Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Structure

Perhaps the structure should be changed. The content is there but there seems to a confusing overlap between sections that are distant from each other. The sections could be defined as Usage - Types - History and Origins - Analysis or some variant, and the previous sections grouped or amalgamated accordingly. I feel this would add some descriptive flow and help to define the subject better. (Cesdeva (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC))

The problem is there are so many different interpretations and so much disagreement about what CT means, even among the "scholars" cited. The ideas appear to be well-sourced so you can't just delete material. The ideas don't seem to parallel or in many cases even correspond to one another. When a category gets too long, it kind of defeats its own purpose. I do agree that there is an unnecessary overlap--between the Usage category and the On conspiracism category in particular. There is also some but relatively little redundancy there. And if those two were combined, it would create one unnecessarily huge section.

Okay, the way I've revised this, Barkun is still covered twice but with different material. It's tricky to sew up different contributors' and the cited authors' ideas in a coherent way. I left the On conspiracism section but put some info from it elsewhere; the term as I read about it in the article does not appear interchangeable with CT. 'Appears to have developed on its own separately from CT. So 'didn't want to mix discussion of it with CT.

At least the sections each now hopefully contain info that is more logically related. Paavo273 Revised by Paavo273 (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Restored sourced info deleted by editor at I.P. 90.199.141.189

I restored this info because it appears to be relevant and properly cited info. If it belongs somewhere else, please move rather than delete it.

However, on my further analysis, this material seems to fit well, probably best, with the thesis statement of the conspiracism section, i.e., most people would agree, I think, that both Stalin and Hitler demonized whole sections of society, and as such, according to the definition of conspiracism as articulated here were "practitioners" of conspiracim, thus illustrating this sub-topic in the CT article.

The point of the contributor who added this material, as I read it, is not that Stalin and Hitler were embodiments/perpetrators of grand-scale conspiracies to advance their regimes (although that also may be true), but rather that they fostered/promoted in their regimes conspiracism. (Added and revised by Paavo273 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

See also

Stigmergy is a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions, which might underpin a theory of conspiracy theories; or is that too great a stretch? —Pawyilee (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pawyilee, This sounds like a fascinating idea. ('Calls to mind the Borg.) To this editor at least, it would seem sufficiently related to CT to for sure merit listing in the "See also" section of the CT article--and ALSO to merit its own discussion in the CT article, provided some qualifying scholarly source meaningfully links the two. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi back, Paavo273. DuckDuckGo returned this for conspiracy + Stigmergy

[PDF] Chaos, Complexity, and Inference (36-462)...is also very worth reading for general orientation 36-462 Lecture 23 References Stigmergy stigma, "sign" + ergon "work" ... Mutual responsiveness can create the illusion of central control. Failure to grasp this leads to conspiracy theories, Intelligent Design, etc... http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/462/lectures/23/23.pdf

I downloaded it, but don't know how to incorporate it into the article. Will settle for See also.—Pawyilee (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rel making major changes to intro, rel paranoia, etc.

Several editors have consistently worked on this page to improve it over a long period. Prior to making substantive changes especially to intro, please read and contemplate entire article. There are a lot of somewhat loosely related ideas that are tied together. The intro should summarize what the article as a whole is about. The evolution of the term is very relevant to the discussion of CT as is the interplay between the negative and neutral use of the words.

Rel paranoia, meaning and implication are not interchangeable. Paavo273 (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New research

There has been recently published (September 2013) research that could be useful to add to this topic. I am referring to a special issue by the Psychology postgraduate affairs group of the British Psychological Society. It has been titled: The psychology of conspiracy theories.

Here is an excerpt:

"What exactly constitutes a conspiracy theory is itself a topic of debate 
both within  psychology and further afield in sociology and political science."

That is taken from one contribution to the quarterly called 'An introduction into the world of conspiracy', by Christopher Thresher-Andrew. [url:http://www.psypag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Issue-88.pdf] There is a of course a great deal more there that might be incorporated to this article. I merely post this to bring it to the attention of any interested editors.

P.S. It has been a while since I visited here and I am pleased to see how the article is now much more neutral and informative. A great improvement!--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rel proposed changes to intro--seeking input

Rel a user's deletion of a large section of intro under the remark, "copy edit. most of this lead isn't saying anything- people have studied it and they have opinions!" and also the characterization of removed material as "[a] waffle": The removed remarks summarize what is discussed in article, and appear 2B appropriate length, even a little short, for the long article. The verbiage could certainly be more elegantly stated, but IMO should not be removed. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. ... should... stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why."

