudging of article content. BrandonYusufToropov 21:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that those voting "yes" in the conspiracy theory vote, and who would, if it were a matter of their opinion, vote "no" in this vote in being consistent with their "yes" vote on the conspiracy theory vote, continuously set forth as their reason for voting as they did. However, noone on the other side took to this reasoning. many in fact, vehemently opposed the idea that "conspiracy theory" was a POV, prejudical, dimintive, or pejorative ("disparaging or belittling") term. Even after using the term in attempt to discredit. Here's an example:
No, I'm using real questions to try to understand what Zen-master is talking about. He keeps insinuating that anyone who disagrees with him is not using "facts" or "logic", but rather involved in various conspiracies or has unstated POVs and agendas, without actually directly stating what those are. Now you're doing the same; insisting that those who disagree with you are also not using facts or logic, but instead have "unspoken" or "hidden" agendas which they are advancing for "fear of retribution". Neither of you will state straight out what these agendas are. That's conspiracy theory talk, and it is becoming abundantly clear why both you and Zen-master are against the notion of conspiracy theories being described as conspiracy theories. Jayjg (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
You're being disingenuous, Jayjg. We all have a bias, as we are all human. However, we could work towards overcoming our bias by acknowledging it and keeping it in check. You are denying your bias, and thus not acknowledging it, and thus not keeping it in check. This further supports the hypothesis that you are influenced by it. I am not insisting that those who disagree with me are not using facts or logic. I have said that I didn't see any facts or logic in your questions. If I missed them, an effective response would be to point them out to me. But that is not relevant to your accusation, as you have not disagreed with any of the facts or logic that I have presented, and you therefore do not fit into the category of "people who disagree with [me]". I have already told you the logic, in the above post: that there is a standard that you use which attributes to the minority view theory of complicity between Al-Qaeda and informed members of the Executive sector of the Bush Administration, the characterization "conspiracy theory", while at the same time you do not attribute this characterization to the minority view (both within the CIA and the general public) theory of conspiracy between saddam hussein and al-qaeda. you have not stated what this standard is. I and zen-master are for the notion of conspiracy theories being described as conspiracy theories. It is "abunduntly clear" that you are not, but instead apply a different standard, which you are mysteriously reticent about. As I have stated, and you either misread or intentionally distorted, reticence is almost always a result of fear of retribution, and this further supports the hypothesis. Kevin Baastalk: new 22:18, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
Re: Your comment, "That's conspiracy theory talk," above. You do realize you're using the term as a pejorative, don't you? Doesn't that possible use of the term say something about its appropriateness in a (supposedly) NPOV article title? BrandonYusufToropov 21:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm using the term as a factual description of an observable phenomenon. Do you disagree with my assessment? Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
No. I'm saying the phenomenon you would be perfectly entitled to regard as factual would also be perceived by the people you're attacking, and by a fair-minded observer, as belittling or disparaging. I'm saying it is therefore a pejorative, and inappropriate for use in an article title. BrandonYusufToropov 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
pe·jor·a·tive Pronunciation Key (p-jôr-tv, -jr-, pj-rtv, pj-)
adj.
1. Tending to make or become worse.
2. Disparaging; belittling.
A disparaging or belittling word or expression.
I'm attacking someone? I rather see it as the other way around. Anyway, let's not dance around, since on other talk pages you claimed to dislike that; do you view yourself as a "fair-minded observer", and do you see what I've described as "conspiracy theory talk" as, indeed, "conspiracy theory talk"? Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Look, my point is that it's clearly an emotionally weighted term, as demonstrated by your own choice to use it as an insult. Unless of course you mean to suggest you were actually flattering them when you dismissed their positions by saying "That's conspiracy theory talk." I'm not going to get caught up in a discussion of whether or not what you said was factual. That's your issue. You were trying to put them down, and used these very words to do it. What does that say about the nature of the term? BrandonYusufToropov 01:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, the people's views on the matter are pretty firm. I expect that noone on wikipedia is the type of person who would change such firm views when it suddenly becomes convenient, and cite the reasons that they earlier decried with vehemence.
And noone who voted for the usage of "conspiracy theory" was unaware of the logical consequences of their vote, as JamesMLane clearly stated:
Rename -- but, since it seems that this alternative is losing, the next-best thing for NPOV purposes is to be consistent, and to rename other articles by including the pejorative term. One obvious example, mentioned in this debate over the use of "conspiracy", is Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Otherwise, we appear to be headed for a situation in which, for example, we'll report on allegations that the Bush administration engaged in secret activities of this type, but we'll discredit those allegations by calling them "conspiracy theories". When the allegations are made by the Bush administration rather than against it, however, the term will suddenly disappear. I trust that the editors calling for case-by-case decisionmaking don't intend to endorse such bias. JamesMLane 07:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
All those involved in the discussion held their peace when it was pointed out to them that the policy they were proposing meant that "saddam hussien and al-qaeda" must be moved to "saddam hussien and al-qaeda conspiracy theory", and I trust that they will continue to, as well as I trust, as James does, that they won't endorse said bias. But might I say, this trust is wearing thin. Kevin Baastalk: new 19:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Obtuse votes

