Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Vatican conspiracy theories

There are a large numer of conspiracy theories which focus on the Vatican, they should maybe be put into a special category or article. ADM (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama a Kenyan

I was going to add Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to the examples, but noted the caution comment. Seems includable to me, especially since it turns up blue. PhGustaf (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems includable to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Northwords

Listing Operation Northwoods as a conspiracy theory is bias and unfounded by the very definition of Conspiracy Theory that this article gives. If a conspiracy theory is a theory involving a "coordinated group" which "is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities" then Operation Northwoods does not fit the criteria. First of all, the CIA does not try to keep its self hidden or secret. It is a known agency and the plans of Operation Northwoods are no more a Conspiracy Theory just because they where kept secret then any of its other actions that the CIA plans or performs on a daily basses that are all kept secret from the general public. Secondly, Operation Northwoods was not a conspiracy within the CIA either. Not one CIA member kept it a secret from anyone who should have known about it. It other words the protocols and the chain of command for this plan was followed precisely as they should have been. And because of that fact, it was shot down, the architect of the plan was fired, the plan never took action and it was well documented which is why we know of the plan under the Freedom of Information Act. This is the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory. Bryanpeterson (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What is a conspiracy theory?

I think that we need to define what the term "conspiracy theory" actually means. Does conspiracy theory refer to simply the act of 2 or more people working together to do something illegal or wrong? If so, there are millions of such conspiracies. Two guys rob a liqueur store. There, that's a conspiracy.

Or does conspiracy theory refer to secret and elaborate plots to explain important political events or economic and social trends and contradict mainstream or official accounts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a government conspiracy

I believe that the obscure and indirect wording of this article is due to government intervention. They do not want anyone to learn the definition of a 'conspiracy theory' lest more people should read into conspiracy theories themselves. Beware. -- --Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.35.103 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ockham's razor

There have been a sequence of two reverts involving the applicability of Ockham's (or Occam's, if you prefer) razor to social sciences. I don't understand Wowest's claim that the razor does not apply to social sciences, so I thought we could discuss it here.

My view on Ockham's razor is simple enough: given two theories that fit the observed data equally well, we should prefer the simpler theory. Now, it is clear to me that simplicity does not guarantee correctness, so there is always the possibility that the more complex theory is correct. But if two theories produce the same predictions, then it is useful to prefer the simpler theory just because it is simpler. That is, Ockham's razor is a useful heuristic in sciences just because simplicity is valuable in science (and not because simplicity is any guarantee of truth).

On this view, I must disagree with Wowest: simplicity is useful whether the subject is social or physical sciences. Note, however, that on my view, the passage that says "alternative [more complicated] views may be correct" is certainly true, but the alternative views we're discussing do produce different, testable predictions. For instance, they require that persons are capable of wide-ranging conspiracies of the sort that seem difficult to hide.

But I digress. My point is simply that removing text because "Ockham's razor does not apply to the social sciences" is unsupportable. In the social sciences, simplicity is a valuable feature, but in no science is simplicity more highly valued than ability to explain the observations. Phiwum (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The point with Ockham's Razor is that it gives a method of establishing which explanations are the 'best'. Leaning too much towards that view, however, could underestimate uncertainty such as black swan events. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blatant bias

People keep adding things like:

"Calling such a supposition of wrongdoing a conspiracy theory, even when evidence is overwhelming to the realitity of such, is a convenient way for some to disregard such notions."

"Although some conspiracies are not actually theories, they are often labeled as such by the general populous. "

"The phrase is also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray a person or group's views as being untrue or outlandish. "

Come on anyone can see the blatant bias in support of conspiracy theories in these statements. These sound just like the comments that 9/11 "truthers" and holocaust deniers make. By making these comments you might as well say "everyone thinks we're wrong but we're right and when we tell the truth that the mainstream media doesnt want you to know we get mocked :( " —Preceding unsigned comment added by E3323 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

Edits over the last couple of months have removed a lot of content, with no discussion on the talk page. On the whole, the article seems a lot less satisfactory now than it did then. The lead is an obvious example, but content-removing changes are pervasive. I suggest reverting to an earlier version and working out which recent changes are worthwhile.JQ (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As a first step, I've restored the terminology section which was deleted by a vandal, who added some silly stuff. That was removed, but the deleted section was not restored. With that fixed, it ought to be possible to work from the current version. JQ (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Relation to corruption (for instance political corruption)

I added the following:

As political corruption usually takes the form of conspiracies, rejecting all conspiracy theories as false is in reality a claim that no covert political corruption exists. However, the Corruption Perceptions Index shows that political corruption exists in all countries.

It was removed, however. The term "conspiracy theory", however, acutely needs to be defined more precisely, to show its relationship to "claim of corruption", political or otherwise. As corruption typically take place as conspiracies against the public, I don't quite see how the two could be separated.

Moreover, I think the treatment of conspiratism takes up far too much space. The main focus of the article should be conspiracies, not conspiratism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as the article stands right now, it seems to have a major bias towards the view that all claims of fraud and corruption are false. Eva Joly wouldn't agree. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism so it is being written from a rational skeptical perspective. I suggest you read the There Are No Conspiracies section of this talk page to get the bigger picture. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

On reading it again, the article seems to be better balanced than I first thought. The "There are no conspiracies" section also has some good points. Still, it doesn't discount the fact that political corruption happens covertly, through a mechanism that falls within the usual definition of "conspiracy". The Corruption index article states that corruption is "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain". As corruption usually is illegal or not particularly popular, it of course usually happens through covert actions. Lack of corruption is in some literature cited as the single most important factor in a state's ability to maintain a strong economy and a well-functioning social fabric, so dismissing corruption as irrelevant simply isn't a good idea. Whether or not suggesting (without "proper" evidence) that "X, Y and Z are corrupt" reduces corruption or just increases the lack of trust between people, is another issue. My view is still that 1) the "conspiracism" section is too large compared to the rest, and 2) We have too little and too scattered material about the relation between corruption and conspiracies, in addition to the line presently in the article; "The phrase is also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray a person or group's views as being untrue or outlandish". One can claim that any speculation about negative events is paranoid, but we'll have to take into account that such speculation is a necessary first step towards uncovering corruption: A hypothesis is the ubiquitous first step towards new knowledge. The "conspiracy theory" concept as used here seems to focus purely on ridiculous hypotheses, but it's really, really tough to tell objectively (or prove) which are riduculous and which aren't, and thus which conspiracy theories should be included in the article. 3) As our NPOV forbids us to call something ridiculous or false without evidence, we must be clear that the article doesn't take a stand on the theories when we describe how the term is used. I'd welcome a discussion over this :)Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy and Conspiracy theory are two different things. You are talking about conspiracy while we are talking about conspiracy theory... --Loremaster (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'll add that vital piece of info. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a conspiracy to keep conspiracies out of wiki

I say yes!141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a discussion forum, so please keep talk pages on topic (i.e. discussion of improvements to this article). Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory

We need to expand the comparison between conspiracy vs. conspiracy theory, as the "conspiracy" in "conspiracy theory" deals only with a small fraction of the concept of conspiracy.

I couldn't agree more. That's been a consistent issue with this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the "theory" part also seems to cover only a fraction of the concept of "theory", and this should be discussed more thoroughly. "Conspiracy theory" seems to mean, in normal usage, something like "speculation about the existence of an implausible conspiracy", but that's OR. If this is the case, however, indiscriminately including examples of "conspiracy theories" in the article implicitly means stating a POV, namely which conspiracies are implausible, and which theories are merely speculation.

In order to avoid this POV, we will need to discuss why the examples given are considered implausible and speculative, and criticism of this. It's a big task which demands quite a bit of work, but conspiracy theories are actually a big subject that needs to be treated delicately to secure a NPOV. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Subculture of Conspiracy Bloggers

Do you think it would be a good idea to place a new section under External Links for blogs devoted to topics of conspiracies? Or even discuss conspiracies as a niche for bloggers. I ask this because I have a blog with a growing number of readers (I've been plugged on Coast to Coast AM once and that certainly helped!) and there is sort of an underground culture in the blog world of us conspiracy bloggers. Anyone else interested in adding a little section to the main article or in the links section? Momochan86 (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)momochan86

In general, we try to avoid blogs and the External Links section is supposed to be small. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Projection

This projection, according to the argument, is manifested in the form of attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the conspirators.

The quote that follows is not about projection, but about emulation. 68.239.78.86 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

whats really going on?

answers please.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.164.232 (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aren't about conspiracies and nobody wants that in the article. That's what's going on. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article, can you be more precise with your question? --Loremaster (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is a "dissident"????

This is what is written here... As far as I konw USA are not yet a totalitarian state were criticizing the government amounts to be "dissident". Am I wrong about it?--pokipsy76 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A dissident is simply someone who disagrees with an established belief. Totalitarianism has no direct relevance. <eleland/talkedits> 19:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever heard the word "dissident" applied to demostrating people or to members of pairlamentary oppositions (which clearly disagrees with the estabilishent's decisions) in democraticies? Would these be commonly labelled as "dissidents"? Was Obama commonly called "a dissident" when Bush ruled and Obama was just disagreeing with the "estabilishment"?--pokipsy76 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Why nobody answer to these questions?--pokipsy76 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that you are beating a dead horse since the word "dissident" is no longer being used in this article, it is simply a fact that Noam Chomsky has been described as a "dissident" not for simply disagreeing with an established belief but for his radical critique of American domestic and foreign policies. Furthermore, I am convinced that he actually likes being described as a "dissident" so I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of it. Can we move on? --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pokipsy7, if you had taken the time to read the Dissident article instead of overeacting, you would have noticed that he is mentioned in the lead section of that article! --Loremaster (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But the dissident article has the same problem, if two article have the same mistake you can't cite one to justify the other.--pokipsy76 (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

From online dictionaries:

1) dissident: In one-party states, a person intellectually dissenting from the official line. Dissidents have been sent into exile, prison, labour camps, and mental institutions, or deprived of their jobs. In the former USSR the number of imprisoned dissidents declined from more than 600 in 1986 to fewer than 100 in 1990, of whom the majority were ethnic nationalists. In China the number of prisoners of conscience increased after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

2)dis·si·dent / ˈdisidənt/ • n. a person who opposes official policy, esp. that of an authoritarian state: a dissident who had been jailed by a military regime.

--pokipsy76 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of all of that but you are missing the point. First, words evolve and come to mean different things. Thus, the word "dissident" has also come to mean "antiestablishmentarian". Second, it is simply a well-document fact that the term "dissident" has been used to describe authors and activists, such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, who criticize the domestic and foreign policies of the United States despite the the U.S. not being a one-party state or authoritarian state. Third, Chomsky is quite comfortable being called a "dissident". --Loremaster (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I too was surprised to see Noam Chomsky described as a dissident, but I looked it up and I found several reliable sources describing him as a dissident [1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Case closed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Popskiy's first citation is an encyclopedia article in an all-in-one resource site that also includes a dictionary; the dictionary definition it gives for "political dissident" is simply "a dissenter from political orthodoxy" with "dissent" defined as "to differ in opinion or feeling; disagree" or "To withhold assent or approval." His second citation is based on an "esp." meaning "especially," meaning that it is not in fact a necessary part of the definition. And these are his sources, mind you, presumably selected as the most suitable ones to prove his point. Hardly convincing. <eleland/talkedits> 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Loremaster (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, in fairness, "dissident" does have the connotations, though, even if it's perfectly legitimate by the dictionary definition. I've changed it to "dissenter," which is basically a synonym without echoes of Sakharov. <eleland/talkedits> 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately "dissenter" has religious connatations so I'm simply going to rewrite the first part of the sentence that mentions Chomsky and avoid using both the words "dissident" and "dissenter" in order to prevent an edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Proven historical conspiracies section with Conspiracy (political) article

I propose that the Proven historical conspiracies section be merged into the Conspiracy (political) article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Keep in mind that some of the items listed might not be proven conspiracies. The list is constantly changing and as I look at it now, the Business Plot might not be legit. I know that the editors were arguing about it a few weeks ago on one of the noticeboards and currently has a NPOV and accuracy tags on it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've initated the merging. --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this merging was quite right. First of all, the user will want to see a full list relevant to the title "Proven historical conspiracies", either political or of other nature. The original section contained 46 items whereas the new "conspiracy(political)" article contains only 32. I assume you transfered only the ones related to politics. But what about the others? My suggestion is to retrieve the original section "Proven historical conspiracies" (if possible) and decide upon removing or adding items based on more careful consideration. I recognize your good intentions but your move has caused some suspicion over the blogosphere: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't care what the conspiracy theorist community in the blogosphere thinks since the Conspiracy theory article is not being edited to please or displease them; there is a List of conspiracy theories article that may be more appropriate than the Conspiracy (political) article so, if you are interested, feel free to retrieve the original section "Proven historical conspiracies" from History and merge it into the the List. --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...the alleged controversy over the recent changes within the conspiracy theorist blogospher apparently happened back on January 1, 2007 [8]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The ironically-named "Loremaster" in a dialogue with the ironically-named "A Quest for Knowledge." So are you "two" meat-puppets or sock-puppets or what? You two certainly don't constitute a consensus. Wowest (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wowest", please remember the talk page guidelines: Be polite. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks. And be welcoming. That being said, I'm open to discussion to acheive consensus so please make your case againt the merge proposal. --Loremaster (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over bold edits of the Lead section

The previous version of the Lead section of the Conspiracy theory article:

A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases these theories contrast what is represented by the mainstream explanation for historical or current events, as well as the evidence that supports it. The phrase is also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray a person or group's views as being untrue or outlandish.

The new version which adds value by being more comprehensive, twice sourced, and without the subtle pro-conspiracy-theory bias:

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events and lack conclusive evidence to support themselves. The term is therefore often used pejoratively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, to emerge as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Therefore, I will undo any revert to the previous version that is done without a solid justification. Simply saying that the new version "doesn't add value" will not cut it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The changes made by Loremaster are extremely POV, politically loaded and, despite all possible assumption of good faith on his part, NOT in good faith. The relevant academic discipline is philosophy, and the most relevant sub-discipline is social epistemlogy. Within that discipline, the entire conspiracy theory topic is controversial, including the meaning of the term, and these dishonest deletions do not reflect that controversy. Propagandistic efforts have been undertaken by various forces to move the conversation to social psychology or, even, to abnormal psychology, which are relevant disciplines only for an extremely small number of conspiracy theorists. There was a recent pronouncement from a psychiatric body that if someone else agrees with your opinion, it isn't evidence of mental illness.

A conspiracy theory is a totally valid exploratory model in any discovery procedure in a variety of disciplines. Historically, it is either accurate or inaccurate. It is either a predictive model or it is not. However, it is not inherently false simply because it posits a possible conspiracy.

As the term is used by Fascists, red-staters, CIA stooges like Bill Clinton and Republican politicians, a two-stage process is involved. In the first stage, the term could be defined as any criticism of the government or any explanation that disagrees with the official explanation of an event. In a marvel of Doublethink, the definition is switched in mid-sentence to the inherently defamatory definition involving a foul or loathsome mental illness. The article is supposed to neutral, Mr. Loremaster, not what you are trying to turn it into. Your goal is comparable to punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. You aren't going to get away with calling everyone who disagrees with your position "crazy." Wowest (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"CIA stooges like Bill Clinton"? I hope you realize that your political bias is now obvious to everyone. Regardless, my version of the Lead section is based on both the Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of the term "conspiracy theory" and the work of scholars who have studied the phenonemon of conspiracy theories. Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy theory is "a totally valid exploratory model in any discovery procedure in a variety of disciplines" (which you seem to be confusing with institutional analysis), a Wikipedia article on the subject of conspiracy theory would not be comprehensive if it did not report how the concept is viewed and the term is used by both scholars and the general population. For the record, I do not have a political bias since I'm apolitical but I am a rational skeptic who improving this article in the context of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism. With all that being said, I am undoing your revert that is clearly motivated by a pro-conspiracy-theory bias and I hope objective observers will do the same when I'm not here. --Loremaster (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only bias in Loremaster's version is the removal of the conspiracy-legitimizing bias of the old version. Badger Drink (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should give a neutral treatment of the subject-matter, not take parts either for or against. Ad hominem attacks on Loremaster or Wowest are beside the point. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by WP:RS and in proportion to the number of WP:RS that express this view. Thus, if a conspiracy theory is regarded as bunk by WP:RS, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. We do not introduce bias to counter perceived bias in WP:RS. To do so would be a violation of WP:NPOV. --Loremaster (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the Lead section (and added new sources) while taking into account all the criticisms I have read so far. Here is the current version:

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events, and are not yet supported by conclusive evidence. The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, to emerge as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Any comments? --Loremaster (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lunatic fringe

The term is therefore often used pejoratively in an attempt to fairly or unfairly characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

"Lunatic fringe" is a fringe term. The introduction would benefit from more commonplace terminology. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I have removed the your addition of the term "so-called" but since many people (especially the conspiracy theorists) seem to misinterpret that sentence as biased so I will try to make it sound more meutral. --Loremaster (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the term used in British English, so it would be better to find a more commonplace term - if possible, of course. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I doesn't matter what you heard. What matters is the term used by sources. --Loremaster (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What people seem to misunderstand is that the Lead section is arguing that people who believe in conspiracy theories are "cranks" who belong to the "lunatic fringe". That would be a POV-based as hominen. What it simply says is that critics use the word conspiracy theory to portray or misportray people in such a manner. That's a fact. Does everyone get the difference? --Loremaster (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an Alternet article that published today that uses the term "lunatic fringe" several times: Paranoid Right-Wingers See Obama's Volunteer Service Project as Sinister Plot to 'Re-Educate' Americans. --Loremaster (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)--Loremaster (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"and are not supported by conclusive evidence"

The introduction read "and are not supported by conclusive evidence", until i removed it. I couldn't find any NPOV proof that for example the entire List of conspiracy theories isn't supported by conclusive evidence. I think it it is outside Wikipedia's mandate to take parts here. We could instead point to the fact that this often is a "mainstream" claim. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is non-sense. I don't know how many times it has to be explained here that there is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. From a sociological point of view, the former is a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement while the later is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. Furthermore, if conspiracy theories were supported by conclusive evidence they wouldn't be conspiracy theories anymore. They would simply be standard accounts of history. I strongly recommend you read Talk:Conspiracy theory#There Are No Conspiracies. Ultimately, the mandate of Wikipedia is that we report what notable mainstream sources state about a subject. --Loremaster (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That being said, I added the word "yet" for the sake of clarity. --Loremaster (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue boils down to unintentional POV. To use the official account of 9/11 as an illustration, it says that a group of terrorists backed by Al Quaeda/Bin Laden plotted to hijack planes and fly them into buildings as an attack on the US.

