Revision as of 15:16, 10 September 2018 edit Humanengr (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,848 edits m →Re ‘mistaken’ — offline discussion ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:16, 10 September 2018 edit undo Humanengr (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,848 edits m →Re ‘mistaken’ — offline discussion Next edit →
Line 802: Am you asking if I think he was wrong to define ‘conspiracy theory’ without saying they are definitionally false? [[User:Humanengr\|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr\|talk]]) 02:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC) :it's hard to figure out what you are trying to say? Try rephrasing it. [[User:Rjensen\|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen#top\|talk]]) 05:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC) ::[Preface:] I should have started this with acknowledging that the text you have "A "'conspiracy theory"' is a belief that a conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing a political event which the theorists strongly disapprove of." is a fair statement. I was only questioning the insertion of 'political' as the term 'conspiracy theory' is more general. But it's not a big deal. ::Re Uscinski: The other aspect, which is what troubled me on the [[conspiracy theory]] page was that the lede was changed some time ago to indicate that all conspiracies theories are 'unwarranted'. With the recent edits, that was softened somewhat to 'without credible evidence'. Does that make sense so far? [[User:Humanengr\|Humanengr]] ([[User talk:Humanengr\|talk]]) 15:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Rjensen