I'm perplexed by the people (who're ditto-ing JamesMLane) who are casting votes in favor while saying they are actually opposed to the use of "conspiracy theory". Explain this to me, please? Sounds like a pretty bad case of WP:POINT. Perhaps it's based on a misreading of the policy that they are protesting? As is amply obvious from the discussion leading up to that quasi-policy, the use of the term was meant to be very selective. ObsidianOrder 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The selectivity is precisely the problem. The term is being used as a way of discrediting views advanced by some Bush opponents while bolstering views advanced by some Bush supporters. You want to use it selectively so that "conspiracy theory" becomes a shorthand way of saying, "The POV described in this article is wrong." That would violate the NPOV policy. To remain consistent with NPOV, we can fix this in one of two ways: We could omit "conspiracy theory" from all article titles, or we could use it in all article titles to which it applies by an objective, neutral definition. I believe that never using it would be better than using it neutrally, but using it neutrally is better than using it unfairly. I'm not disrupting Wikipedia by voting according to my preference for the second option over the third. JamesMLane 21:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand why you may not like it, but selectivity was specifically stated as a condition by about half of the votes in favor here, and by almost all of the votes in favor that provided any reasoning. Insofar as there is a policy, it is to be selective. You're protesting that policy by voting against what you really think should be the title. I understand, but that is a WP:POINT. Also, to compare this to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is preposterous, much of the material in here comes from or is confirmed in the 9/11 commission report which is about as authoritative as it gets. ObsidianOrder 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
OO your comments beg the question. Being selective is fine if there are NPOV and consistent standards for selectivity. Here the only standard seems to be that conspiracy theories that are rejected by the current US Administration can be called "conspiracy theories" whereas those that are accepted by the Bushevics cannot be. That is a terrible NPOV problem. If the phrase is going to be used it should be used consistently and not pejoratively. I have advocated its use in terms of the literal definition of the phrase rather than its pejorative connotations. A more NPOV title might be "Theory that Saddam and Al-Qaeda Conspired on Terrorism" perhaps -- it keeps the literal meaning there without the pejorative connotations that you and your fellow conspiracy theorists seem so afraid of. Personally I don't understand the fuss either way but it's like arguing with someone who believes Bush was behind 9-11 -- every piece of evidence that is used to respond to the theory is either ignored or minimized, or even paradoxically used to support the theory. In that sense I think even the pejorative notion applies. The problem with conspiracy theories is not that they are wrong but rather that they are circular and non-falsifiable. In that sense this is a classic case of one. (Your comment that such comparison is "preposterous" is a great example of this. The 911 Commission -- as you well know, since I know you have read it pretty closely -- concluded that none of these incidents amounted to a case for cooperation. One could easily make a case that Bush knocked out the towers by picking and choosing pieces of evidence from the same report -- the report notes a lot of the inconsistencies in the dominant story of what happened the day of 911 that many conspiracy theorists make a big deal out of. The conclusions of course were that these inconsistencies really were no big deal. Same as the Saddam-alQaeda stuff. The idea that citing the 911 report makes a statement "authoritative" is silly, when you allow distortion and cherry picking of the information from the report to make claims so obviously at odds with the conclusion of the report. It's an exact parallel to what the 911 conspiracy theorists do with the report.) --csloat 22:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Please note from my comment above my understanding of the current application of selectivity:
You want to use it selectively so that "conspiracy theory" becomes a shorthand way of saying, "The POV discussed in this article is wrong."
In the case at hand, the POV discussed in the article is wrong. That's my opinion, based on the weight of the evidence. Therefore, Bush's phony charges of secret collaboration and plotting, charges intended to further his political goals, were conspiracy theories. (I won't vote for titling an article something like "Colonial secession conspiracy theories" because Washington, Jefferson, et al. really did conspire to take some British colonies out from under the Crown. I'm persuaded by the evidence on that point but not on this one.) The only "disruption" here is that you want the selectivity to be applied solely to tout your POV, and I'm disrupting that plan by adhering to my POV. Anyway, judging from current state of the vote, it looks like you'll get your wish. JamesMLane 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason the votes are, in the words used "obtuse", is because some people here put principle above convenience. This sometimes compels them to enforce an established policy even when it goes against their opinion. The reason they do this is because to allow immediate convenience to dictate far-reaching decisions and thereby create contradictions is to break down that voluntary system which enables a body of people to work together constructively, and is therefore more inconvenient in the long run than any and all minor and personal inconveniences otherwise suffered in maintenance of principle. Kevin Baastalk: new 03:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