Is that a conspiracy theory? We can judge it against Loremaster's definition above, which defines a conspiracy theory as "a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".

So does the official account "explain a historical event"? yes... does it view it as "a secret ploy"? Yes... was it perpetrated by "powerful conspirators"? yes...

To go further, there is no conclusive evidence for it either. So by this logic, the official version is also a conspiracy theory, and we have circularity.

Because of this, the fall-back position is the reference to "notable mainstream sources". This means the mass media, yes? Well they are certainly notable, and certainly mainstream. But are they reliable? Are they for example politically neutral? Certainly not. Are they scientific? No. Are they peer reviewed? No.

The problem with the statement is that it introduces an arbitrary need for conclusive evidence where none is sought for the opposing view. Look at the JFK assassination for example. There's nothing conclusive for either principle theories (lone gunman or government plot).

However deleting it leaves the statement just saying some people [who??] reject conspiracy theories because they conflict with mainstream sources. On its own, that it palpable nonsense. An example is Noam Chomsly who openly rejects 9/11 conspiracy theories - but certainly not for that reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.81.99 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

By "powerful conspirators", we are referring to a "secret team" or "shadow government" or any group that is believed to more powerful than it possibly could be. Have you read Talk:Conspiracy theory#There Are No Conspiracies? --Loremaster (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such deinition of "powerful conspirators" in common usage. Where did you source such a definition? Anyway the phrase in the article is "usually powerful conspirators" - the inclusion of "usually" (ignoring the fact that it's in the wrong place gramatically) undermines your explanation, because it allows for exceptions.

But to put that aside for the moment, if that is indeed what it means, then the sentence is still illogical. It asserts that a conspiracy "explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by... a secret team ["a covert alliance between the United States' military, intelligence, and private sectors"], or shadow government, or any group that is believed to be more powerful than possibly could be". This definition is now starting to look even more bizarre than it did before.

Example: There is a widely held conspiracy theory which holds that Princess Diana was assassinated by secret factions under instruction from the UK Royal Family. This does not fit the definition as you give it - the theory has nothing to do with alliances between the US military, intelligance etc; it has nothing to do with a shadow government, and nothing to do with any group "believed to me more pwerful than it possibly could be". So if you assert that as a definition, then the Diana conspiarcy theory is not a conspiracy theory.

Isn't it just simpler to concede that the definition is inadequate, and try and change it to something better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.81.99 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a referenced cite in that sentence. It goes to here[9]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As AQFK pointed out, the definition comes from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. If it adequate for them. It's adequate for us. That being said, although "secret team" was originally a term used to refer to "a covert alliance between the United States' military, intelligence, and private sectors" it has since been used to refer to similar hypothetical alliances in any country. Ironically, you should know that many people believe that a covert alliance between elements within the British Royal Family, the British government, the British intelligence services were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Princess Diana. Utimately, I'm partly basing the Lead section on the text you can find in Talk:Conspiracy theory#There Are No Conspiracies. Have you read it? --Loremaster (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Two introductions: Which is best?

Loremaster just reversed a number of edits by different writers (mostly me) to an earlier version written by himself. (Sorry for not spotting the controversial tag, and thus being a bit too bold when it came to editing).

There two versions are found here: [10]

As the two versions differ quite significantly, both probably have their good and bad sides. I suggest we discuss and then make a vote for which version we favour. Here are the two alternatives:

1. Version by Kaiwhakahaere

A conspiracy theory posits that certain historical or current events resulted from secret plotting, usually by a powerful cabal. It may also be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events. The term is therefore often used pejoratively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories became more commonplace in mass media, which contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history. Belief in conspiracy theories has become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

2. Version by Loremaster

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events, and are not yet supported by conclusive evidence. The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, to emerge as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

---

I favour number 1. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, my version is more comprehensive, acknowledges the well-known criticisms of conspiracy theories as well as the use/misuse of the term, and is actually based on sources I read and cite while your version is simply an editing of my previous version which tries to minimize any criticisms of conspiracy theories. Please read the sources I cite (or find your own) and get back to us. --Loremaster (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there was a mistake in the ref to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary that caused it to go to the definition of "conspiracy" instead of "conspiracy theory". I fixed it in the article. In case you guys end up copying and pasting one of the above suggestions, the fixed code for the reference is:

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory | title=conspiracy theory |accessdate=2009-04-16}}</ref> 

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was thinking that the introduction should be an abstract of the rest of the article, and thus didn't need citations (as in a scientific work). I see that Wikipedia has other policies. (1) Still, I am critical of the fact that you revert edits in the introduction back to your own version. This disallows the organic, free-flowing improvements that makes Wikipedia articles improve progressively. It could be OK anyway if the new edits are poor, but I'd like other people's opinions if Loremaster's reversions are OK or not. (2) Also, it is not Wikipedia's task to criticise conspiracy theories, this is a breach of NPOV. It is Wikipedia's task to point out that such criticism exists. (3) To be more precise, I think that the "terminology" section is balanced and well-cited, but that Loremaster's introduction doesn't sum up the terminology section and the rest of the article in a good enough manner. Thus, edits. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the featured Free will article, it seems that citations in the introduction could be against Wikipedia policy, although this is not seen in the featured Global warming article. Could anyone look up what the guidelines are here? Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) A short glimpse at other featured articles Wikipedia:Featured articles, shows that no citations in the introduction isn't uncommon. I also know that several of the people editing Global Warming are unhappy with the introduction of the article, because it's too long and comprehensive.

OK, i found some information here: Wikipedia:Lead section. I'll look into it. Also, of course, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the Lead section should be an abstract of the rest of the article which has citations.

1. I welcome organic, free-flowing improvements to this article but I have found that most edits of the Lead section have been attempts to restore a conspiracy-theory-legitimizing bias.

2. You have a flawed understanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines so I suggest you read them. I've never argued that this article should criticize conspiracy theories. I am simply pointing out that in light of the fact that conspiracy theories are the subject of so much criticisms that it does not make sense to exclude it from the Lead section.

3. I have no problem with you editing the Lead section to better sum up the terminology section and the rest of the article but most of your edits simply removed crucial text that was critical of conspiracy theories and was based on sources.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a flawed understanding of NPOV. Again, it's not Wikipedia's task to be critical, but to sum up criticism. My edits could very well be of poor quality, let's agree on that. But I still think the introduction could be better. I'll look into it later, but not without consulting the discussion forum first :) Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, when did I ever argue that it is Wikipedia's task to be critical? My point is that the criticism of conspiracy theory is intertwined it's definition. The lead section simply reflects that fact. --Loremaster (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, some of your edits were poor. When you deleted the phrase "to emerge as a cultural phenomenon" from the third paragraph of the Lead section, you gutted the sentence of the argument all these critics are making. Their books are called "Culture of Conspiracy" for a reason! That being said, I've continued to tweak the Lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just thought the "cultural phenomenon" thing made the sentence too long, and guessed it was superfluous, because I thought it was quite obvious that it's a "cultural phenomenon". However, it seems this concept has implications of "herding" and "bandwagon effect", that is mechanisms explaining how the phenomenon arises, that I didn't think of when I removed it. I hope we don't give this undue weight. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that the sentence might be too long (which is why we could delete the definition of conspiracism), I disagree with you that is obvious that conspiracism (not conspiracy theories) is a cultural phenomenon otherwise academics wouldn't be writing books to say that it is. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway, the article is at a level where we can allow ourselves to only use material with citations. That brings up the question if any other cited material that we've got may fit into the introduction. We should be aware of not giving undue weight to only one source in the introduction. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that issue, however, I chose a source that is representative of the consensus among academics. --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept the introduction as it stands. Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I favor number 1 as well, if only because number 2 is clearly shaded towards promoting conspiratorial thinking (e.g. 'not yet supported by...'). I wouldn't mind a blend of the two, without the more pointed statements, but... Loremaster, the nature of a real theory is that it tries to explain the entirety of observable facts is a simple and consistent manner. The hallmark of conspiracy theories (in the pejorative sense) is that they try to explain away facts that don't support the premise, or try to explain why the facts which would support the premises aren't visible. they are speculative assertions, not theories in the proper sense, so there's no real sense in talking about evidence. --Ludwigs2 22:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion that my version is shaded toward promoting conspiratorial thinking is absurd since I've been the only person struggling to remove such shades in the face of several pro-conspiracy-theory editors trying to restore them. That being said, I have no problem with removing the word "yet" since I only added it to appease those editors. Ultimately, the Lead section has been improved since this debate was started here. --Loremaster (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't evaluate what is and isn't absurd, having just stepped into this discussion on a whim. I apologize If I misinterpreted, and I'll read more carefully in the future. --Ludwigs2 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Clandestine Agencies use of pop culture concept of "conspiracy theory" to bolster plausible deniability

Conspiracy theories are closely related to the term Plausible deniability. In fact, the term "plausibly deniable" was first used publicly by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Allen Dulles. Historically, plausible deniability has been utilized by clandestine agencies to foster conspiracy theories.. Projects such as the planned Operation Northwoods, Project SHAD, Operation Mockingbird,among others, depended upon the utilization of "conspiracy theories to bolster Plausible deniability, and cast doubt upon those responsible for an operation, and whether the operation went active at all. The Church Committee recognized the importance of the relationship between plausible deniability and "conspiracy theory" by stating in 1975 that:

Non-attribution to the United States for covert operations was the original and principal purpose of the so-called doctrine of "plausible denial." Evidence before the Committee clearly demonstrates that this concept, designed to protect the United States and its operatives from the consequences of disclosures, has been expanded to mask decisions of the president and his senior staff members.

— Church Committee

Hello User:Peterbadgely. The Lead section is ideally a general overview of the subject of the article. It is therefore inappropriate to use this section to present original research. That being said, I strongly suggest you read the text found in the Talk:Conspiracy theory#There Are No Conspiracies section of this talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article appears to hang its hat (its very big entire hat) on the work and views of G. William Domhoff. Conspiracies (not the "pop" culture concept) have been responsible for major changes in history. Bruce Cummings' statement that "they (conspiracies)rarely move history" is patently false. For example World War One began partly as a result of a successfully planned conspiracy and Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Although popular history has largely forgotten the details of the conspiracy and laid complete blame at the feet of Gavrilo Princip. Perhaps the tone of the article (or purpose) is to cast doubt upon clandestine agencies use of "conspiracies" to carry out what are known as "black ops." If that is the purpose of the article than that should be stated in the body of the work.

Like many other people who have read Domhoff's essay, you confuse conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which defy sociological theories of power. P.S. Remember to always sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Loremaster (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But there is no confusion because the nature of conspiracies is that there is no requirement that they are simple or without complexity. In fact, the tyrant Hitler stated that'The bigger the lie the more people will believe it.' Moreover, the plan known as Operation Northwoods was hatched during the Kennedy administration by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer and was a (now declassified) conspiracy of a tremendous scale. I recommend that you read the entire declassified document in its entirety. --Peterbadgely

My point is that if you want to write about clandestine agencies, plausible deniability or Operation Northwoods, you should consider doing it in the Conspiracy (political) article rather than here. --Loremaster (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorists

The section on conspiracy theorists has been largely unsourced for at least 18 months--seeing Lew Rockwell and Gary North on the list caught my eye, but there is nothing to corroborate their presence on the list. Can we remove unsourced names? Praxidike (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Loremaster (talk)

Libel in label

You've removed the edit that expands the lead while noting that conspiracy is a defamatory and pejorative term, you've also removed well referenced reference, what is your dispute with such edit? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not widely considered those things. Bring references supporting your position here for discussion, and look through previous discussions. Verbal chat 14:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not just widely considered it is mainstream, how many references will suffice? This MSM source calls them 'impossibly exotic or even mad' , while this one goes as far to call them virulent, with the ability to suck peoples 'brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots'. Apologies for being frank, yet I'm honestly not sure why would you voice a concern behind merits of such edit, but I'm certain that, as editor involved, you are well aware of the numerous sources which deploy remarkably pejorative descriptions of conspiracy theories, may those relate to moon landing or tin foils. It took me some time to find a reference which leaves out 'madness and gibbering idiots', but if you think such sources are more suitable... TheFourFreedoms (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the word is controversial is already discussed in the article. Theferore, it's not necessary to emphasize it in such a way. --Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversial is not the word, term is scornful and derogatory, wouldn't you agree that first thing which comes to mind belongs in the lead of the article? How can we emphasise something in definition? Defamation is part of definition. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any RS for that? I disagree, and so does my dictionary and this encyclopaedia. Verbal chat 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So you think that there is no libel in conspiracy theorist label despite of references already provided? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how reliable your reference is, I don't think it represents a consensus of how the word is viewed to warrant changing to the Lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream media discourse on conspiracy theories

In my opinion this article should note MSM discourse towards subject, since it is provably and verifiably widespread, relevant and notable occurrence. Lead has a sentence where this variable can be implemented, please share your thoughts about it, do you find it notable and which space you'd find appropriate. Would you say it deserves a section of its own? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think what you are proposing is a substantive improvement to the Lead section so I am opposed. --Loremaster (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't clear; I'm in no way insisting on lead section, please weigh in on what you think about noting the mainstream media discourse towards conspiracy theories and where in the article would such note be appropriate? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your source adds anything new or important. However, the Terminology or Controversy sections could be good places for such content. --Loremaster (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See his comments at Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where basically he is saying we shouldn't use certain mainstream sources because he has decided they are libelous - a decision which is not only wrong but one we shouldn't be making. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope that others will not reach such strange conclusion, you can state your concerns there and I'll answer them. I'm afraid that your interpretation of that comment is absolutely wrong, I can only hope it is not deliberately so. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you’d like to explain how that’s either strange or wrong.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier if these concerns could be answered at one place. Doug concluded that I'm suggesting we shouldn't use certain mainstream media because of this and that... I honestly have no clue how he reached such conclusion, since that whole exchange is about terminology, Doug? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This libelous discourse towards 'conspiracies' is one of the viewpoints out there and I'm fine with it as I'm fine with someone who will compliment the 'conspiracy theorists', this sort of universally diverse opinions are dear to me… However our job here is not to vilify or compliment, it's to note and represent. As references here and there showed, slander campaign against conspiracy theories, especially with regards to 9/11, has reached the point where it has become notable, so it deserves a representation, that's all. imo, as ever. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In law, defamation, also called libel (for written words), and slander (for spoken words), is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Ideas, such as conspiracy theories, cannot be defamed. Only conspiracy theorists can be defamed. The fact that conspiracy theories are subject to criticism and even ridicule (with good reason more often than not) is already addressed implicitly and explicitly in this article. Criticisms of MSM discourse of 9/11 conspiracy theories should obviously be in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article rather than here. That being said, you clearly seem to have a bias and agenda that we cannot allow to be reflected in any Wikipedia article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are we? Please don't insist on this agenda course, it sounds so conspiratorial. It was suggestion, it was not related to 9/11 attacks, it was meant in much broader sense of 'historical discourse of MSM media towards conspiracy theories'. I've noticed it is already referenced just not 'extracted' into contents. If you don't think that it's worth of mentioning, or if you think that 'discourse' is clear by what is already written, I'll trust your estimate. Case settled. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By “we”, I mean me and the other people who commented in this thread. By “agenda”, I simply mean that your edits have an underlying ideological goal of defending conspiracy theories from “libel”. Regardless, case settled. --Loremaster (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You write like a true conspirator! TheFourFreedoms (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

By your definition above, that's libel. Since it isn't being removed per WP:NLT, then it seems that "conspiracy theory" isn't libel. However, please see WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc... Verbal chat 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, it was shared in good spirit; Loremaster even got a smile in the summary, so that no mistake would be made. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

examples

so, in response to ip's suggestion of later adopted theories, can you provide examples?

for example, continental drift was first considered a pseudoscience, or something like that, and later was adopted as science. can you give analogous example for conspiracy theory? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, can you give us any example? --Loremaster (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I want someone else to give it. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it works. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

i didn't know wikipedia was so inflexible! :O) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't anything to do with flexibility. You simply can't expect people to do the work for you especially when they don't necessarily think your idea is a good one. --Loremaster (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

well now, you are twisting the reality here. the above ip suggested this[11], not me. i just reminded that ip to give some examples. then you jumped in asking me to give examples. it was initially idea of above ip, so using your words, he/she should do the work, not me. and, btw, that ip does think the idea is a good one. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood your request which you should have posted in the relevant section to avoid confusion. Regardless, just because an anonymous user thinks his own idea is good doesn't mean it is. As I explained to “ip”, he or she will have to provide reliable sources which state that 1) the historical theories he or she list were viewed as conspiracy theories, 2) they contradicted institutional analysis, and 3) some of them were later validated. By the way, I recommend all of you anonymous users create user accounts to help us avoid confusing you. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

just because a registered user thinks an idea is not good, doesn't mean it is not. i recommend all of you registered users complaining about anonymous users to read this page79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether I, a registered user, think it's a good idea. It's whether it respects Wikipedia guidelines. That being said, I am well aware of Wikipedia principles regarding editing without registration but I still recommend that you create a user account since it is extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him the ability to more easily watch over pages he is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of accountability on Wikipedia. Despite the fact you will probably use a pseudonym, it's easier for other editors to discern your good faith when a track record of contributions is attached to your user account. --Loremaster (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

it's also easier for non-AGF editors to wikistalk and harass, an experience I've been through. also, you don't need to be registered to monitor pages, see this. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know all that but there are other advantages which I think outweigh the disavantages. --Loremaster (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

per wp:talk, someone can definitely collapse this off-topic discussion, and leave above on-topic comments. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical Conspiracy Theories section needed

I will add a section on "Historical Conspiracy Theories" with a subsection on Validated ones that are currently generally accepted. If there are no objections I will add a section on conspiracy theories held historically by people, with a subsection on ones that have been Validated through time, generally accepted. Especially easy are things that have become available through freedom of information requests, etc. 94.27.244.146 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly object because you are obviously confusing conspiracy theory with an actual civil conspiracy , criminal conspiracy and political conspiracy, such the ones you think have been validated. Like it's been explained in the section above, "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. So feel free to edit the articles dealing with actual conspiracy if you feel they are missing something. --Loremaster (talk)

No. You are obviously confusing conspiracy theory with paranoid schizophrenia. Your response would make sense if the article were entitled "conspiracy delusions". However, since it is not an article devoted to conspiratorial delusions, historical conspiracy theories which at the time contradicted institutional analysis is absolutely warranted. Of course, the article title could just be changed to make explicit the fact that this article is to be about delusions. --79.122.37.16 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sections of the article that focus on the psychological origins of conspiracy theories? --Loremaster (talk)

Also: your suggestion is nonsensical, because my addition is not to be about actual conspiracies, but actual past theories about then-current conspiracies, which theories were dismissed at the time institutionally but which time has since proven. It seems you can't tell the difference between a 1950 conspiracy and a 1950 conspiracy theory which is true. The former might not have been postulated/theorized/charged by anyone. In thats case there is no conspiracy theory. I propose the addition of past conspiracy theories for which there is a presently acknowledged corresponding conspiracy (ie which were "right" despite contemporary dismissal). ie where present institutional analysis contradicts past insitutional analysis, and validates the theory. I hope my proposal is now clear. 79.122.37.16 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is now more clear. However, you will have to provide reliable sources which state that 1) the historical theories you list were viewed as conspiracy theories, 2) they contradicted institutional analysis, and 3) some of them were later validated. --Loremaster (talk)

There are conspiracies/covert plans and organisations: they have existed, and will come into existence. There are cases where the actions of one person/group aid or allow those of other persons or groups without deliberate cooperation (as with Leeson).

