Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conspiracy theory"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (reply) |
m (Text replacement - "demonisation " to "demonisation ") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{talk}} | ||
==Following Wikipedia== | ==Following Wikipedia== | ||
Although Wikipedia doesn't have one, a separate page for "[[Conspiracy theorist]]" might be worthwhile, since there are likely to be a lot of SMWDocs, and it would be tidy to have them separately displayed. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 05:06, 1 May 2014 (IST) | Although Wikipedia doesn't have one, a separate page for "[[Conspiracy theorist]]" might be worthwhile, since there are likely to be a lot of SMWDocs, and it would be tidy to have them separately displayed. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 05:06, 1 May 2014 (IST) | ||
| − | : I have an issue with the legitimacy of the term. For example I would personally object to being labelled as such. However I accept that it is used extensively in the {{ccm}} - but only as a pejorative since it has near-zero intrinsic meaning beyond demonisation and ridicule. I therefore feel that it would not be legitimate for ANYONE to be categorised as such '''BY''' Wikispooks. With all that as a caveat - maybe included as the lede, I accept that it may be useful to have such a page for the reasons you state. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:28, 1 May 2014 (IST) | + | : I have an issue with the legitimacy of the term. For example I would personally object to being labelled as such. However I accept that it is used extensively in the {{ccm}} - but only as a pejorative since it has near-zero intrinsic meaning beyond [[demonisation]] and ridicule. I therefore feel that it would not be legitimate for ANYONE to be categorised as such '''BY''' Wikispooks. With all that as a caveat - maybe included as the lede, I accept that it may be useful to have such a page for the reasons you state. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 07:28, 1 May 2014 (IST) |
| + | |||
| + | ==''Exposure'' section== | ||
| + | Good stuff [[Conspiracy theory#Exposure|here]] but very difficult to follow as currently presented. In dire need of reorganising and separating the PH comment from the Pyshnov quotes. Also more clearly delimiting Pyshnov's actual quotes. I'll have ago if I can find time would would prefer PH to do it --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 10:25, 26 February 2016 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Extensive revision [[Conspiracy theory#Exposure|done]].--[[User:Patrick Haseldine|Patrick Haseldine]] ([[User talk:Patrick Haseldine|talk]]) 14:37, 26 February 2016 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:01, 23 July 2021
Following Wikipedia
Although Wikipedia doesn't have one, a separate page for "Conspiracy theorist" might be worthwhile, since there are likely to be a lot of SMWDocs, and it would be tidy to have them separately displayed. Robin (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2014 (IST)
- I have an issue with the legitimacy of the term. For example I would personally object to being labelled as such. However I accept that it is used extensively in the commercially-controlled media - but only as a pejorative since it has near-zero intrinsic meaning beyond demonisation and ridicule. I therefore feel that it would not be legitimate for ANYONE to be categorised as such BY Wikispooks. With all that as a caveat - maybe included as the lede, I accept that it may be useful to have such a page for the reasons you state. --Peter P (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2014 (IST)
Exposure section
Good stuff here but very difficult to follow as currently presented. In dire need of reorganising and separating the PH comment from the Pyshnov quotes. Also more clearly delimiting Pyshnov's actual quotes. I'll have ago if I can find time would would prefer PH to do it --Peter P (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2016 (GMT)
- Extensive revision done.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2016 (GMT)