ObsidianOrder, you haven't elaborated on your view of the selectivity that should be applied:

  • Do you believe that "conspircy theory" should mean only a theory that's false, and that Wikipedia should set aside NPOV long enough to pronounce that certain theories about 9/11 are false, while pronouncing that certain theories about Saddam and al-Qaeda are true?
  • Or do you believe that "conspiracy theory" should mean only a theory that's propounded by evil or psychotic people, and that Wikipedia should set aside NPOV long enough to pronounce that people making accusations against Bush are evil or psychotic, while pronouncing that Bush and his flunkies are good and wise and noble?

My point is that it's not enough to say that "the use of the term was meant to be very selective." We can't really get anywhere unless you elaborate on what kind of selectivity you have in mind. It might well be that quite a few of the people voting to keep the "9/11 conspiracy theories" title have something different in mind. JamesMLane 00:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

James - that is a reasonable question. I haven't thought about it enough to answer that in any kind of precise way but I can give you a rough answer. "Conspiracy theory" is, in common usage, strongly pejorative (yes, I know that isn't part of the dictionary definition). Using it essentially implies that the idea in question is crazy and unfounded and bears no relation to reality, and by extension that most proponents are clinical paranoids. Perhaps that is not a really encyclopedic way of describing anything. Nonetheless, there are ideas which are crazy and unfounded. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Holocaust denial and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations are, I hope we can all agree, crazy and unfounded? I think that to refuse to describe these as they are in the interest of NPOV is ludicrous, and also not neutral in itself. Other cases are not so easy (to pick one at random, OPV AIDS hypothesis). What I was essentially proposing is that if the term is used, it should only be used in cases when it is the right term beyond a shadow of a doubt. Regarding your two proposed alternatives: yes, both, essentially ;) Some theories are provably false (at least insofar as anything is) and Wikipedia can say so. Some theories are held by people who certainly appear psychotic (oh, David Icke). On the other hand there are plenty of theories which are merely controversial, and/or not yet proven or disproven.
This particular article is not about a "theory" (in particular, I assume you mean a Saddam-9/11 collaboration theory?). It details the known and alleged links together with what I think is a decent assesment of the reliability of each. If it made the claim that Saddam is the primary mover behind 9/11, that would be a conspiracy theory, since there is simply not enough evidence to make such a claim with any level of confidence. It doesn't do that. Instead it describes well-known facts such as "Farouk Hijazi met OBL in Sudan in 1994", and also notable claims of other contacts (for example as made by Czech and Italian intelligence) which may or may not be accurate. Whether that adds up to anything is up to the reader. ObsidianOrder 11:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a nitpick here. "Conspiracy theory" has pejorative connotations, but not all conspiracies are false. And it does not signify insanity -- yes the theories you mention are unfounded, but one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theory is that the theorist is meticulous about logic and reason. Their logic is twisted perhaps but it is usually elaborate and delicately articulated. I do not find conspiracy theorists "crazy" in any literal sense or "irrational" even though they reach conclusions that are fundamentally false.
Second - Your distinction between "Saddam was behind 911" and "Saddam collaborated with Al-Qaeda" is not precise at all. At what level do the claimed meetings add up to a "conspiracy"? What if the theory is that Saddam and OBL are equal partners -- is it a conspiracy then? And what is the point of listing all these things at all if it isn't to try to substantiate that Saddam and AQ did in fact conspire on something? The idea that "there were contacts" may be true in a literal sense, but it is no more meaningful than contacts with any other entity, like Iran, Israel, Pakistan, or John Ashcroft for example. Obviously these are listed (and they were part of the Admin's lead up to war) because they are meant to suggest something more than "contacts"; in fact, they are meant to corroborate a theory that Saddam and AQ conspired together. At what point do the claims add up to a conspiracy theory?
To look at specifics for a minute - claims by Czech and Italian intel have been pretty well refuted; there really isn't even any evidence that anyone in Czechoslovakia still believes that Atta met Al-Ani, for example; this claim is trotted out over and over again by people I believe to be conspiracy theorists the same way the JFK theorists bring out their limited ballistics knowledge. The Prague claim is based on a single unreliable eyewitness and is not backed up by anything hard (travel records, for example), and it has been shown that Czech intel were already confused about another Atta in an earlier trip. On top of it, we have al-Ani in custody. At that level, the evidence has mounted so high that the claim is false that it becomes hard not to be pejorative about those who still cling to it. I'm not saying this to be insulting; I am just trying to probe the question, at what point does it become a conspiracy theory? When a certain percentage of people consider it false? Does widespread belief make a conspiracy theory become something else? Does a lack of evidence make a theory into a conspiracy theory? How do we measure lack of evidence?
All these questions point to the problem in having separate rules for conspiracy theories you don't like and conspiracy theories you happen to believe. --csloat 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with csloat about the inherent subjectivity. You can't draw a distinction on the basis that this article "describes well-known facts", such as particular meetings, and leaves the conclusion up to the reader. The same is true of 9/11 conspiracy theories. For example, it's a well-known fact that, after receiving word of the second WTC impact, which made it clear that a deliberate attack was under way, Bush remained in the Florida classroom for several minutes, and remained at the school for several minutes after that. That he would be at the school that morning had been widely publicized. An attack using hijacked airplanes might include another hijacked plane heading for the school to try to crash into it and kill Bush. If government officials had no foreknowledge of the attack, they could have dealt with this possibility by immediately getting Bush away from his scheduled location. They didn't do so. Whether this adds up to proof that they had foreknowledge of the attack can be left to the reader, but there's no dispute about the underlying facts upon which the "conspiracy theorists" rely.
Nor can you draw an objective distinction about theories that "are held by people who certainly appear psychotic". It's my understanding that large numbers of people, perhaps millions just in the Middle East, believe in "conspircy theories" about 9/11. Are they all psychotic? They may be wrong on this particular point but I don't see any basis for imputing psychosis to people who hold that opinion. (I don't think Bush is a psychotic, either, but I'd find that argument more plausible than a contention of mass psychosis about 9/11.)
So, I'm left with the conclusion that using the loaded term "conspiracy theories" for one of these articles about the cause of 9/11, but not the other, is simply an exercise in POV. Allegations against the Bush administration are dismissed with an article title that implies they're not merely wrong, but completely baseless (not grounded in any facts), and advanced by psychotics. Comparable allegations by the Bush administration aren't given that treatment. JamesMLane 18:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Thanks Jnc