There are also conspiracy theories, some of which may have a partial factual basis, or on actual gaps in the information, obstructiveness of "official sources" and many of which are based on fantasy or "if I were in that position I would..."/attempt to join the dots/"the information on this topic is incomplete - not because it was not recorded as not seen as relevant or through stupidity/ignorance of what would happen but through deliberate attempt to do something negative."

Some conspiracy theories are used as misdirection (as with miltary advances and UFOs), or are to the effect that "to have a quiet life/maximise our individual interests, we will agree to cooperate passively/not disrupt each others' activities in the following manner...'

The problem is that the areas get conflated - and given that most "areas in which conspiracy theories are promoted" are very thoroughly investigated by promoters and those declaring them invalid with nothing turning up, Occam's Razor does appear to apply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting, "Some conspiracy theories are used as misdirection (as with miltary advances and UFOs)"; concur with military advances, to some extent, but the theory that UFO conspiracy theories are used as misdirection is ..., well, a conspiracy theory of its own.

uh, what is your point? --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is the IP's statements are, themselves, a conspiracy theory, rather than having a relationship with reality. As for the IP's point, I have no idea. Perhaps, RIB (Revert, Ignore, Block) is the appropriate activity in regard the IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what you getting at because you didn't sign your comment. --Loremaster (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There will always be "actually existing conspiracies" and also conspiracy theories - the former tend to be more concrete in their intent, the latter more diffuse in their claims.

There is some evidence that officialdom has at various times not refuted cooption of sightings/descriptions of equipment under test by the UFO and other theorists as a useful misdirection (and eg CIA funding of art). The UFO theorists can operate quite independently of any official contributions.

The term "conspiracy theory" does tend to be used exclusively in a negative sense: in contrast to terms such as "investigative researcher/reporter etc", and "thriller writer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is your point? --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the point that there (a) actual conspiracies, (b) governments and other bodies who brush off enquirers/go in for 'You may say that, I certainly won't comment' and (c) 'persons engaging in join the dots' who decide (b) means (a). And 'things falling into category (a)' and 'things falling into category (c)' tend to have a high degree of non-overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

here is an example of validated conspiracy theory

maybe the other ip is not following this talk page any more, so here is one example:

Gulf of Tonkin Incident#Later statements about the incident

Conspiracy theories in American history

79.101.174.192 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is not a conspiracy theory according to the definition used by academics. I suggest you (re-)read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies to understand the difference between conspiracy theories and actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

i am confused. i provided a source for the statement. you can also provide a source that claims it was a political conspiracy, and we can include that view too. and please, let's not get into discussion of who is an academic, and whether only their definitions count (WP:OR). 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. definitely academics 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

{EC} Where exactly does it say that the conspiracy theory had been confirmed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the incident article itself talks about later statements about the incident. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Knight, the conspiracy theory is that the attacks were deliberately provoked. I don't see anything in Gulf of Tonkin Incident#Later statements about the incident that states that the attacks were deliberately provoked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

o.k., lets wait a little and see how other editors read those paragraphs and cited sources. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AQFK. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the article on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I don't see anything in it that states that attacks were deliberately provoked. --Loremaster (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How does anyone allege a simple theory of conspiraring if the phrase "conspiracy theory" is so dismissive?

This article was all over the place and I edited it down for clarity. Many reasonable people have alleged theories relevant to conspiracy and the dismissive usage of "conspiracy theory" is a known unfair debate tactic. 68.55.0.129 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. If you are interested in editing this article in good faith, I strongly recommend you created a user account.
2. The Conspiracy theory article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudoscieces, pseudohistory and skepticism. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective which you may misinterpret as "dismissive" or "biased".
3. Conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information.
4. The content of the Lead section you deleted is not only based on reliable academic sources but it reached consensus among some editors of this article through discussion. Therefore, I have and will continue to restore it.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If one person disagrees there is no consensus and forcing new editors towards one wikiproject's way of doing things seems very anti-consensus building. If editors on this talk page decide to do something different than the rational skepticism wiki group what happens? Each article should be edited from it's own standpoint and not the standpoint of a overarching and perhaps misguided wikiproject. You seem to be quite errantly assuming that the rational skepticism group is going to be infalably neutral? You say and/or errantly assume I might misinterpret though it is quite possible I might be interpreting accurately. The version you put back isn't as bad as older versions it just seems all over the place and isn't a good introduction nor a good definition of "conspiracy theory". It is a faux pais to attempt to define "conspiracy theory" using a word in the phrase itself like "theory" which is why I propose "hypothesis", please comment? -(same anon as above with different ip) 208.59.112.152 (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster has done an excellent job editing this article and there's nothing wrong with writing from a rational skeptical perspective since that's the perpective that most WP:RS will take, particularly academic journals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of my points and questions? I am skeptical of some academic journals especially those with duplicitious funding from corporate sources. I am the above anon who has registered a username. Skeptical Dude (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Academic journals are among the best sources of information on this topic. If you disagree, you need to get Wikipedia to change many of its policies and guidelines (which is extremely unlikely to happen). I suggest you read both WP:V and WP:RS from beginning to end. You probably won't like what you find because Loremaster is doing exactly as an editor is supposed to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that there is a consensus against your point of view, it is incorrect to state that consensus requires unanimity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition of consensus I learned as a politics major at a quaker college contradicts what some wikipedia editors believe. It is a fact that the tone of your post is not "consensus building", please respond to my points. Skeptical Dude (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS defines the term.... And I agree that my comment isn't consensus building (but it is anti-consensus-destructive, which may be almost as good) but the consensus already exists. If you can find a new argument, we may revisit the consensus, but it's counterproductive to rehash old arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your version is an obvious violation of NPOV where you have one source's viewpoint stated conclusively though perhaps there isn't much I can do about it now because you all keep reverting my correction and threatening me with a 3-revert rule block. Please re-consider adding "allegedly" to the first paragraph where I believe some sort of caveat is necessary. Skeptical Dude (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment does not meet with consensus. Some cavaet could possibly be added, but outside the pseudo-quote. And it's NOT an NPOV violation under any reasonable interpretation, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As AQFK eloquently explained in March 2009, "Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by WP:RS and in proportion to the number of WP:RS that express this view. Thus, if a conspiracy theory is regarded as bunk by WP:RS, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. We do not introduce bias to counter bias in WP:RS. To do so would be a violation of WP:NPOV." That being said, although only one author is cited, there is a consensus among mainstream academics who study conspiracy theories that they contradict institutional analysis and are not supported by conclusive evidence. If they are shown to be supported by conclusive, they no longer are conspiracy theories according to the definition the term "conspiracy theory" has gained. Therefore, we won't be deleting the word "institutional analysis" nor adding the word "allegedly" to satisfy your POV. --Loremaster (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One author isn't an "institutional analysis"

I have a problem with the phrase "institutional analysis" because this article cites each author individually so there isn't much if any comparison with a group or institutional analysis going on. -previously an anon ip Skeptical Dude (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. Although only one author is cited, there is a consensus among mainstream academics who study conspiracy theories that they contradict institutional analysis and are not supported by conclusive evidence. If they are shown to be supported by conclusive, they no longer are conspiracy theories according to the definition the term "conspiracy theory" has gained. Therefore, we won't be deleting the word "institutional analysis" nor adding the word "allegedly" to satisfy your POV. --Loremaster (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think our fellow editor Skeptical Dude was not pushing his POV, but may have been referring to POV's of some distinguished scholars, like for example Noam Chomsky. I made an effort and have found a reference. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions Noam Chomsky's POV in the Validity section. --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted your recent changes to the article which should be in the Validity section rather than the lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

you deleted more than that. you reintroduced unsourced words. also, argument that i added about chomsky is distinct from argument in validity section. also, it is very important to note that scholars disagree when they talk about conspiracy theories, and if other relevant statements are in the lead, so should be the one that you deleted. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "Machiavellian" and "tentative" do not need to be sourced. That being said, please always keep in mind that the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the major arguments in the body of the article. Getting into the details about disagreements between academics about what is and isn't institutional analysis is not appropriate in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis ... is very much related to the statement that I added, so if former is in the lead, i think later should be too. disagreement comes from one of the most cited intellectuals of the 20th century, and is far for questionable (in reply to a.r.) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the major arguments in the body of article. Getting into the details about disagreements between academics about what is and isn't institutional analysis is not appropriate in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "institutional analysis" is that our article doesn't cover the intended meaning, (hence the wikilink is inappropriate), and that reference [2] doesn't use the term. Perhaps a more standard term could be used, to avoid disputes as to what is and is not institutional analysis. I think {{verification failed}} is appropriate. Also, "tentative" and Machiavellian are not in the dictionary definition (reference [1]), and probably also require a source. Perhaps the source is later in the article, but I really don't see it. I don't think Chomsky is appropriate in the lead, but neither is "institutional analysis" unless we can find a source for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. First, the Validity section of the article does cover the intended meaning of the term "institutional analysis" so the wikilink is appropriate. Second, a source doesn't need to use the term "institutional analysis" if it is in fact the work of an academcic who engages in the systematic study of people's collective behaviour in institutions in order to to explain major political, social, or historical events (which is the definition of "institutional analysis"). Third, there isn't anything "un-standard" about the term "institutional analysis" that would justify it being deleted in order to dumb down the sentence. Fourth, although I don't mind deleting the word "tentative", I strongly disagree that the word "Machiavellian" needs to be directly sourced since so many conspiracy theorists and critics of conspiracy theories argue that the alleged conspirators employ cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in their general conduct (which is the definition of being "Machiavellian"). --Loremaster (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

institutional analysis vs conspiracy theory disagreements between noam chomsky and critics

i see some consider this irrelevant, and questionable. what are specific objections? also, find a reference for 'tentative' claim. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of credibility, Noam Chomsky's personal opinion does not belong in the lead. Whether institutional analysis is the correct term to contrast conspiracy theory with may be another matter, which possibly should be discussed. 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

aren't we quoting in article personal opinions of scholars? or do we cite some abstract opinions? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't about whether personal opinions belong in the lead. The issue is that the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the arguments of the article. Getting into the details about disagreements between academics about what is and isn't institutional analysis is not appropriate in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. this is paragraph in question (bolded under discussion):

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence. However, there have been disagreements about this; for example, what his critics call conspiracy theory, Noam Chomsky calls institutional analysis. The term is often used dismissively by politicians; in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and to downplay the widespread popularity of conspiracies, a person who believes in conspiracies is judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the term isn't used by politicians; and any claim that it is needs to be a peer-reviewed source, as it's contrary to observed fact. The age of anxiety does not appear to be a "reliable source", but I could be convinced if the publisher is highly reliable. And institutional analysis does not appear in sources, so it should be removed from the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

nb. the term has been used by politicians. just take a look at bill mahers show on obama and 911 truth guys. for example, bush used the term, so it is an observed fact (at least by me, and a few others who are watching tv), and may not need to be in peer-reviewed source. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it would be misleading to suggest that only politicians use the term "conspiracy theory" in dismissively when in fact pundits, journalists, academics, and everyday people also use it in such a way. --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we are cleaning up the article, lets go over all sources cited in the lead:

1. ^ "conspiracy theory". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory. Retrieved on 2009-04-16.
2. ^ a b Domhoff, G. William (2005). There Are No Conspiracies. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/conspiracy.html. Retrieved on 2009-01-30.
3. ^ Richard J. Alexander. 2008. Framing Discourse on the Environment. p.213
4. ^ Martin Parker, Jane Parish. 2001. The age of anxiety. pp.11
5. ^ Fenster, M. 1999. Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
6. ^ Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California.

using your criteria, 2. is not "reliable source" as it is not peer-reviewed, but a guy's website

number 3. is published by http://www.routledge.com/ so, is it reliable?

number 4 is jon willey and sons. ?? reliable? i don't know

number 5 is published by University of Minnesota Press . so i don't know.

number 6 univ of cal.

anyhow, which of these sources are reliable, and why? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Number 2 is not a "guy's website". It is a page of an academic on the website of the University of California. It summarizes views he expressed in his peer-reviewed work.

Number 3, 4 and 5 may be reliable but you are missing the point: The issue isn't whether the sources are reliable. It is whether the material belongs in the lead section of the article.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

sources for 'institutional analysis' vs conspiracy theory (and noam chomsky -- you can also search without his name): [12]. google scholar has a few too. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

note that i will not select a particular source until above sources are discussed for reliability. i am simply tired of people dismissing my contributions with nothing more but 'not reliable' or 'fringe' summary. there are 20+ books and 200+ of papers discussing or mentioning this issue (less if noam chomsky is also mentioned), and i am SURE some are reliable. please select those you like. i will reintroduce the statement in the near future. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

another option is eliminating 'institutional analysis' from the article, as papers citing both are miniscule in comparison with papers citing one of the two. however, if it is kept, than NPOV view on it should be presented. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. i did delete it from the lead. google scholar for 'conspiracy theories' and you'll see thousands of results. same for 'institutional analysis'. but when you combine the two, much less results --- it does not deserve to be in the lead. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

pps. i am getting confused here. i did similar test replacing 'shadow government' instead of 'inst. analy', and got similar numbers. so what criteria should be used when placing info in the lead? how do we figure out what is most important in the article, and worth placing in the lead? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't just do a Google Scholar search and count the number of hits. You need to read each article to make sure that it's a WP:RS and that it actually says the thing you think it says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

so can you please discuss above 6 sources from the lead and tell me which ones are reliable? also, for lead sources not only need to be reliable, but statements they support need to be important and to deserve to be mentioned in the lead. how to determine that? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any value in bringing up institutional analysis in this article. It's not a term most readers will have heard of or will care about. (And Chomsky is one of my favorite people ever.) PhGustaf (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Institutional analysis is focused on the systematic study of people's collective behaviour in institutions, its ability to explain major political, social, or historical events is sometimes contrasted with the use of conspiracy theory to explain such events, since the latter focuses on explaining such events by a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert coalition of small numbers of powerful or influential individuals rather than by the systematic, regular, publicly documented behaviour of the institutions. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the Conspiracy theory article. The only problem is that there is mainstream instutional analysis which can be found in most academic text books and controversial institutional analysis whuch can be found in the writings of political dissidents like Noam Chomsky which is often (unfairly) dismissed as conspiracy theory. That's a debate that should explored in another section of the article rather than the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

i wonder when will wiki editors learn to use arguments. for example, XYZ is not a reliable source. is NOT an argument. XYZ is not a reliable source BECAUSE ... has a much better chance of being an argument. (i am refering to some common edit summaries) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't the reliability of sources but whether or not the content you want to include is neutral and appropriate in the Lead section. That being said, the larger issue is that you should discuss substantial changes on this talk page to acheive consensus before making them regardless of whether or not you have reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

nb. i got tired of this silly discussion, and won't contribute to it any more. hopefully above few threads will be useful for new editors who join discussion and help them improve the article. cheers! 79.101.174.192 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance... --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that Chomsky shouldn't be in the lead (and I have doubts whether he should be in the article), I have further doubts as to whether a contraversial term such as "institutional analysis" should be in the lead at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained in the section why the term "institutional analysis" should remain in the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have explained, and I'm not convinced. I've replaced "mainstream institutional analysis" with "mainstream analysis"; "institutional" is redundant with "mainstream", and we seem to be in agreement that "mainstream" is necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And we both need to beware of 3RR; I've reverted the anon twice and you once in the past 24 hours, but I don't consider this edit a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have refuted your argument for deletion of the term so I have and will continue to re-add it. Furthermore, "institutional" is NOT redundant with "mainstream". The word "institutional" refers to study of institutions while "mainstream" refers to how the study (or studier) is accepted and perceived. --Loremaster (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But "mainstream" is what is both correct and in the source, "institutional" is not even implied by that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I will add a source that uses the word "institutional" to resolve this dispute once and for all. By the way, if academics agree that institutional analysis is the opposite of conspiracy theory, it is obviously relevant and important that it be should mentioned and wikilinked in this article. So I can't for the life of me understand anyone would dispute this fact. --Loremaster (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By institutional analysis, what seems to be meant is what we (and most rational people) call mainstream analysis. The term is ambiguous (as noted in our article, whether or not the intended definition is there — I still don't see it, but I'll take your word for it), so should not be used in the lead unless also defined. If you do that, I won't revert, but "mainstream analysis" seems better than mainstream "institutional analysis[fn 1]". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. "Institutional analysis" simply means that study of institutions. You can have mainstream institutional analysis (in the sense of that is accepted by corporate media, the academic community, government administrations, and the public) and dissident insitutional analysis (in the sense that even though it may be valid it is rejected by corporate media, the academic community, government administrations, and the public). That being said, I will be my pleasure to define it in the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The sense in which it is used seems to be analysis by (conventional or mainstream) institutions, while the primary definition is the analysis of institutions. Not at all the same. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. What can I say. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical Conspiracy Theories section needed

