P
PoitierSisters
Guest
Changing title of article: Reply
oitierSisters|PoitierSisters]] ([[User talkoitierSisters|talk]]) 08:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::::It seems the term βconspiracy theoristβ is thrown about on Wikipedia merely to suppress a line of thinking that isnβt convenient to a prevailing narrative.The point of this talk debate is to create a more neutral heading for this topic. [[UseroitierSisters|PoitierSisters]] ([[User talkoitierSisters|talk]]) 08:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::::The wording "conspiracy theory" has been established by the consensus of many editors here. It is not only neutral but accurate and correct. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::::The wording "conspiracy theory" has been established by the consensus of many editors here. It is not only neutral but accurate and correct. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::::::::I asked if Toland was a conspiracy theorist? Is he? If you were going to be neutral rather than loaded, you might more accurately call them "revisionist historians" rather than "conspiracy theorists". You know as well as anyone else that "conspiracy theory" is deliberately loaded. The intellectual laziness is off the charts on this particular matter. [[UseroitierSisters|PoitierSisters]] ([[User talkoitierSisters|talk]]) 17:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]== Evidence? ==[/td]
[td]== Evidence? ==[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 53: | Line 53: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]:::::::It seems the term βconspiracy theoristβ is thrown about on Wikipedia merely to suppress a line of thinking that isnβt convenient to a prevailing narrative.The point of this talk debate is to create a more neutral heading for this topic. [[UserRevision as of 17:13, 30 August 2025
[/td]oitierSisters|PoitierSisters]] ([[User talkoitierSisters|talk]]) 08:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]:::::::It seems the term βconspiracy theoristβ is thrown about on Wikipedia merely to suppress a line of thinking that isnβt convenient to a prevailing narrative.The point of this talk debate is to create a more neutral heading for this topic. [[User
oitierSisters|PoitierSisters]] ([[User talkoitierSisters|talk]]) 08:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::::::The wording "conspiracy theory" has been established by the consensus of many editors here. It is not only neutral but accurate and correct. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]:::::::The wording "conspiracy theory" has been established by the consensus of many editors here. It is not only neutral but accurate and correct. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td] [td]::::::::I asked if Toland was a conspiracy theorist? Is he? If you were going to be neutral rather than loaded, you might more accurately call them "revisionist historians" rather than "conspiracy theorists". You know as well as anyone else that "conspiracy theory" is deliberately loaded. The intellectual laziness is off the charts on this particular matter. [[User
oitierSisters|PoitierSisters]] ([[User talkoitierSisters|talk]]) 17:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td][/td][td][/td] [td]== Evidence? ==[/td]
[td]== Evidence? ==[/td]
Continue reading...