Thanks for archiving and putting the contents links up - obviously this discussion is ongoing and it's useful to have links to the topics rather than having to rehash them over and over.... --csloat 22:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

conspiracy theory

for people who keep moving this page against the consensus, see Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. User:Kevin baas 11:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, to simply assume that the vote you mention applies in this case is ridiculous, especially after a brief read of the comments there. It's you who are moving this page against the consensus - the earlier vote here was 6:2 in favor of the current title. But hey, let's have another vote, why not - I think this would be the third or fourth title vote - precipitated by you moving the page multiple times without any prior discussion. That's very disruptive behaviour. ObsidianOrder 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, there's actually a very interesting paradox inherent in the use of the term "conspiracy theory" to refer to any claims that people in the Bush administration might have made or implied about connections between SH and AQ. One of the hallmarks of the classic conspiracy theory is that the proponents of it deeply believe in it. So, in calling any such claims by members of the BA a "conspiracy theory", those so naming it are inherently stating that those BA members really believed their claims. Which would seem to me to be directly in contradiction with another classic claim of those who oppose Bush, to wit, that BA people knew the whole thing was bogus, and deliberately lied/misled people about it, in order to drum up support for the invasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways: either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic "conspiracy theory". Noel (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
To "conspire" is to work together (literally, to breathe together). A conspiracy occurs when different people or forces join together to do something. This page is about a theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda. I don't know whether or not the Bushevics belived this junk but my sense is that some of them - the neocons - actually did. Whether or not they did though they certainly manipulated the public to the point where many believe it. Either way though to me it is a classic conspiracy theory (confirmed by the fact that such believers are impervious to logic or facts that dispute their claims - witness much of the discussion on the other page that someone made (I forget the title right now but it is discussed above) or even some of the comments on this page.--csloat 18:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
"either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic "conspiracy theory". (User:Jnc|Noel) -- wah? tom delay loves calling democrats "conspiracy theorists" whenever they state verifiable facts that are not conveninent for republicans. Now certainly these so-called "conspiracy theorists" believed what they're saying. cerainly radicals who think "the democrats are conspiring against bush" and the like believe what they're saying, and that is exactly why their theories are "conspiracy theories". if they didn't believe what they were saying, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would simply be agitprop. (agitation and propaganda) Now if you think it should rather be called agitprop, well that's much stronger and than "conspiracy theory" - it's a very serious allegation, and I don't think anyone in this discussion is prepared to take the position that that would comply with the NPOV policy. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

If there is such an article, I think it should be combined with this one. gidonb 12:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)