I will add a section on "Historical Conspiracy Theories" with a subsection on Validated ones that are currently generally accepted. If there are no objections I will add a section on conspiracy theories held historically by people, with a subsection on ones that have been Validated through time, generally accepted. Especially easy are things that have become available through freedom of information requests, etc. 94.27.244.146 (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly object because you are obviously confusing conspiracy theory with an actual civil conspiracy , criminal conspiracy and political conspiracy, such the ones you think have been validated. Like it's been explained in the section above, "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. So feel free to edit the articles dealing with actual conspiracy if you feel they are missing something. --Loremaster (talk)

No. You are obviously confusing conspiracy theory with paranoid schizophrenia. Your response would make sense if the article were entitled "conspiracy delusions". However, since it is not an article devoted to conspiratorial delusions, historical conspiracy theories which at the time contradicted institutional analysis is absolutely warranted. Of course, the article title could just be changed to make explicit the fact that this article is to be about delusions. --79.122.37.16 (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the sections of the article that focus on the psychological origins of conspiracy theories? --Loremaster (talk)

Also: your suggestion is nonsensical, because my addition is not to be about actual conspiracies, but actual past theories about then-current conspiracies, which theories were dismissed at the time institutionally but which time has since proven. It seems you can't tell the difference between a 1950 conspiracy and a 1950 conspiracy theory which is true. The former might not have been postulated/theorized/charged by anyone. In thats case there is no conspiracy theory. I propose the addition of past conspiracy theories for which there is a presently acknowledged corresponding conspiracy (ie which were "right" despite contemporary dismissal). ie where present institutional analysis contradicts past insitutional analysis, and validates the theory. I hope my proposal is now clear. 79.122.37.16 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is now more clear. However, you will have to provide reliable sources which state that 1) the historical theories you list were viewed as conspiracy theories, 2) they contradicted institutional analysis, and 3) some of them were later validated. --Loremaster (talk)

There are conspiracies/covert plans and organisations: they have existed, and will come into existence. There are cases where the actions of one person/group aid or allow those of other persons or groups without deliberate cooperation (as with Leeson).

There are also conspiracy theories, some of which may have a partial factual basis, or on actual gaps in the information, obstructiveness of "official sources" and many of which are based on fantasy or "if I were in that position I would..."/attempt to join the dots/"the information on this topic is incomplete - not because it was not recorded as not seen as relevant or through stupidity/ignorance of what would happen but through deliberate attempt to do something negative."

Some conspiracy theories are used as misdirection (as with miltary advances and UFOs), or are to the effect that "to have a quiet life/maximise our individual interests, we will agree to cooperate passively/not disrupt each others' activities in the following manner...'

The problem is that the areas get conflated - and given that most "areas in which conspiracy theories are promoted" are very thoroughly investigated by promoters and those declaring them invalid with nothing turning up, Occam's Razor does appear to apply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting, "Some conspiracy theories are used as misdirection (as with miltary advances and UFOs)"; concur with military advances, to some extent, but the theory that UFO conspiracy theories are used as misdirection is ..., well, a conspiracy theory of its own.

uh, what is your point? --Loremaster (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is the IP's statements are, themselves, a conspiracy theory, rather than having a relationship with reality. As for the IP's point, I have no idea. Perhaps, RIB (Revert, Ignore, Block) is the appropriate activity in regard the IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know what you getting at because you didn't sign your comment. --Loremaster (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There will always be "actually existing conspiracies" and also conspiracy theories - the former tend to be more concrete in their intent, the latter more diffuse in their claims.

There is some evidence that officialdom has at various times not refuted cooption of sightings/descriptions of equipment under test by the UFO and other theorists as a useful misdirection (and eg CIA funding of art). The UFO theorists can operate quite independently of any official contributions.

The term "conspiracy theory" does tend to be used exclusively in a negative sense: in contrast to terms such as "investigative researcher/reporter etc", and "thriller writer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is your point? --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Making the point that there (a) actual conspiracies, (b) governments and other bodies who brush off enquirers/go in for 'You may say that, I certainly won't comment' and (c) 'persons engaging in join the dots' who decide (b) means (a). And 'things falling into category (a)' and 'things falling into category (c)' tend to have a high degree of non-overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

here is an example of validated conspiracy theory

maybe the other ip is not following this talk page any more, so here is one example:

Gulf of Tonkin Incident#Later statements about the incident

Conspiracy theories in American history

79.101.174.192 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is not a conspiracy theory according to the definition used by academics. I suggest you (re-)read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies to understand the difference between conspiracy theories and actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

i am confused. i provided a source for the statement. you can also provide a source that claims it was a political conspiracy, and we can include that view too. and please, let's not get into discussion of who is an academic, and whether only their definitions count (WP:OR). 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. definitely academics 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

{EC} Where exactly does it say that the conspiracy theory had been confirmed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the incident article itself talks about later statements about the incident. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Knight, the conspiracy theory is that the attacks were deliberately provoked. I don't see anything in Gulf of Tonkin Incident#Later statements about the incident that states that the attacks were deliberately provoked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

o.k., lets wait a little and see how other editors read those paragraphs and cited sources. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AQFK. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the article on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. I don't see anything in it that states that attacks were deliberately provoked. --Loremaster (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How does anyone allege a simple theory of conspiraring if the phrase "conspiracy theory" is so dismissive?

This article was all over the place and I edited it down for clarity. Many reasonable people have alleged theories relevant to conspiracy and the dismissive usage of "conspiracy theory" is a known unfair debate tactic. 68.55.0.129 (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. If you are interested in editing this article in good faith, I strongly recommend you created a user account.
2. The Conspiracy theory article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism, which seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudoscieces, pseudohistory and skepticism. Therefore, although remaining neutral, this article will be written from a rational skeptical perspective which you may misinterpret as "dismissive" or "biased".
3. Conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information.
4. The content of the Lead section you deleted is not only based on reliable academic sources but it reached consensus among some editors of this article through discussion. Therefore, I have and will continue to restore it.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If one person disagrees there is no consensus and forcing new editors towards one wikiproject's way of doing things seems very anti-consensus building. If editors on this talk page decide to do something different than the rational skepticism wiki group what happens? Each article should be edited from it's own standpoint and not the standpoint of a overarching and perhaps misguided wikiproject. You seem to be quite errantly assuming that the rational skepticism group is going to be infalably neutral? You say and/or errantly assume I might misinterpret though it is quite possible I might be interpreting accurately. The version you put back isn't as bad as older versions it just seems all over the place and isn't a good introduction nor a good definition of "conspiracy theory". It is a faux pais to attempt to define "conspiracy theory" using a word in the phrase itself like "theory" which is why I propose "hypothesis", please comment? -(same anon as above with different ip) 208.59.112.152 (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Loremaster has done an excellent job editing this article and there's nothing wrong with writing from a rational skeptical perspective since that's the perpective that most WP:RS will take, particularly academic journals. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of my points and questions? I am skeptical of some academic journals especially those with duplicitious funding from corporate sources. I am the above anon who has registered a username. Skeptical Dude (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Academic journals are among the best sources of information on this topic. If you disagree, you need to get Wikipedia to change many of its policies and guidelines (which is extremely unlikely to happen). I suggest you read both WP:V and WP:RS from beginning to end. You probably won't like what you find because Loremaster is doing exactly as an editor is supposed to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that there is a consensus against your point of view, it is incorrect to state that consensus requires unanimity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition of consensus I learned as a politics major at a quaker college contradicts what some wikipedia editors believe. It is a fact that the tone of your post is not "consensus building", please respond to my points. Skeptical Dude (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS defines the term.... And I agree that my comment isn't consensus building (but it is anti-consensus-destructive, which may be almost as good) but the consensus already exists. If you can find a new argument, we may revisit the consensus, but it's counterproductive to rehash old arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your version is an obvious violation of NPOV where you have one source's viewpoint stated conclusively though perhaps there isn't much I can do about it now because you all keep reverting my correction and threatening me with a 3-revert rule block. Please re-consider adding "allegedly" to the first paragraph where I believe some sort of caveat is necessary. Skeptical Dude (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment does not meet with consensus. Some cavaet could possibly be added, but outside the pseudo-quote. And it's NOT an NPOV violation under any reasonable interpretation, as far as I can tell. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As AQFK eloquently explained in March 2009, "Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by WP:RS and in proportion to the number of WP:RS that express this view. Thus, if a conspiracy theory is regarded as bunk by WP:RS, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. We do not introduce bias to counter bias in WP:RS. To do so would be a violation of WP:NPOV." That being said, although only one author is cited, there is a consensus among mainstream academics who study conspiracy theories that they contradict institutional analysis and are not supported by conclusive evidence. If they are shown to be supported by conclusive, they no longer are conspiracy theories according to the definition the term "conspiracy theory" has gained. Therefore, we won't be deleting the word "institutional analysis" nor adding the word "allegedly" to satisfy your POV. --Loremaster (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One author isn't an "institutional analysis"

I have a problem with the phrase "institutional analysis" because this article cites each author individually so there isn't much if any comparison with a group or institutional analysis going on. -previously an anon ip Skeptical Dude (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. Although only one author is cited, there is a consensus among mainstream academics who study conspiracy theories that they contradict institutional analysis and are not supported by conclusive evidence. If they are shown to be supported by conclusive, they no longer are conspiracy theories according to the definition the term "conspiracy theory" has gained. Therefore, we won't be deleting the word "institutional analysis" nor adding the word "allegedly" to satisfy your POV. --Loremaster (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think our fellow editor Skeptical Dude was not pushing his POV, but may have been referring to POV's of some distinguished scholars, like for example Noam Chomsky. I made an effort and have found a reference. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentions Noam Chomsky's POV in the Validity section. --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted your recent changes to the article which should be in the Validity section rather than the lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

you deleted more than that. you reintroduced unsourced words. also, argument that i added about chomsky is distinct from argument in validity section. also, it is very important to note that scholars disagree when they talk about conspiracy theories, and if other relevant statements are in the lead, so should be the one that you deleted. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "Machiavellian" and "tentative" do not need to be sourced. That being said, please always keep in mind that the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the major arguments in the body of the article. Getting into the details about disagreements between academics about what is and isn't institutional analysis is not appropriate in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis ... is very much related to the statement that I added, so if former is in the lead, i think later should be too. disagreement comes from one of the most cited intellectuals of the 20th century, and is far for questionable (in reply to a.r.) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the major arguments in the body of article. Getting into the details about disagreements between academics about what is and isn't institutional analysis is not appropriate in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "institutional analysis" is that our article doesn't cover the intended meaning, (hence the wikilink is inappropriate), and that reference [2] doesn't use the term. Perhaps a more standard term could be used, to avoid disputes as to what is and is not institutional analysis. I think {{verification failed}} is appropriate. Also, "tentative" and Machiavellian are not in the dictionary definition (reference [1]), and probably also require a source. Perhaps the source is later in the article, but I really don't see it. I don't think Chomsky is appropriate in the lead, but neither is "institutional analysis" unless we can find a source for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. First, the Validity section of the article does cover the intended meaning of the term "institutional analysis" so the wikilink is appropriate. Second, a source doesn't need to use the term "institutional analysis" if it is in fact the work of an academcic who engages in the systematic study of people's collective behaviour in institutions in order to to explain major political, social, or historical events (which is the definition of "institutional analysis"). Third, there isn't anything "un-standard" about the term "institutional analysis" that would justify it being deleted in order to dumb down the sentence. Fourth, although I don't mind deleting the word "tentative", I strongly disagree that the word "Machiavellian" needs to be directly sourced since so many conspiracy theorists and critics of conspiracy theories argue that the alleged conspirators employ cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in their general conduct (which is the definition of being "Machiavellian"). --Loremaster (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

institutional analysis vs conspiracy theory disagreements between noam chomsky and critics

i see some consider this irrelevant, and questionable. what are specific objections? also, find a reference for 'tentative' claim. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of credibility, Noam Chomsky's personal opinion does not belong in the lead. Whether institutional analysis is the correct term to contrast conspiracy theory with may be another matter, which possibly should be discussed. 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

aren't we quoting in article personal opinions of scholars? or do we cite some abstract opinions? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't about whether personal opinions belong in the lead. The issue is that the lead section of an article is supposed to be a concise overview of the arguments of the article. Getting into the details about disagreements between academics about what is and isn't institutional analysis is not appropriate in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. this is paragraph in question (bolded under discussion):

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence. However, there have been disagreements about this; for example, what his critics call conspiracy theory, Noam Chomsky calls institutional analysis. The term is often used dismissively by politicians; in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and to downplay the widespread popularity of conspiracies, a person who believes in conspiracies is judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the term isn't used by politicians; and any claim that it is needs to be a peer-reviewed source, as it's contrary to observed fact. The age of anxiety does not appear to be a "reliable source", but I could be convinced if the publisher is highly reliable. And institutional analysis does not appear in sources, so it should be removed from the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

nb. the term has been used by politicians. just take a look at bill mahers show on obama and 911 truth guys. for example, bush used the term, so it is an observed fact (at least by me, and a few others who are watching tv), and may not need to be in peer-reviewed source. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it would be misleading to suggest that only politicians use the term "conspiracy theory" in dismissively when in fact pundits, journalists, academics, and everyday people also use it in such a way. --Loremaster (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we are cleaning up the article, lets go over all sources cited in the lead:

1. ^ "conspiracy theory". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory. Retrieved on 2009-04-16.
2. ^ a b Domhoff, G. William (2005). There Are No Conspiracies. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/conspiracy.html. Retrieved on 2009-01-30.
3. ^ Richard J. Alexander. 2008. Framing Discourse on the Environment. p.213
4. ^ Martin Parker, Jane Parish. 2001. The age of anxiety. pp.11
5. ^ Fenster, M. 1999. Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
6. ^ Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California.

using your criteria, 2. is not "reliable source" as it is not peer-reviewed, but a guy's website

number 3. is published by http://www.routledge.com/ so, is it reliable?

number 4 is jon willey and sons. ?? reliable? i don't know

number 5 is published by University of Minnesota Press . so i don't know.

number 6 univ of cal.

anyhow, which of these sources are reliable, and why? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Number 2 is not a "guy's website". It is a page of an academic on the website of the University of California. It summarizes views he expressed in his peer-reviewed work.

