Talk:SARS conspiracy theory
I know that it is very hard to avoid using the term "conspiracy theory" because its surface meaning - a hypothesis that a group of people have been making and executing plans in secret - does get to the point fairly neatly. However in practice the term is a pejorative one that is often successfully used to imply that the theory is poorly reasoned and unsupported by evidence, and that those who entertain such theories are simple-minded, malicious and/or unhinged. In other words the article heading "SARS conspiracy theory" is in itself a value judgement and could do with being replaced.
What it should be replaced with I don't honestly know. Although I find "SARS conspiracy theory" to be highly problematic, I have to admit that it is very very concise and I can't think of anything better. So for the moment I have just added "Conspiracy theory" to the internal links because that article covers the issues I am addressing here very well, I think.
Even though every major country in the world has accused the other of creating this virus, it has been pretty much proven that it crossed the xenographic barrier from civet cats to humans naturally. PETN 13:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
not that I doubt the truth of that statement, but i'd like to see a link to that study or conclusion. 18.104.22.168 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- , , , other links found by . Yes, article ought to cite supporting sources. I'm busy with other stuff at present but perhaps I'll come back later and take a whack at improving this article a bit, especially as regards WP:V. -- Boracay Bill 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not incorrect because the title of this article is "SARS conspiracy theory" and many conspiracy theorists believe this. No one is saying that this is the truth it is just a theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:11, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
- The article asserts: "... hinting that the Americans have the cure for SARS if they are in fact the creators of this disease. The United States government has officially denied that it has any relationship to the development and spread of the SARS virus.", but cites no sources hinting that the U.S. has a cure for SARS and cites no source supporting the claimed so-called official denial by the U.S. government. I have spent a little time looking for supporting sources without success. Unless someone supplies supporting sources for these assertions, I will probably remove them from the article in the next few days, along with another unsupported assertion: "Notably, an expert from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention of China, Hou Yunde, who initially denied that SARS could be man-made, later admitted in a SARS seminar held by the Chinese Ministry of Health in December 2003 that it was possible.". -- Boracay Bill 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "conspiracy theory" is a non-neutral way of describing something (not appropriate for an encyclopedia article's title))
I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page, thanks. zen master T 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)