Number 3, 4 and 5 may be reliable but you are missing the point: The issue isn't whether the sources are reliable. It is whether the material belongs in the lead section of the article.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

sources for 'institutional analysis' vs conspiracy theory (and noam chomsky -- you can also search without his name): [13]. google scholar has a few too. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

note that i will not select a particular source until above sources are discussed for reliability. i am simply tired of people dismissing my contributions with nothing more but 'not reliable' or 'fringe' summary. there are 20+ books and 200+ of papers discussing or mentioning this issue (less if noam chomsky is also mentioned), and i am SURE some are reliable. please select those you like. i will reintroduce the statement in the near future. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

another option is eliminating 'institutional analysis' from the article, as papers citing both are miniscule in comparison with papers citing one of the two. however, if it is kept, than NPOV view on it should be presented. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ps. i did delete it from the lead. google scholar for 'conspiracy theories' and you'll see thousands of results. same for 'institutional analysis'. but when you combine the two, much less results --- it does not deserve to be in the lead. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

pps. i am getting confused here. i did similar test replacing 'shadow government' instead of 'inst. analy', and got similar numbers. so what criteria should be used when placing info in the lead? how do we figure out what is most important in the article, and worth placing in the lead? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't just do a Google Scholar search and count the number of hits. You need to read each article to make sure that it's a WP:RS and that it actually says the thing you think it says. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

so can you please discuss above 6 sources from the lead and tell me which ones are reliable? also, for lead sources not only need to be reliable, but statements they support need to be important and to deserve to be mentioned in the lead. how to determine that? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any value in bringing up institutional analysis in this article. It's not a term most readers will have heard of or will care about. (And Chomsky is one of my favorite people ever.) PhGustaf (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Institutional analysis is focused on the systematic study of people's collective behaviour in institutions, its ability to explain major political, social, or historical events is sometimes contrasted with the use of conspiracy theory to explain such events, since the latter focuses on explaining such events by a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert coalition of small numbers of powerful or influential individuals rather than by the systematic, regular, publicly documented behaviour of the institutions. Therefore, it should be mentioned in the Conspiracy theory article. The only problem is that there is mainstream instutional analysis which can be found in most academic text books and controversial institutional analysis whuch can be found in the writings of political dissidents like Noam Chomsky which is often (unfairly) dismissed as conspiracy theory. That's a debate that should explored in another section of the article rather than the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

i wonder when will wiki editors learn to use arguments. for example, XYZ is not a reliable source. is NOT an argument. XYZ is not a reliable source BECAUSE ... has a much better chance of being an argument. (i am refering to some common edit summaries) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't the reliability of sources but whether or not the content you want to include is neutral and appropriate in the Lead section. That being said, the larger issue is that you should discuss substantial changes on this talk page to acheive consensus before making them regardless of whether or not you have reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

nb. i got tired of this silly discussion, and won't contribute to it any more. hopefully above few threads will be useful for new editors who join discussion and help them improve the article. cheers! 79.101.174.192 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance... --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that Chomsky shouldn't be in the lead (and I have doubts whether he should be in the article), I have further doubts as to whether a contraversial term such as "institutional analysis" should be in the lead at all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained in the section why the term "institutional analysis" should remain in the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have explained, and I'm not convinced. I've replaced "mainstream institutional analysis" with "mainstream analysis"; "institutional" is redundant with "mainstream", and we seem to be in agreement that "mainstream" is necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And we both need to beware of 3RR; I've reverted the anon twice and you once in the past 24 hours, but I don't consider this edit a revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have refuted your argument for deletion of the term so I have and will continue to re-add it. Furthermore, "institutional" is NOT redundant with "mainstream". The word "institutional" refers to study of institutions while "mainstream" refers to how the study (or studier) is accepted and perceived. --Loremaster (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But "mainstream" is what is both correct and in the source, "institutional" is not even implied by that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I will add a source that uses the word "institutional" to resolve this dispute once and for all. By the way, if academics agree that institutional analysis is the opposite of conspiracy theory, it is obviously relevant and important that it be should mentioned and wikilinked in this article. So I can't for the life of me understand anyone would dispute this fact. --Loremaster (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By institutional analysis, what seems to be meant is what we (and most rational people) call mainstream analysis. The term is ambiguous (as noted in our article, whether or not the intended definition is there — I still don't see it, but I'll take your word for it), so should not be used in the lead unless also defined. If you do that, I won't revert, but "mainstream analysis" seems better than mainstream "institutional analysis[fn 1]". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. "Institutional analysis" simply means that study of institutions. You can have mainstream institutional analysis (in the sense of that is accepted by corporate media, the academic community, government administrations, and the public) and dissident insitutional analysis (in the sense that even though it may be valid it is rejected by corporate media, the academic community, government administrations, and the public). That being said, I will be my pleasure to define it in the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The sense in which it is used seems to be analysis by (conventional or mainstream) institutions, while the primary definition is the analysis of institutions. Not at all the same. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. What can I say. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There Are No Conspiracy Theories

US Law disagrees. For instance: U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 19 prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing criminal conspiracy with conspiracy theory. --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say on face value, the above quote is entirely false. It's total BS... Everyone who knows anything about Nazi history, Contemporary Chinese History, Soviet/Russian History etc should know that not only has there been CONSPIRACIES in suspending laws, grabbing power through starting wars, having a handful of wealthy powerful people controlling the entire nation... IT HAS BEEN DONE! (And people are still doing it.) The above essay could very well have been written by one of those folks through their so called "logic" figured in the 1940's that Nazi gas chambers are nothing more than wild fantasies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude (talk • contribs) 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See my response below. --Loremaster (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Many Conspiracy Theories are True

I think the dismissive tone of the present article is very much inappropriate.

The fact is, many popular conspiracies are in fact true. For example, the US and the UK conspired with Israel to take control over the Suez Canal During the 6 day war. The North Koreans kidnapped Japanese citizens for the purpose of spy training etc.

The article should note EMPHATICALLY that while theories such as "my daughter is missing, she must have been kidnapped by North Korean secret Agents" are unlikely, it is nonetheless very much PLAUSIBLE given the history of things.

Elaborate, secret and seemingly superfluous plots have been carried out by shadowy governments numerous times... Occam's Razor is often wrong when it comes to conspiracies. (why would the DPRK carry out elaborate kidnapping plots involving secret agents to obtain Japanese Language Teachers when they can easily obtain Japanese instructions by simply spending a few thousand dollars to hire a teacher?)

It is simply a matter of historical fact that governments sometimes go through extraordinary lengths, for seeming no practical reason at all, to execute plots that has very little benefits at all.

Philosophy.dude (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have references, feel free to add something. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy dude, like many other people who have read and misinterpreted this essay, you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies, such the ones you mentioned. Domhoff isn't arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd), he is arguing that "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)--

Hmm, perhaps the relation to institutional analysis could be emphasised more in the article. Also, the relationship between conspiracy theories and rumour theory should be relevant. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both suggestions. --Loremaster (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This line: "Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with institutional analysis of historical or current events, and are not supported by conclusive evidence" is very problematic. Conspiracy theories are not always contradicted by institutional analysis. On the contrary, excessive concentration of power is viewed by Montesquieu and other theorists to be the most dangerous threat to the stability and fairness of any free society, hence the principle of separation of powers. It is self-evident that scuriny and investigations of whether power is actually, and not just in principle, satisfactorilly distributed is an important part of institutional analysis. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, you need to let go of this "I'm not one of those paranoid conspiracy theorists but I think some conspiracies are true"-bias that seems to be clouding your judgment. Please re-read Domhoff's essay which cleary explains that there is a difference between the reasonable notion of "excessive concentration of power being a dangerous threat to the stability and fairness of any free society" and a conspiracy theory about secret societies plotting to rule the world: If there is corporate domination, it is through leaders in visible positions within the corporate community, the policy planning network, and the government. If there is class domination, it is through the same mundane processes that social scientists have shown to be operating for other levels of the socioeconomic system. [...] There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one. --Loremaster (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with the original comment at the top and now claim that this article itself appears to be part of a greater conspiracy to literally change the definition of the word "conspiracy" to bury it's original meaning and avoids almost any discussion of validity of it whatsoever almost describing the use of the term out load as if it is a symptom of psychosis.

This article consistent with the with the media's attack on the concept itself fails to actually discuss major historical events known or unknown that were actual conspiracies or better yet ones that were suspected and the majority of the public thought anyone believing that was nuts at the time and now evidence proves otherwise and yet the public is largely unaware...forget page 2 or 22...no update at all.

The bigger question long before the creation of the modern nation states is how often in history have major events been manipulated by a few to change the outcome for many in secret.

Another thing is what does it take to meet the definition either in the past or currently and is their such a thing as a "real" or "legit" conspiracy or has it's original definition been beaten up so badly we need a new word. Are conspiracies in their original definition so common now that in truth they are almost everywhere and thus the word only has validity for the most extreme and the rest are considered normal?

This article itself pretty much proves the tone of the mostly conspiratorial valid as it is about as balanced as a wrecking ball through plate glass.

Examples that could easily deal with and create such balance. Any Banana Republic and United Fruit company coup story supported by US intelligence...many countries to pick from. The Iranian coup to put the Shah in control totally setup by the CIA that is the source of the term "Blowback" and responsible for most of the negative tensions between Iran and U.S. and it was totally legit and the memos from the Oil Companies and UK government have been leaked already. Gulf of Tonkin and US entry into Vietnam and any other such real conspiracies from the Pentagon Papers that are now part of the US Congressional Record thanks to a guy named Dennis. They were the leaked and validated secret military plans and records of US intelligence for well over a decade. The Business Plot which is pretty apt these days was a real plot to overthrow FDR by a bunch of corporations whose actual government records have been released under freedom of information.

Sorry if I appear to be picking on the USA, but when articles are twisted like this and it is their media and culture that has attacked this term relentlessly to hush any valid criticism more than any other country. The blankets with smallpox for the natives also fits this category. You can go back to the time of Kings in Europe, Rome or Greece and still come up with many. The movie Lady Jane is a good watch...and historical account of a real conspiracy to snatch the crown.

The smaller ones that we should discuss count too. The food companies meeting together behind closed doors and then pushing for unhealthy foods or against labeling fits the definition. Actually almost all lobbying by their definition meets the standard. Groups that meet in secret, pool their efforts and then pay people to influence and change policy to their benefit and keep the public unaware and sometimes use shell organizations two or three levels deep (like the Oil Company or Tobacco supported ones which usually are the most ridiculous.) How about all the leaked documents of the Tobacco companies themselves to hook kids with Joe Camel or manipulate women into smoking or suppress and manipulate the health affects for decades? MK Ultra? Subliminal Advertising in movies? The numerous companies that magically sell both the cause and the cures...just good business I'm sure. Drug companies suppressing health effects and influencing the FDA for approval that fits. I can name hundreds of those.

To be really blunt you could make the case very easily now that since most on the inside knew that the whole housing and derivative (CDS/Toxic) was going to blow-up in 2006 at latest, but influenced all the regulators to do nothing and kept selling "investments" that they knew were totally worthless and pocketing the profits and then perhaps planned on a bailout solution? There is at least 10 if not 15 countries where there is legal cases and tons of evidence already public proving that a bunch of people worked together in secret to profit themselves while setting others up or pretty much. Not just in the USA, Canada had a very good report on the CBC how banks kept selling investments they knew were bad after a secret meeting and chose not to tell the public and original investors while they themselves divested themselves of them. They settled out of court, but the evidence is totally public now.

Chomsky's institutional analysis or functional analysis is not mutually exclusive either. You often have groups in industry or in certain groups or classes in society that may act collectively without conspiracies, but also engage in such at various times. Something a simple these days as "price fixing" from CDs to Vitamin C well proven to be fact and usually planned in secret by the industries, executed collectively after that with not much communication and settled with government or plaintiffs with little media coverage which can also be considered a conspiracy itself if huge news stories are suppressed. Actually most big conspiracies in size, money or just plain audacity couldn't happen without such help. Watch the Aviator and then go back to the raw archives of Howard Hughes in front of the Senate. Did PanAm try to conspire and manipulate the US and other governments to get a monopoly on international air travel? Did Enron try similar things the same way for energy?

Really...I ask you what kind of dumb world to we live in when these common place things that are either public knowledge or public record to the non lazy are actual documented evidence of both long past, recent past and almost yesterday occurrences that without ignoring it's definition meet the criteria for Conspiracy, but now apparently unless the 3-way JFK turkey shoot included at least one Alien it doesn't qualify as one?

I'd also like to see a discussion about the abuse of this term by the suggestion of invalid, impossible, insane or unable to be discussed seemingly as the actual use of the term "Conspiracy" which is really more like "Heresy" was during the Spanish Inquisition or in reference to Galileo as a method of stopping any legit criticism of the current consensus reality. Why not just fix the page myself? I don't have that amount of time and as I said this page itself is proof of a Wiki conspiracy to block useful discussion and implications to society of the actual word and it's dictionary definitions and relevant historic accounts of both conspiracies proven false, those proven true and those never spoken of as a conspiracy in itself.

To finish my rant on dictionary abuse. A conspiracy as is discussed in the JFK movie is pretty much any time more than one person gets together in secret to plan some type of subversion, manipulation or crime. A theory has more than one meaning. The public believes it means something unproven. In science it is one of the highest states of any scientific postulate. The Theory of Evolution has one of the highest confidence scientifically, not lowest so it depends on your meaning. If you discuss anything that at one point is a "Theory" you must by consequence discuss ones that were proven true and ones proven false and then loop back to your definition, bias, and perhaps discuss how benefits from preventing dissent.

Speaking of which if you Wiki elites had an actual pair...then why not discuss all Wiki related Conspiracy Theories that may have some actual evidence? Feel free to grow some peas and discuss these on this page if you dare,

[14]

[15]

They of course could be anti-Wiki Conspiracies, but here at Wiki we don't even entertain such ideas in our virtual star chambers;)

Nothing better than being able to spin every legit policy criticism and just connect or extend it so you can bat it away as crazy talk from the lunatic fringe. Internment camps, ovens...just crazy talk...Well I'm off to youth camp...Orwell wants me to tell you he says hello!--Thehighlndr (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this article is part of some conspiracy is someone that cannot be taken seriously and should not be engaged in discussion. --Loremaster (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, people who post libel, have an agenda and/or generally make disruptive edits to Wikipedia get smacked down. I hardly see how this is a conspiracy. Especially when the some of the admins involved are infamous old-guard meatheads. Looks mostly like just good management. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a case for classifying G. William Domhoff as a conspiracy theorist?

I open this discussion somewhat tongue in cheek, but not entirely.

I believe the current conspiracy theory article is flawed in the following ways: 1) how it defines a conspiracy theory, 2) what is considered a conspiracy theory ad 3) who it lists as a conspiracy theorist.

I think it's fair to say that there is a distinction between government, corporate and media corruption and what I will call for the sake of this discussion GRAND conspiracy theories, theories that attempt to explain everything in terms of a small group of secretive, highly powerful individuals who control or seek to control everything.

Unfortunately, for the purposes of advancing a point of view and/or seeking to diminish the status of legitimate research and discussion of aspects of government, corporate and media corruption it is far too easy to tag research and discussion topics with the term "conspiracy theory." For example, a government official engaged in a criminal conduct (say, manufacturing justification for war where none exists) can claim that individuals pursuing this line of research are "conspiracy theorists."

Someone who does not like Domhoff's conclusions could call him a "conspiracy theorist" and thereby add him to the hodge podge of names currently on this article's list of conspiracy theorists.

Were someone to do such a thing they'd be justified by the fact that Domhoff's publicly stated beliefs are similar to beliefs of individuals who are currently on the "conspiracy theorist" list that's part of this article.

For example:

1. "Who Rules America?" The conventional answer to this question raised by the title of one of Domhoff's books is that the people do. Domhoff does not believe this and has written an entire book to explain his views.

2. If the people of America do not rule their own country, then who does? Domhoff is unequivocal about that. He says they are:

"The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire."

3. Do these people rule at the local level too? According to Domhoff, no. His answer: "The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines."

4. Do elections matter in the US? The convention answer, of course, is yes. Domhoff disagrees. His statement on the matter: "They usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.'

Al quotes from here: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica

In Domhoff's world view, the US is ruled by the owners of large corporations, banks and agri-business and because of flaws in its electoral system it is LESS democratic than some other industrialized nations.

It would be very easy for a conventionally minded person to take exception to Domhoff's views and declare his research and opinion to the the ravings of a "conspiracy theorist." Of course, America is ruled by the people. Of course, elections are the determining factor in how the country is run. Of course, America has the most democratic society in the word. To clam otherwise is to suggest that something else is really going on therefore to be a "conspiracy theorist."

As I look at the list of "conspiracy theorists" in this article I see:

Mae Brussell who documented the extreme right wing affiliations, including some actual Nazi associations, of individuals who had working relationships with the Nixon, Bush and Reagan White Houses. Her research was largely based on articles appearing in mainstream news sources.

David Emory who conducts similar studies.

Lyndon LaRouche who, like him or not, is a political figure with a political organization that often appears on electoral ballots. As for his felony conviction, he shares that distinction with many US political figures. It's not terribly relevant to his classification as a "conspiracy theorist" unless the intention is to smear him.

Ken McCarthy who maintains a video directory of topics related to government, corporate and media corruption, the overwhelming majority of which come from mainstream media news reports.

Oliver Stone who made a feature film based on a book written by the District Attorney of New Orleans who investigated and indicted numerous figures in that city he believed were involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Robert Anton Wilson, a self-described "stand up neuro-physicist" who wrote about "conspiracy theories" as manifestations of psychological functioning.

These are writers/compilers whose work I'm familiar with. What standards are being used to include them on this list or to add others to it? For example, merely being a researcher and commentator on the details of governmental, corporate and media corruption does not seem to me to be adequate justification for tagging someone with this label.

The intention of this post is to stimulate thought and rational discussion. It's not my intention to diminish the efforts that have been made to assemble this article, only to point out the difficulties involved in doing it in an unbiased manner. If there is to be a list of "conspiracy theorists" those on it must conform to a commonly accepted definition of what a "conspiracy theorist" is.

Nolatime (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

This article already addresses the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is sometimes or often misused by the Establisment to blunt criticism from serious intellectual dissidents such as G. William Domhoff and Noam Chomsky. That being said, one has to be careful to not confuse conspiracy theories (which has come to refer to theories which explain a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government") with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. As for the section dealing with conspiracy theorists (which I've never added names to), I've only deleted the mention of Robert Anton Wilson for now since I don't have the time to look at the others. I agree with you that we need to come up with a guideline so that everyone knows who should and shouldn't be added to this section. Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person. Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is widely believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is widely believed to be a conspiracy theorist." - I think this is an excellent solution, the key items being: 1) authoritative source and 2) that the person is WIDELY believed to be a conspiracy theorist. Given the ease of Internet publishing (a good thing) and the deterioration of accuracy standards in academia and the news media due to political agendas, it should not be left to one or even a small handful of sources to paint a living individual with the "conspiracy theory" brush. Perhaps, step one should be to assess who on the list is a living person. I could take that task on but not until next week.

Off the top, I know of these cases:

Mae Brussell - deceased/Robert Anton Wilson - deceased/Alex Jones - living/Dave Emory - living/Oliver Stone-living/Lydon LaRouche-living/Ken McCarthy - living/Jeff Rense - living/ Nolatime (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

I note that I made several adjustments to the "List" with the goal of adding detail and diluting what I considered biased and inacurate (reporting only the most sensational segments of a person's bio to the exclusion of other information) and that in some cases these were reverted. I believe Jeff Rense was one of the people. It's just not accurate to say that all that he reports on are UFOs and 911 conspiracy theories. Like him or dislike his, he is entitled to an accurate and complete statement about the nature of his work. A quick look at his web site will confirm the wide variety of topics he covers.Nolatime (talk)Nolatime —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

There Are No Conspiracies

One of the academic sources for the Conspiracy theory article is G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, who wrote a March 2005 essay entitled There Are No Conspiracies:

“ Many people seem to believe that America is ruled from behind the scenes by a conspiratorial elite with secret desires, i.e., by a small secretive group that wants to change the government system or put the country under the control of a world government. In the past, the conspirators were usually said to be secret Communist sympathizers who were intent upon bringing the United States under a common world government with the Soviet Union, but the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 undercut that theory. So most conspiratorial theorists changed their focus to the United Nations as the likely controlling force in a "new world order," an idea which is undermined by the powerlessness of the United Nations and the unwillingness of even moderates with the American power structure to give it anything but a limited role.

For a smaller group of conspiratorial thinkers, a secret group of operatives located within the CIA was responsible for many terrible tragedies and assassinations since the 1960s, including the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Problems with a conspiratorial view

There are several problems with a conspiratorial view that don't fit with what we know about power structures. First, it assumes that a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don't fit with the roles they seem to have. For example, that rich capitalists are no longer out to make a profit, but to create a one-world government. Or that elected officials are trying to get the constitution suspended so they can assume dictatorial powers. These kinds of claims go back many decades now, and it is always said that it is really going to happen this time, but it never does. Since these claims have proved wrong dozens of times by now, it makes more sense to assume that leaders act for their usual reasons, such as profit-seeking motives and institutionalized roles as elected officials. Of course they want to make as much money as they can, and be elected by huge margins every time, and that can lead them to do many unsavory things, but nothing in the ballpark of creating a one-world government or suspending the constitution.

Second, the conspiratorial view assumes that the behind-the-scenes leaders are extremely clever and knowledgeable, whereas social science and historical research shows that leaders often make shortsighted or mistaken decisions due to the limits placed on their thinking by their social backgrounds and institutional roles. When these limits are exposed through stupid mistakes, such as the failure of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy Administration, then conspiratorial theorists assert that the leaders failed on purpose to fool ordinary people.

Third, the conspiratorial view places power in the hands of only a few dozen or so people, often guided by one strong leader, whereas sociologists who study power say that there is a leadership group of many thousands for a set of wealth-owning families that numbers several million. Furthermore, the sociological view shows that the groups or classes below the highest levels buy into the system in various ways and support it. For example, highly trained professionals in medicine, law, and academia have considerable control over their own lives, make a good living, and usually enjoy their work, so they go along with the system even though they do not have much political power.

Fourth, the conspiratorial view often assumes that clever experts ("pointy-headed intellectuals") with bizarre and grandiose ideas have manipulated the thinking of their hapless bosses. But studies of policy-making suggest that experts work within the context of the values and goals set out by the leaders, and that they are ignored or replaced if they step outside the consensus (which is signaled by saying they have become overly abstract, idealistic, or even, frankly, "pinko").

Finally, the conspiratorial view assumes that illegal plans to change the government or assassinate people can be kept secret for long periods of time, but all evidence shows that secret groups or plans in the United States are uncovered by civil liberties groups, infiltrated by reporters or government officials, and written about in the press. Even secrets about wars and CIA operations -- Vietnam, the Contras, the rationales for Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- are soon exposed for everyone to see. As for assassinations and assassination attempts in the United States, from McKinley to Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Martin Luther King, Jr., to Robert F. Kennedy to Reagan, they have been the acts of individuals with no connections to any power groups.

Because all their underlying assumptions are discredited by historical events and media exposures, no conspiracy theory is credible on any issue. If there is corporate domination, it is through leaders in visible positions within the corporate community, the policy planning network, and the government. If there is class domination, it is through the same mundane processes that social scientists have shown to be operating for other levels of the socioeconomic system.

More on illegal government actions

Even though there are no conspiracies, it is also true that government officials sometimes take illegal actions or try to deceive the public. During the 1960s, for example, government leaders claimed that the Vietnam War was easily winnable, even though they knew otherwise. In the 1980s the Reagan Administration defied a Congressional ban on support for anti-government rebels in Nicaragua (the "Contras") through a complicated scheme that raised money for the rebels from foreign countries. The plan included an illegal delivery of armaments to Iran in exchange for money and hostages. But deceptions and illegal actions are usually uncovered, if not immediately, then in historical records.

In the case of the Vietnam War deception, the unauthorized release in 1971 of government documents called The Pentagon Papers (which revealed the true state of affairs) caused the government great embarrassment and turned more people against the war. It also triggered the creation of a secret White House operation to plug leaks (the "Plumbers"), which led in turn to an illegal entry into Democratic Party headquarters during the 1972 elections, an attempted cover-up of high-level approval of the operation, and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in the face of impeachment charges. As for the Reagan Administration's illegal activities, they were unraveled in widely viewed Congressional hearings that led to a six-month imprisonment for the president's National Security Adviser for his part in an unsuccessful cover-up, along with convictions or guilty pleas for several others for obstruction of justice or lying to Congress. The Secretary of Defense was indicted for his part in the cover-up, but spared a trial when he was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush on Christmas Eve, 1992.

It is also true that the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one.

Claims about the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

The group said by many conspiratorial thinkers to be at the center of the alleged conspiracy in the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations, is in fact a mere policy discussion forum. It has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group. All the CFR does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers. As far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives. Historical studies of the CFR show that it has a very different role in the overall power structure than what is claimed by conspiratorial theorists.

”

--Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You neglected to say why you felt the nedd for this addition to the talk page, and why you included this big quote in such.Slarty2 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

yep, he keeps removing all other newer discussions except his favorite old quote above. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

it's as if he is owning this talkpage. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't own the Conspiracy theory article and its talk page. However, I have taken responsibility for both in order to ensure that the article is improved to meet Wikipedia's good article criteria. According to Help:Archiving a talk page, it is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page to avoid that page becoming too large. Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. On the other hand, there are circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. That being said, the reason why I always keep old quote above is because this article attracts many cranks who may not understand the rational skeptical yet neutral perspective from which this article is being edited. --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

there is a bot that archives, so you don't need to take that "responsibility" and burden upon yourself. i don't know who you refer to as crank, but i think that your labeling yourself as a 'rational skeptic' doesn't make you so. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I freely choose to take responsibility and burden upon myself despite the existence of this bot. What I don't need is you telling what I don't need to take. I never labeled myself a “rational skeptic” but, as imperfect as I am, I try my best to contribute to this article from the rational skeptical yet neutral perspective Wikipedia demands. --Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know who removed my critique of G. William Domhoff's article and what justification was used to do so. There was nothing "old" about my post. It was posted less than a month ago. Nor was it "bulky." I grant that it may be a "burden" for those who want this one article by Domhoff to serve as Holy Writ on the subject, but if this article is going to be used this way, it should be open to evaluation and discussion.

To repeat a summary of the recently removed post, Domhoff's writings elsewhere make assertions about the governance of the US than are certainly not part of the consensus. He states (and I provided the exact text in the post that was removed) that: 1) citizens do not run the country, 2) international and domestic business forces both on a national and local level do, and 3) elections really don't matter much. This is certainly not what's taught in approved Civics textbooks, therefore by the standards used in this article Domhoff himself a conspiracy theorist.

Domhoff also states in the conspiracy theory article that eventually everything that goes on in government and in business is public and therefore it's ultimately impossible for there to be such thing as a secret government or corporate operation that has a "ruling" effect. It's hard to know where to begin to respond to such a preposterous assertion, but here's a short version:

1) There are agencies of the United States government that have as part of their core standard operating procedure systems for keeping specific facts from the public including the media and the Congress. Many thousands of people are employed this way and elaborate systems for information security exist to keep specific information and activities secret.

2) While I guess it's theoretically possible that all facts kept secure by these trained professionals at great expense are knowable, there are two practical questions that Domhoff in his wisdom fails to consider: 1) the practical problem caused by the sheer mass of these secrets and the relative lack of resources to ferret them out and 2) to adapt and paraphrase a quip from the economist John Maynard Keynes about inflation: "Yes, in the long run, all government secrets will eventually be uncovered, but in the long run we'll all be dead." My point being that the timeliness of information is everything and learning the facts about something "eventually" from a functional point of view can be as bad as never learning them at all.

Deliberately concealed government, military and corporate operations are a fact of daily life. To paint anyone and everyone who expresses an interest in these operations as a conspiracy theorist is both unsupportable and illogical.

My original purpose is raising this issue was to point out what consider a very serious problem with this article that has not been addressed: Specifically the list of "conspiracy theorists" that is part of this article is randomly and carelessly constructed and shoddily researched and documented. The whole list should be removed and re-assembled individual by individual only after clear, thoroughly discussed standards for what constitutes a conspiracy theorist are established.

If "conspiracy theorist" means one who believes that a small group secretly controls the world, then 90% + of the individuals on the conspiracy theory list should be removed immediately, esp. those who are living. Interest in underreported or unreported phenomenon does not make one a conspiracy theorist by this standard. In fact, if you look at the history of science, invention and discovery, breakthroughs in understanding in countless fields come specifically from people who are not part of the "consensus" and take what is an initially "unpopular" view of certain topics.

The ongoing failure to create clear standards for labeling living people as "conspiracy theorists" puts this list in its present state in violation of wikipedia's guidelines on living people.

The term "conspiracy theorist" is routinely used as tactic to smear individuals and discourage research directions and they've been numerous instances of this on wikipedia itself. For every "crank" who pushes a pet theory, there is a reactionary who paints individuals whose writing he or she dislikes with the""conspiracy theorist" brush as a way of personal attack. Nolatime (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Nolatime, both your previous and current critiques of Domhoff were in fact bulky and so full of (well-written) straw man arguments that they discourage most people from responding to them. That being said, your previous critique was not deleted but moved to the archives because I responded to it and you seem to be satisfied with my response. As for your critique of the list of conspiracy theorists, I created a new section in which to discuss a guideline for such a list. So I don't see what your problem is. --Loremaster (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Machiavellian

i think a word Machiavellian does need to be sourced, and even by mainstream wp:reliable_sources. :P 93.87.231.231 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

why? --Loremaster (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on Machiavellianism provides a succinct definition straight from the Oxford English Dictionary, saying that it is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct". Seems to fit the conspiracy bill perfectly, actually. In this situation, "Machiavellian" is simply an adjective, and a fitting one, at that. No need for a source.

To clarify, someone who is described as Machiavellian uses deceit and exploitation to stay in a position of power over others. Is that not what conspirators in shadowy organizations such as the New World Order are said to do? --clpo13_(talk) 06:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. --Loremaster (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly WP:OR. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have an extreme interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding original research that no one shares. --Loremaster (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

u r right. i'm an extremist, and you are a psychic (being able to read everyones mind). 77.46.171.76 (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Project Censored

It might be helpful and instructive for contributors and editors of this article to familiarize themselves with the work of Project Censored, a project based out of Sonoma State University.

This is a quote from one its supporters. Their site is here: http://www.projectcensored.org/

"Project censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcast outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." — Walter Cronkite

The organization was started in 1976, publishes an annual yearbook and has sponsored numerous conferences.

"Through a partnership of faculty, students, and the community, Project Censored conducts research on important national news stories that are underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media. Each year, Project Censored publishes a ranking of the top 25 most censored nationally important news stories in the yearbook, Censored: Media Democracy in Action, which is released in September. Recent Censored books have been published in Spanish, Italian and Arabic."

What's the point?

The point is that there appears to be significant confusion by some contributors to this article over what constitutes "conspiracy theory" and what constitutes critical evaluation of the news media and its output.

Are false stories sometimes planted or spring up from no traceable source that spread and become "urban myths?" Of course. Are there occasions when stories (or theories) are constructed out of falsehoods with malicious intent? Again, of course.

Setting that aside, there are numerous news stories of importance that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media." So many so that a university has given over its resources to create a permanent center to study the phenomenon.

Interest in the failings of the news media and specifically in stories that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored" does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" in the way it is used in this article.Nolatime (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Academics Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman elaborated the propaganda model 20 years ago so interest in the failings of the news media and specifically in stories that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored" does not make one a "conspiracy theorist". However, conspiracy theorists often misinterpret same failings of the news media that Project Censored will document as part of a grand conspiracy of the Illuminati to secretly rule over the world or whatever hysteria is currently popular in their circles. That's the crucial difference the article is trying to explain. You need to get it through your head that this article isn't about critical evaluation of the news media and its output. It's about conspiracy theory! --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Posner: a scholar or not?

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding mention of Gerald Posner in a list of "leading scholars of conspiracism". I'm surprised no one thought to bring the dispute to the talk page before now.

So, should Posner be included in this list? Can he be considered an academic with a focus in studying conspiracy theories? Can others in the list? Please discuss here before going back to the talk page to revert so we can avoid any more edit warring. --clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Posner is an investigative journalist and an author but, as far as I know, he isn't a scholar. However, I think the paragraph can be modified to include him if someone thinks he absolutely should be. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservative sources

The article quotes heavily from neoconservative critics of conspiracy theories, such as Michael Kelly, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Hofstadter and Daniel Pipes. Conspiracy theorists would typically respond to this by arguing that these very sources might be part of a conspiracy to hide the truth on the part of neoconservative organizations on the World Wide Web. ADM (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is obviously B.S. Just because someone is a neoconservative it doesn't mean they can't offer a relatively objective and accurate critique of conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to be rude. Anyhow, ADM suggested that majority of critics in WP article are neoconservatives. Is that true? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not true. Some of them are. Some of them are not. Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. So what? --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the example you just provided is a much better answer than the previous "B.S." thing. anyhow, editor expressed a concern that article might be biased towards a point of view of a specific ideology. that's all. i guess most useful would be if (s)he provided a list of non-neoconservative critics... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As a self-identified left-wing progressive, I can assure you that this article is not biased towards a neoconservative point of view. I was the one who included the mention of some of these critics not because of ideology but simply because they provide a relatively objective and accurate critique of conspiracy theories despite their personal ideological bias. That being said, the article could benefit from mentioning more non-neoconservative critics of conspiracy theories to neutralize any accusation of bias. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over the use of the "Machiavellian"

Accusations

i think editor user:Arthur_Rubin should choose his words more carefully. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

instead of calling my edit a WP:Vandalism, you should try to find a source for your claim. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism; or at least "repeated edits against a clear consensus" and not supported by policy. If you want to remove the word, seek an RfC, but it's unlikely the result will be different than last time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting. clear consensus? search thought archives reveals this. great fu***** consensus you are talking about. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

and not supported by policy part is even more interesting... 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page before this dispute gets out of hand. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Should a word Machiavellian be added without a source being provided? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As clpo13 explained on 19 August 2009:

“ The Wikipedia entry on Machiavellianism provides a succinct definition straight from the Oxford English Dictionary, saying that it is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct". Seems to fit the conspiracy bill perfectly, actually. In this situation, "Machiavellian" is simply an adjective, and a fitting one, at that. No need for a source. To clarify, someone who is described as Machiavellian uses deceit and exploitation to stay in a position of power over others. Is that not what conspirators in shadowy organizations such as the New World Order are said to do? ”

That being said, in an interview for the New Internationalist magazine, Micheal Barkun, a political scientist specializing in the study of conspiracism in American culture, states:

“ The appeal of conspiracism is threefold. First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what others can't. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Finally, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions. ”

So I chose the word "Machiavellian" to summarize Barkun's notion that conspirators in most conspiracy theories are portrayed as cunning, duplicitous, and even evil. So this isn't a case of original research. Regardless, I don't understand your obsession with opposing the use of the word "Machiavellian". Can you explain it? --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

we should cite sources, not other wikipedia articles. i have no obsession with the word, but it seems you do, and you are projecting that obsession to me. i only ask you find a source for it, which you didn't do so far. why? i don't know. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

in addition, what has UFO conspiracy theory to do with "Machiavellian" thing? "Machiavellian" conspiracies are a subset of all conspiracies. is that so hard to understand for you? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:93.86.164.168, you seem terribly confused.

1. Wikipedia does not require we cite a source for one word, especially an abjective, unless it radically changes the commonly accepted meaning of a concept.

2. We only cited the Wikipedia article on Machiavellianism to make you understand that the word "Machiavellian" simply means that the conduct of an individual or a group is marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.

3. I'm not obsessed with using the word "Machiavellian" but, as User:Clpo13 explained in the quote above, it is simply the best word to describe conspirators. I describe you as seemingly "obsessed" only because for weeks now you insist on deleting this word without explaining why you think it needs to be sourced.

4. All conspiracies are Machiavellian. The conduct of conspirators is by definition marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith. For example, most UFO conspiracy theories imply that malevolent space aliens are in cahoots with shadowy government agencies who cover-up their mutual existence. This obviously requires Machiavellian conduct.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we add a bunch of other unsourced adjectives, like: egoistic, narcissistic, antisocial, untrustworthy, malevolent, immoral, etc. After all, they all describe as well those guys, don't they? I guess you won't mind me adding some of these adjectives, do you? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All conspiracies are Machiavellian. give me a source for that one. i think it is b.s. if an advanced UFO is malevolent, why would it need to be in cohoots with primitive human agencies? sounds ridiculous to me. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle conspiracy theory is Machiavellian? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Bermuda Triangle" myth isn't a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy requires conspirators, by their nature. Please stop your disruptive editing. Verbal chat 07:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:93.86.164.168, you are now embarrasing yourself.

1. As I explained before, adjectives that do not radically change the commonly accepted meaning of a concept do NOT need to be sourced. "Egoistic", "narcissistic", "antisocial", "untrustworthy", "malevolent" and/or "immoral" are all good adjectives but I (and others) think that, for the sake of conciseness, "Machiavellian" is the best and only one we should use since it not only encapsulates all the other adjectives you mentioned but it also has a political dimension that is especially relevant to the subject of conspiracy theories.

2. I don't need to provide a source for something that can be demonstrated through pure logical argument. That being said, even if malevolent aliens don't need primitive human agencies, it doesn't change the fact the most UFO conspiracy theorists claim that these aliens are engaging in conduct that is marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.

3. The Bermuda Triangle is nautical lore not a conspiracy theory. And with that you proven to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about. ;)

--Loremaster (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

bermuda triangle was linked in see also section. anyhow, i'm just annoyed by the uncunning duplicity editors have when editing articles. for example, when i removed unsourced word mainstream, i was accused of being a vandal, but when you guys add whatever you want, you are being logical and cromulent. whatever.

i can BET that if add a sourced statement now: since threats and plots are common in international relations, the perception that others are machiavellian cannot be easily labeled as pathological. , i'll get immediately reverted, and called names. very Machiavellian of other editors, i must say! :P 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the Bermuda Triangle is not a conspiracy theory, it is possible that some conspiracy theorists speculate that a group of human or alien conspirators is using the myth of the Bermuda Triangle to capture planes and boats in order to abduct people (which obviously is a sign of cunning, duplicity or bad faith...). If so, that would justify the link in the See also section. Regardless, there is nothing duplicitous about using unsourced words if they are common SYNONYMS for the words used by sources. As User:Baccyak4H explained below, that's what Wikipedia editing is all about. However, deleting adjectives without any explanation beyond the claim that they are are unsourced is ridiculous.

Putting aside that there is a difference between an unsourced word (which is usually fine) and an unsourced statement (which is usually bad), there is nothing wrong with the sourced statement you wrote. However, you would have to add it somewhere in the article where it makes sense. If not, that would be the only reason why I or someone else would delete it. For example, in my opinion, it would not be perninent to add such a statement in the the lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• No problem It's a perfectly cromulent word being used correctly. Verbal chat 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes Reasons given at Verbal 20:02 20 Sept and Loremaster 17:47 20 Sept. Machiavellian is a descriptive and characterising adjective, more than appropriate to characterise here. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• referred from signpost Of course Our job as editors is to summarize and paraphrase, keeping the meaning as true to the sources as possible. This word does that well. That is not to suggest you may not propose a better one. "cromulent"?!? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia article on cromulent. Verbal chat 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment per RfC: This isn't really a question about sources but about style. I really like Machiavellian as a word but I'm not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia. It just carries too much baggage and is too colourful. We should aim to be a bit more boring. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. 1) Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia has a good article on Machiavelianism. 2) I choose the word Machiavellian because its accuracy and political connotation but also because it sounds far less melodramatic that the word "evil" which is the word used by some sources. --Loremaster (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

i am sure then, that out of all those encyclopedias, you will succeed to find at least one that uses the word in the conspiracy theory article. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times I have to explain this to you until it sinks in but, as editors of a free encyclopedia, we have the freedom to use synonyms for words used by reliable sources. Therefore, the fact that there might be no other encyclopedia that uses the word "Machiavellian" in their definition of the term "conspiracy theory" is irrelevant since it would simply mean that Wikipedia is far more discerning and insightful. Are we done? --Loremaster (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To add my two cents into the fray, I would agree with Blue-Haired for my affection for Machiavelianism as a word and that this is a matter of style. I believe it need not be sourced. However, the word is highly loaded, almost to the point of being provocative. I would suggest using a different word for this, only because of being too provocative. If this goes against consensus, I'll withdraw and let it stand. Dinkytown (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The lede is verbose

There's no need to have such a wordy opening. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

After many edit wars and disputes, the lead has been extensively discussed by several editors until the current consensus was reached. In other words, the lead is fine as it is. However, I would welcome copy editing... from someone who doesn't have a reputation for idiosyncrasy. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite or refocus

I don't see much similarity between

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities.

and

A Conspiracy theory is the claim that a conspiracy exists when the allegation has no foundation in fact or reality - though it may also mean a hypothesis by a criminologist asserting a legitimate claim that a conspiracy exists. Political scientist, Michael Barkun, includes Machiavellianism, Secret Teams, shadow governments as characteristics of conspiracy theories.

Ludvikus (talk · contribs) claims he's only editing for verbosity. (And it's incorrect to say that Barkun used Machiavellianism as an example. That's our word for the common concept he's referring to.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with User:Loremaster - Machiavellianism was definitely NOT my contribution into this complex scheme of things. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur is not confused. He is quoting the text you rewrote!!! --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Machiavellianism" was not a term I wrote into the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a sentence in the lead that contains the abjective "Machiavellian". In your previous edit of the article, you deleted that entire sentence and created a new sentence with the term "Machiavellianism". So no one is confused except you. --Loremaster (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite his good faith, my observations of, and conversations with, User:Ludvikus have convinced me that he 1) is zealously compelled to revamp articles on topics he is suddenly interested in but is utterly ignorant about, 2) has a convoluted interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, and 3) has an idiosyncratic style of editing articles and commenting on talk pages. Obviously I have found all of this extremely irritating. So you are all warned. --Loremaster (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful for you to be informed that I've been, for a few years, a substantial contributor to almost all the WP articles related to the WP article Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I'm an expert on the topic. I own, or have access, to almost all the Primary and Secondary sources on this notorious, Antisemitic, diatribe. Please feel free to discover my expertise by simply tracking down the WP articles cited there. I say this now here, because I hope that after editor(s) do that, the discussion here may proceed more smoothly, which is my sincere wish. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the good work you may or may not have done on the Wikipedia articles related to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I am basing my judgement on the recent conversations we have had and the dubious work I've seen you do on articles I am watching. With that said, I take my leave. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• All those conversations where numerous attempts to get to keep your personal judgments about my contributions to yourself. If you noticed, I've not made one judgment about you. I strongly urge you to keep these kind of judgments to yourself because it's extremely disruptive to the substance of the conversations here. This talk page is not for the purpose of evaluation one anothers worthiness as a Wikipedia editor. Do you not understand that? Do you, or do you not understand that you are required to talk about the topic, and the particular issue raised - not about the person who raised the issue. Please let me know if you understand, and then lets clean this Talk page of all the remarks about one another - including this remark. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Conspiracy theory a Fringe science?

That's what the lede now says.

I deny that it is. Although diverse people believe in flying saucers and that there are plots to take over the world, I doubt that calling someone a crackpot, or cooks, for subscribing to such a belief, would result in an award for damages for libel. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by Fringe science? As you've been redefining other terms, I couldn't say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops - typo - had "S" instead of "s." Corrected the typo (red now is blue in the above subsection title). --Ludvikus (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: The expression in question is currently in the lede. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The expression in the lede (the last time I checked) is fringe theory, which redirects to fringe science. Fringe theory is, IMHO, exactly what should be in the lede (even conspiracy theories which later turn out to be correct are fringe theories at the time), but I'm not sure the redirect is quite appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how come fringe science mentions not a single conspiracy theory, not one (& doesn't talk about the subject)? There's a contradiction between the WP article, and what you're claiming now. Reading fringe science, it follows that every conspiracy theory is not one. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And what justifies calling "Fringe science" this: "[[Fringe science|Fringe theory]]"? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a scientific fringe theory would be fringe science. And, as you could see if you actually looked at the diffs, fringe theory is a clarification of theory, rather than of conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fringe theory article has been redirected to the Pseudo-scholarship article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

that's absurd redirect, as even google can tell you [16] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you, you've convinced me that we need to create an article for fringe theory. --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And while you're doing that I strongly urge to drop the expression from the lede where the term is currently linked to a non-extent notion. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A term doesn't need an article to justify it's use. That being said, your suggestion that the term "fringe theory" is a non-existent notion is absurd when Wikipedia has an official guidelines page called Wikipedia:Fringe theories! Furthermore, the term However, the internal link will be deleted since it links to a disambiguation page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article stub for fringe theory so I have restored the internal link in the lead section of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the "Past" of an editor is inapproriate here - Revert cleanup tags please.

• Comment: It's clearly Disruptive and inappropriate to discuss an editor's past record for the purpose of winning an argument, or discrediting him in order to win the argument. It's nothing but a WP:Personal attack. It's highly distracting from the topic at hand which is Controversial. Please Self-Revert you're Reversion of the Tags for {{Cleanup|section|Personal attacks}}. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

*Yawn* --Loremaster (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that neutral response. Much appreciated. Friendliness is OK by me. In that spirit, may I ask you two - are you both (the minimum required to be acting in concert) - "Conspiring" against me? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the idea that I should try to organize a "conspiracy" to get you permanently banned from Wikipedia. I will when I find the time. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you (Ludvikus) please note that "conspiracy" is irrelevant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, except possibly as related to the disputed WP:Tag team (and WP:CABAL and varients.) Only WP:CANVASS is considered inappropriate. Furthermore, an editor's past record is almost always relevant when discussing current disruption and even current nonconstructive edits. Referring to an editor's past disruption is not a personal attack, nor is it a violation of WP:AGF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What was nonsonstructive and disruptive about his/her edits ? Certainly you are not going to label every disagreement as disruption, are you? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. On another article, he insisted on re-adding material until more editors disagreed with the material than agreed with it, including himself.
2. On this article, he was threatening to do something similar, quoting inactive editors as agreeing with him, when it could easily be disputed as to whether what they would have agreed with him, even if they haven't changed their mind(s) about their edits.
3. He still, on his talk page, makes it clear that he will keep making changes to articles until there is a consensus (which he defines as a majority, treating himself as a an editor voting in favor) against those changes. WP:BRD clearly suggests, to anyone who can read, that if your edit is removed, you should not re-add it unless there is consensus in favor of it being appropriate. (Note: I said in favor of it being appropriate, not necessarily in favor of inclusion.)

Is that enough current disruption? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is kind of tricky how you define consensus if not by the presence of majority. Certainly i can not claim consensus if it is only me who claim something, can I ? So i don't think it is disruptive to re-add material if there is majority supporting it. Anyhow, I could challenge now a number of statements in the article, and remove them, but experience tells me they won't be discussed here before being re-inserted. So you accuse him of the same things that even you are doing. I think it is disruptive to call others disruptive. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. As usual. I had been willing to assume good faith, but now I'm sure that you're either Ludvikus or another editor who had been previously disruptive on this, or other related, articles. As I noted above, L would add material until there was consensus against the addition; BRD suggests that, if a change is reverted, it should remain reverted until there is a consensus in favor. Even if you read "consensus" as "majority", that's a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

you did it again. people disagree with you and you call them disruptive. whatever. pointless discussion. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree it's pointless. Do you want to seek WP:CONSENSUS on the question of whether 212.200.205.163/Ludvikus is disruptive? I'm perfectly willing to bring a user conduct RfC, if necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

?? it's your time. do with it whatever you want. you just have it less and less. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:212.200.205.163. It's clear, Arthur Rubin, that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "disruptive." I strongly urge you to stop calling people disruptive, or bring up their Past in order for you to win an agrument. --Ludvikus (talk)

Well, you are 212.200.205.163, so, of course you agree. And, since you do not understand WP:CONSENSUS or, it would appear, any of the terms you agreed to in your unblock request (which I cannot find in your talk page archives; please block that section from being archived, or I will be forced to assume that you don't remember what you said, either), you are being disruptive. There are many editors with which I don't agree a bit with their changes, whom I do not find disruptive. You are and have been diruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

it is not nice to accuse people of nonsense. you should apologize, or at least admit you were confused (by god knows what). 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm NOT 212.... If I were, I'd be a Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (don't remember how that's spelled) and you would have reported me a long time ago. So since you Know that I'm not violating this rule i suggest you STOP being didruptive on this page. You are an Administrator at Wikipedia - you should not do this here. You have a duty to report Sockpopetry. Instead you are being disruptive and provocative. I assure that you will not succeeded in provoking me into saying what I might regret. This constant WP:Personal attack here, of all places, violates Wikipedia rules. And it's wrong to try to get someone Blocked just because you cannot succeed in your substantive arguments herein. So I'm telling you again - stop Confronting, please. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: If you want to discuss this matter further, I suggest you do so on my Talk page. I will answer any of your personal questions there I see fit. Don't Disrupt this page by engaging in an Ad hominem argument to score points. You can try that on my Talk page if you think it's appropriate. I would also welcome it, if you explained to me your understanding of WP:Consensus - there, not here. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I tried your talk page. You've not shown you understand anything I've said nor anything in the policies I've pointed you to, and you've archived much too quickly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK. So let's try again. I'm willing to listen to you there very carefully. If there's something I do not understand, please explain it to me. And I promise you - that if you teach me something I didn't know about how Wikipedia works, I'll go out of my way to thank you by awarding you the appropriate Barnstar. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK, taking to talk page. It might be better if you set the archive time to longer than one day, as I'm not necessarily on every day. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Conspiracy Theory"

To understand the term "conspiracy theory" some actual definitions are required to ensure a foundation of understanding.

Conspiracy is defined as: an agreement by two or more persons to enact a plot, typically sinister in nature.

The publicly assumed definition of the term conspiracy theory is that of a noun, often spoken as a thing, as in "a conspiracy theory". The assumed definition of the term conspiracy theory is: A theory proposed by the mentally ill or the paranoid, that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

However, an actual definition of conspiracy theory is: 1.a term used as an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

Naturally, most of the public are aware of the term conspiracy theory, far fewer are aware of the term "coincidence theory", another assumed term.

Coincidence theory could be defined as: when facts or a set of corroborating data, known as proof, is beyond the scope of current understanding, it must be coincidence.

In truth, both of the terms, coincidence theory and conspiracy theory, are mental or emotional defense mechanisms employed by a receiver of information, not a sender. In either case, outright denial or a redirection into abstract coincidence is utilized by the receiver of the information. The use of the term conspiracy theory is not unlike snot produced by an allergy. In the case of the receiver of the information, the shock of the painful information is like an allergic reaction, the use of the defense mechanism, is the snot.

An adjunct definition of conspiracy theory: 2.a term used by an individual to cause distortion of information by triggering emotional denial by third party receivers of information.

The above definition is a description of psychological manipulation of a group to promote an agenda. It is employed when person (a) states a fact and person (b) does not wish for the audience (c) to believe or know it is factual. Thus, person (b) will state to person (a) that the information is a conspiracy theory so that audience (c) will mistrust the facts as something person (a) fabricated, then rendering person (a) as an indefensible "conspiracy theorist".

In both definitions, a conspiracy theory is always and only produced by the receiver of information.

It may well be a conspiracy that the current definition misguides the public into thinking a conspiracy theory is a noun produced by the provider of information, but that would simply be a theory. Our history is written by the victors. The victors in all cases were conspirators who's agenda won out.

Perhaps it would be prudent to call history, 'history theory' that would be more accurate as we understand that we don't truly know the full facts behind most historical events and so the gaps are filled with probabilities.

In closing, the fact is clear, a conspiracy theory is a defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable. It is a mental dysfunction by people who wish to deny facts, either to protect their current worldview or to ensure others remain locked within theirs. A catch-all term in place of kook, used by the delusional. It should be noted that the word myth and the term 'conspiracy theory' are closely related. Myth is information, that while widely accepted as truth, is mostly or completely false. Conspiracy theory is information, that while widely accepted as false, is mostly or completely true.

Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting indeed. can you give some sources please? i would like to read more! 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that but you beat me to the point: According to these un-sourced views just expressed above, what's the difference between C. T. and plain old conspiracy? Please try to be brief. And remember that WP requires the views supported by scholarly references. What you may say may entitle you to the Nobel Prize. But if what you say cannot be backed up by scholarly sources, WP rules do not permit you to express your views here. They should first be published in a reputable scholarly source. After that, you can cite these views here. In WP:Good faith, --Ludvikus (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

i think the difference is that conspiracies are true, while theory in c.t. implies it is false. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree with Ludvikus. Furthermore, I would add that conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. So please discuss substantial changes to the article on this talk page before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information.

2. I would also suggest that everyone read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies, Daniel Pipes's article Michael Barkun on Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs, and Damian Thompson's article Lies, damn lies and 'counterknowledge' for a rational skeptical perspective on the subject.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great sources! Now look at this: "world government.". Does it expound a particular family "conspiracy theories"? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now look at the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article (which I have been improving for months). What's your point? --Loremaster (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A + B = C? Or conspiracy + theory? If we know what conspiracy is, and what theory is, then we can classify the scholarly (or by evidence) supported particular accounts of "conspiracies," from those of kooks, crackpots, and other disturbed characters who cannot help but believe in notable discredited "theories." Probably it would have been better if the expression conspiracy plots (in the sense of "to plot") would have been better. But we cannot create neologisms at WP. But maybe its better to merge this article with List of conspiracy theories The reason being that there's no "reason" or "theory" in a "conspiracy theory." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details for the moment due to my limited time, I can only say that I would strongly oppose any suggestion that we merge the conspiracy theory article with some related article even if your reason was valid (which it is not). --Loremaster (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not rushed. Take as much time as you need. But think about this: Aren't both about the same pejorative? And is there reason to [[madness]? Is there a "theory" about "conspiracy theory"? If you wanted to study "conspiracy theories"? where would you go? At a university, which department would offer the course on it? What do all such CT's have in common? If nothing, then certainly a mere list would be sufficient. They all have in common the trait of being false. But that's so broad! I think our quest for sources and references should help on this - to ensure against Original Research and Neologisms. What more cane we do about such group madness except list these by name? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too tired but I'm having a hard time following you. As you know, the term "conspiracy theory" is obviously not a neologism. Not only does it have a long history but numerous mainstream journalists and academics have not only used the term but actually written on the subject of conspiracy theory extensively. It therefore clearly deserves it's own article and, as the article itself clearly explains, the word "theory" is, in this usage, considered to be more informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than mainstream scientific theory. With all of that said, although I am not opposed to merging the List of conspiracy theories into the conspiracy theory article, I would be strongly opposed to any suggestion that the conspiracy theory article should be merged with some related article or deleted simply because there is controversy over the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory". It simply doesn't makes any sense and I doubt you will find any support for such a proposal. --Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"In closing, the fact is clear, a conspiracy theory is a defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable."

That's not a fact, that's a claim. No RS to back it up, boring. 78.48.97.4 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - but whom are you quoting? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"A Conspiracy theory originally simply meant a theory of a conspiracy."

Question: What's wrong with the above as a re-write of the opening sentence? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Instead of always wanting to hastily revamp articles to fit your idiosyncratic view of reality, could you please take the time to read and understand the content of these articles?

In the Terminology section (which is based on statements found in reliable sources), there is an answer to your question:

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any legitimate or illegitimate claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies. The word "theory" is, in this usage, sometimes considered to be more informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than mainstream scientific theory.

What part of this text do you not grasp? --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Response:

1. Conspiracy exists as a WP article.

1. Theory exists as a WP artcle.

1. The above effectively says that "conspiracy theory," in its ordinary sense, means what every two words ordinarily mean when one juxtaposes them.

1. So there's no need for this long- winded (yawn...) account given by that quote.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of terminology is so convoluted that I'm not going to waste my time refuting it so I leave it to others to try to knock some sense into you. --Loremaster (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I concur. Although I was intially under the assumption that Ludvikus was merely misguided, I now believe that he wants to impose his view on multiple articles loosely related to his claimed (sorry, I can't think of a neutral but accurate word) field of expertise, The Protocols of Zion. His suggestions to New World Order (conspiracy theory) fit the same mold; he doesn't understand the real topic, Wikipedia polices and guidelines, nor the scope of the Wikipedia article. I suppose it could be part of a conspiracy theory to damage Wikipedia articles on conspiracy theories, but I can't imagine the goal of such a conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your personal opinion about me. But this is not the place to express it. Nevertheless, I think I'm partially at fault on that. I admit being provoked - and proceeded to demonstrate my expertise. I should not have done that - because I see now that I've opened a can of worms. I understand now better than ever, that the best reply to a personal attack at WP is to ignore it. I therefore ask that this page be WP:Refactor so these distracting observations on one another are removed from the article. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Big apple is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any big apple. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to New York City." Is that beginning verbosity really needed? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My belief as to your motives, although supported by some evidence, is not relevant. I apologize for making specific claims that you are being intentionally disruptive, as opposed to actually disruptive.

What it is important is that your edits here and suggested edits at New World Order (conspiracy theory) are not actually helpful in writing the articles, to the point that I cannot find a kernel of useful (suggested) changes compatible with both the real world (or, at least, what reliable sources say about the real world) and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your correction. And I value your opinion. However - you still should not use that word 'disruptive." So far, I see we're in a discussion. And the fact that you "don't get" is insufficient to characterize my contributions as even "actually disruptive," as opposed to, "deliberately Disruptive." Notice that I will not now proceed to explain why you "don't get it." Suffice it to say that we agree that we disagree - although I do not know about what since you are so extremely general - which, according to Wikipedia, is inappropriate. I could actually say that "you don't understand." But I won't because that too would be inappropriate if I said it about you. It is essential that one be highly specific on a Talk page - otherwise one cannot properly reply. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. No one is arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd). What we are arguing is that the term "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is not a theory

"Conspiracy theory" means;

1. A theory of a conspiracy in a particular set of circumstances. Since there are different conspiracies, the are diverse theories about them.
2. A label for an accounting which asserts the existence of a conspiracy, which is believed, but not supported by credible evidence.

--Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

note that there are books that deal with the phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' in general (or as you would say, theories of conspiracies). so are you suggesting renaming of this article to 'theories of conspiracies'? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't understand what you ("L") are saying. Could you please rephrase, and state what you would like to see in the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do people who comment on this talk page actually read and understand the content of this article? All the questions raised here are answered in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that everybody who has a problem with this article is a conspiracy theorist goon. ;) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification: The opening of this article is horrible. It reeks of ignorance. Here's why:

1. Conspiracies exist.
2. The job of the police is to uncover them.

1. When a detective investigates the evidence of a certain pattern of criminal activity, s/he come up with a hypothesis regarding the crime.
2. In such a particular circumstance, we merely have a particular theory of a conspiracy.

This is covered in the conspiracy article.

So it's important to remember that there's no general theory about conspiracies.

1. But there is conspiracism. However, this term is a neologism.
2. A better expression is conspiracy theory which merely means subscribing to a hypothesis of the existence of a conspiracy in which there is no, or insufficient evidence,

to lead one to conclude, if one is rational, that a conspiracy did, or does exist.

I hope this helps. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this is wordplay, at best, and nonsense, at worst. A conspiracy theory is a "theory" about "conspiracies", but not necessarily a scientific theory or a conspiracy as defined in law. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But there is/are no such thing/things as you just enumerated - notice your very own desperate qualifications. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. This is about Conspiracies where there aren't any.
2. It's about theories of conspiracies, where the conspiracies do not exist.
3. If something doesn't exist, what can you write?
4. You write about the the various claims that particular conspiracies exist.
5. But there's little to write but a list - because these all have little in common.

--Ludvikus (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nonsense again. Let's look at Wiktionary:

• wikt:Conspiracy
  • 1. The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
• wikt:Theory
• You've got me there. None of the definitions fit that well. Perhaps:
  • 4. A logical structure that enables one to deduce the possible results of every experiment that falls within its purview.

See also: wikt:conspiracy theory

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• According to political scientist Micheal Barkun:

First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what others can't. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Finally, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.[17]

--Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 1: Newtonian physics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Freud's Psychoanalysis ... Conspiracy theory (Barkun) - in the last case, we need that article - if the subject is notable. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 2: Since one editor continuously invokes the name of Barkun, perhaps the other article should be: New World Order Conspiracy Theory (all about by Michael Barkun). --Ludvikus (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment 3: There are two "kinds" of conspiracies in the world - those that exist, and those that don't, so to speak. If a conspiracy is successful, then it's "invisible", so to speak (think perfect crime). When one suspects the existence of a conspiracy, one proposes a hypothesis, a theory of a conspiracy. It is at that moment that one has a "theory (of a particular) conspiracy." That's not the same as in the case of the General Theory of Relativity. Note that the former is a "theory," while the later is a Theory." In order to digest properly this distinction, I'm omitting here a discussion of non-extent conspiracies, which belongs in the other article anyway. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. No one is arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd). What we are arguing is that the term "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add a FAQ to top of talk page

The talk pages for our articles Intelligent design[18] and the 9/11 attacks[19] both have FAQs at the top of the page. Perhaps we should add something like that to this article's talk page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like constructive suggestion. I'm open to what you recommend. Can you elaborate please? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

questions that frequently pop up on discussions are sometimes placed in these FAQ's. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily questions asked by only one editor, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Other articles

Conspiracy (political)

This is relevant. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since the above is merely a List, I've just Moved it, or Renamed it like so: List of conspiracies (political). --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe we need a List of conspiracies (controversial)? But then how would we distinguish these from: List of conspiracies (quack)? (If you think there aren't any, what does it say about the rationality of your point of view?) --Ludvikus (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy (crime)

This is relevant. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cabal

• Cabal, "an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue." Is this the same as Conspiracy theory? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, obviously not. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What's obvious to you, 134....', may not be obvious to others. Kindly explain yourself, or expand you 3-word comment. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well for one, A is an association, while B is a theory (in the broadest sense of the word). 134.106.41.27 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is A and which is B. But my view is that "theory" must be taken so "broadly" that there isn't any. I'm reminded of the catechisms of the Catholic church which eventually abandoned reason, and replaced it with faith. So maybe the right Title should be Conspiracy beliefs, because belief is precisely appropriate where no rational theory is possible. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is which is obvious from your original quote. I'm not sure where you intend to go with the rest of your reply, but I'm not following, though I suggest that you find RS for it, if it's not mere polemic. 134.106.41.27 (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote was from the lede of the "Cabal" article (which has now changed). A "Conspiracy theory" asserts the existence of a "cabal" - now that's obvious. In the case of the New World Order (conspiracy theory) the claim is made that a Cabal exists that is putting the World into a New Order. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy (civil)

• Conspiracy (civil), "an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage." How is this related to CT? --Ludvikus (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

i think conspiracy theories relate to a large scale conspiracies that have not been proven, or that oversimplify causes of historical events. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems correct to me. However, the article also talks about Past usage, and reeks of implications that Fringe "conspiracy theories" exist in which the majority simply refuse to recognise a conspiracy which exists. The article at the moment appears to me to be a back door entrance for discredited allegations of a conspiracy. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

yep, that's how it looks. certainly finding sources that claim the opposite would add to NPOV. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, you are obviously confusing conspiracy theories with actual civil conspiracies, criminal conspiracies and political conspiracies. No one is arguing that the latter don't exist (since that would be absurd). What we are arguing is that the term "conspiracy theory" has come to be defined as a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", which contradicts institutional analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

lead

How come lead is based mostly on two references that have no citation by the scholar community (at least google scholar search shows 0 citations)? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason for that is that the lede is based on Original research. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Ludvikus doesn't understand most Wikipedia guidelines, his opinion on the lead should not be taken seriously. --Loremaster (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

taken seriously by whom? other people like you who don't understand wikipedia guidelines? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite concur that Ludvikus doesn't understand most Wikipedia guidelines, as can be seen by anyone who has viewed his comments on consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead section of the article should be a concise overview of the content of the article. User:212.200.205.163 has recently added content to the lead which I have reverted because they are not discussed in the body of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

removed content

will you, user loremaster, decide to indulge us with the explanation of the sourced content removal? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. So please discuss substantial changes to the article on this talk page before making them. And, as I just explained in a section above, the lead section of the article should be a concise overview of the content of the article. You, User:212.200.205.163, have recently added content to the lead which is not discussed in the body of the article. I have therefore deleted them. That being said, I encourage you to find a way to include this content in the body of the article since it is relatively good. Also, please take into account the current style of the article when editing it. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

you are not being honest here. not only did you remove my additions from the lead, but also from the body. also, instead of deleting it from the lead, you could have easily added, or told me that to add it into the body too. after all, i just added an addition to the already present information -- nothing really qualitatively new in the lead -- although i did use a more reliable and more cited source than that which you used in the lead.

as for the style, i can't really do much, as english is my second language. i'm sure there many 'natives' around here to fix it if needed. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

plus, i don't think you think it is that controversial as you added quite a few changes to the article without discussing them. [20] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you keep accusing me of lying and not being honest, I have no interest in collaborating with you, anonymous user. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

you shouldn't act hurt. you did say above you removed my statements from the lead and that i should move them to the body, and yet your action [21] shows that you also removed my statement from the body. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting your entire edit. However, my point is that it isn't enough for a statement to be in the body of the article. It should be an important point that is significantly discussed. Furthermore, there is no point in adding superfluous or redundant information in the lead... especially if the goal is to try legitimize conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the goal is to present objective information, which is that many americans believe in some of those theories. Whether those theories are legitimate or not, beliefs of american people are legitimate. Or maybe you think they are not, and facts about those beliefs should be placed under the carpet. Statement I added has a better and more reliable source, and more cited source than the statement that you added in the lead. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Current lede

Here's the current lede:

"Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government", rather than broad social forces.<ref>Barkun, Michael. 2003. ''A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America''. Berkeley: [[University of California]].</ref> "

• It's un-necesarily verbose. It can be shortened much. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. And, in light of how awful your edit of the lead was in the past, I don't trust your opinion. --Loremaster (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many alternatives.

Here's one: "Conspiracy theory" once meant exclusively the hypothesis that a conspiracy exists. It now means the assertion of a conspiracy is without foundation, or even way beyond all credible evidence, or the lack thereof. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Awful. --Loremaster (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

proposed version does lack important reference to powerful few. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

too much for the lead?

what is that? statement supported by several sources: crocker et al 1999, glock 1988, goertzel 1994, melley 2000, parsons et al 1999, warner 1987, waters 1997, is too much of the lead, because it states many americans believe in conspiracies??? is it something to be ashamed of? is it something to hide?

and yet, statements supported by personal web pages and no citations are still in the lead.

by which wikipedia policy are you guided in making these ridiculous decisions?

212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it isn't enough for a statement to be in the body of the article to be mentioned in the lead. It should be an important argument that is significantly discussed. Furthermore, there is no point in adding superfluous or redundant information in the lead... especially if the goal is to try legitimize conspiracy theories, which is what you seem to be wanting to do. --Loremaster (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

you are repeating yourself too much. information is not redundant, but elaboration on existing information. you know, more detailed info. it was discussed quite a bit, did you bother looking at sources? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

ps. you are totally right, i want there to be a new world order to screw with my life, i want there to be aliens to abduct me, i want there to be a mind control whatever to mind control me whatever. you read me like an open book. i am so impressed by you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that people who believe there is a New World Order conspiracy are happy there is one? Dude, get a grip. Why be stupid if you don't have to be? --Loremaster (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

seems you do have to. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And with that, we've had our last conversation on Wikipedia. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not so fast. Don't overlook the initial critique at the top. It's an attack on the sources. If the challenge is sustained, it means that this article is the Original Research of one editor - namely yoy, "master" of "lore!" --Ludvikus (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1. crocker et al 1999,
2. glock 1988,
3. goertzel 1994,
4. melley 2000,
5. parsons et al 1999,
6. warner 1987,
7. waters 1997,

• Thanks a million, Dear User talk:212.200.205.163, for your meticulous analysis of the references and sources. I'm going to study each as closely as I can. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ludvikus, would you mind showing excactly where 212's "meticulous analysis" is to be found? 78.49.50.178 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• With pleasure. Look to the very top of this section. He lists the refernces. Because that's easily overlooked (as you seem now to have done) I reproduced the list and numbered each. Now all we have to do (if we're willing and able) is track these down and see if what these say in fact support the lede. Thanks for asking. Hope to hear your views. I think there are insufficient voices heard. And I would certainly be pleased to hear what you have to say, or rather, write. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Actually, I'm having trouble locating and tracking down this laundry list. Could you - User talk:212.200.205.163 - save us all the detective work required by identifying these references more precisely? I'd certainly appreciate that very much. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• A) You and I seem to have different opinions on what constitutes "meticulous analysis", and B) 212 probably can't, because the references are taken from

"Transparency and conspiracy: ethnographies of suspicion in the new world order. Harry G. West, Todd Sanders.",

more specifically the page linked here: [22]

As are parts of the sentence introduced by 212, btw. 134.106.41.26 (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• sure i can: [23], [24], [25], [26] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

and some scholars that expand on the work: [27], [28], [29] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

but i think we should ask Arthur Rubin what he thinks of this scholarship, as after all, his word seems to be the final in this article. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• It would appreciated if you used standard citation templates, so we could easily see whether you are claiming they are from a reliable source, rather than trying to decipher the source from the URL. Google books is particularly difficult to track down the publisher. That being said, the first few seem legitimate sources which may not support your thesis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

not my thesis. thesis of West, Harry G. and Todd Sanders (eds) Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order. Durham which they based on analysis of above sources, which makes it an excellent WP:SECONDARY source. you say it sources do not support the thesis, yet the published work states the thesis is based on those sources. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Here's the scholarly reference:

Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World Order

•Paperback: 328 pages

•Publisher: Duke University Press (May 2003)

•Language: English

•ISBN-10: 0822330245

•ISBN-13: 978-0822330240

•Contributors.

1. Misty Bastian,
2. Karen McCarthy Brown,
3. Jean Comaroff,
4. John Comaroff,
5. Susan Harding,
6. Daniel Hellinger,
7. Caroline Humphrey,
8. Laurel Kendall,
9. Todd Sanders,
10. Albert Schrauwers,
11. Kathleen Stewart,
12. Harry G. West

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the one-paragraph 'Editorial Reviews' supplied by Amazon.com online:

"There are few topics of more profound and immediate significance than transparency and conspiracy, the twin specters of contemporary globality.
Harry G. West and Todd Sanders's collection displays both
the particularities of experience in different places and
the virtues of sustained analysis devoted to the treatment of this topic as one with general implications and transnational origins."
Rosalind C. Morris, Columbia University
"Transparency and Conspiracy connects with a central question presently before the field of anthropology and globalization studies:
how to interpret the varied cultural forms which alienation from modernity is taking today."
Donald Robotham, CUNY Graduate Center 

--Ludvikus (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Transparency here appears to mean "Transparency (behavior)". --Ludvikus (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From this we ought to deduce by logic that where there is Transparency there can be no Conspiracy. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

lede (2)

In the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.[5]

Arthur Rubin has effectively prohibited the Reversion of the above lede (He has removed it as the fourth sentence by 212...). it's a lede by Special user 212.... It seems to me to be better than the current lede which Arthur Rubin has edited by removing this 4th senctense. So I'd like us to discuss it here. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Correction. The above is the fourth sentence Reverted by Arthur Rubin. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Correction. I've only reverted twice this week. The other ones must have been someone else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Technicality. I guess you don't consider a simple deletion of a sentence as a Reversion. Isn't that an evasion of the Reversion rule, in this particular case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 14:36, October 20, 2009 --Ludvikus (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Nope. I've only edited the article twice (at the time of writing; it's now three times) this week. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

according to...

i actually agree with the addition, and am generally for contributing citations to authors. however, i don't see how this citation is different from many others that lack the same attribution? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The book quoted appears to present an "ethnography" of conspiracy theories Does this suggest that there is literature on the ethnological/sociological background of the proponents of conspiracies? If there is an academic discussion on this, this should be included into the main article, as to not leave the sentence in the lead with no detailed discussion in the main article. 92.76.129.224 (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether by the background you refer to ethnicity or ethnography. Ethnology seems to be comparison of results from ethnography, and book suggests a broad section of these results point in the same direction. I don't know this subject, so I am just trying to understand all these terms. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How many "type" of conspiracy theory are there.

• According to editor User:Arthur Rubin, more than one. The implication being that "Conspiracy theory" might be the theory of different types of conspiracy.

One type, according to him, is New World Order (conspiracy theory).

So what are the other types?

--Ludvikus (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense; both that I said it, and the claim it would affect editing the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The "nonsense" you speak of is here:

    In conspiracy theory, the term “New World Order” or “NWO” refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government.

That's the opening sentence of the lede in New World Order (conspiracy theory). So this article should enlighten us on that article. But it doesn't. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It could but it doesn't have to. --Loremaster (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proven theories?

Are there any proven conspiracy (former) theories? While there are no specific conspiracy theories I fully believe I find it very hard to believe that there aren't examples of prominent people/organisations/governments having conspired to further their ambitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnealon (talk • contribs) 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Find them and let us know. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

removed byron york reference

byron york used the title "vast left wing conspiracy" as a satirical, tongue-in-cheek reference to hillary clinton's heated claim that the republican opposition to her husband's presidency represented a "vast right wing conspiracy". his book was an ordinary partisan analysis of the activist coalitions supporting the democratic party. it is not, of course about "secret cabals" and nine-foot lizards. i suspect the inclusion was a churlish move, so here's your chuckle: ha. it is now removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.196.48 (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. --Loremaster (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)