A key component of CT at least as the article is currently written is that serious debate exists in academia over what is CT and what is real conspiracy. So what User:Bhny is identifying as "waffl[ing]" may be THAT debate . If so, perhaps the intro needs 2 make that point more explicitly. When CT was a weekly article 4 improvement, I did move the discussion of that debate up towards the top. While this article may still have a ways 2 go, I'm surprised it holds together as well as it does, consisting as it does of terribly many different opposing views by scholars, who often disagree with and attack one another, as to what CT even means, as contributed by many WP editors, often in hit 'n run edits placed in the intro, then relocated to more appropriate places in the body. Paavo273 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It has no content. It is a summary of the section headings, not a summary of the article As the MOS says the lead should "stand alone as a concise overview". Rather than mess up the article with , I'll do it here-

Numerous explanations have been proposed as to why people believe in conspiracy theories. Further, different types of conspiracy theories have been proposed. Conspiracism, a world view marked by conspiracy theories, has been elaborated, as well as its effect on society. In addition, scholars have identified some psychological origins of conspiracy theories. Finally, the socio-political origins of conspiracy theories have been analyzed, along with their deliberate use by despotic political regimes. Bhny (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is well taken about citing sources. the WP guidance linked above says "... should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate (my italics)." I believe you're absolutely right that all those things need 2B sourced EXCEPT/UNLESS if they're fully sourced in the body, something this article, thanks to its very many apparently careful editors, IMO does a very good job of **. IME working on and discussing w/ other editors WP articles, IF the material mentioned in the intro is well sourced in the body, it need not be separately sourced in the intro; IMO the WP guidance I quote does not contradict that. In this art. copious sources can be taken out of the body to support the intro, but I don't think that is required AS LONG AS the cites are there in full in the body. **('Have not cite checked every source, in fact only a few; 'should say the bulk of the article APPEARS ON ITS FACE to be well-sourced.)

Well, I think what User:Bhny's point above leads to is that this intro s/b LONGER, not shorter, i.e., to include more material on the "what" and the "who". A main challenge will probably be to keep it from getting TOO long.

Thank you for laying out clearly HERE what you see as the CONTENT shortcomings.

IYO, what must be covered for it to stand alone?

IYO would the following change to the material in question be an improvement or make it worse?

"It has been shown that people believe in different types of conspiracy theories for various reasons including to explain power relations in social groups and the existence of evil forces (2nd part of sent. are approximately User:Bhny's words). Conspiracism, a widely held world view taken over by conspiracy theories, has had a significant impact on modern society. Conspiracy theory is traceable to its psychological and socio-political origins. Despotic political regimes have both been part of real conspiracies and used conspiracy theory to manipulate their subjects."

Please feel free to improve on this draft OR propose your own original draft. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

sorry I didn't see your draft until after I made my last changes. I still feel your draft needs expansion. What significant impact? What origins? I couldn't find anything about " Despotic political regimes" in the article, so I'm not sure why it is in the lead. Bhny (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Bhny. No problem. I like your latest revision better than your first one. QUERY: Can we agree to work on this here in talk first? It prevents what is supposed to be collaboration turning quickly into an unproductive edit war. Also, we might pick up some additional valuable input from other users. I AGREE: My proposed one above needs more development.

So we agree intro needs overall EXPANSION, not contraction, (in addition to revision to comply with the "stand alone" rule) from how you (User:Bhny) found it, right?

Please DO DEVELOP it here in talk OR DEVELOP what you've done that I added to below, or whatever.

BTW, can we agree that sources don't need to be in intro AS LONG AS they're fully cited in body?

The part about despotic political regimes is discussed in various places in the artilce, mainly in the conspiracism section, also touched on in political use section and treated separately in socio-political origins section, subsection fusion paranoia. (It's not very workable to put it all together in one place because various scholars deal with it DISCRETELY as part of their own theories.) I am NOT the author of ANY of that material, but IMO it IS important and even s/b expanded. Arendt's book, the cited source for it in conspiracism, e.g., has tons of references to the deliberate use of conspiracy theories of the Stalin and Hitler regimes to manipulate their people's opinions.

To work with your second edit of the intro, your edit is as follows with my proposals for change in bold. Please expand along the lines of what you see as important. It is somewhat subjective, what is important enough to summarize in intro, don't you agree?

"People may believe in conspiracy theories for various reasons including to explain power relations in social groups or as an explanation for evil forces. Conspiracy theories can be categorized in various ways including by the locations and alignments of the supposed enemy, specific event conspiracies and broad linked conspiracies. (IMO this is a good start but need expansion here 2B a sufficient summary of the categories.) Conspiracy theory is traceable to its psychological and socio-political origins. (Obviously s/b developed further, but what to include? And where do you stop?) Conspiracism, a widely held world view controlled by conspiracy theories, has had a significant impact on human societies. In much of history despotic political regimes have both been part of real conspiracies and have used conspiracy theory to manipulate their subjects." (Ditto my remarks for last sentence.)

IMO if we flesh this out--the WP guideline allows FOUR paragraphs--we don't have to nitpick each other about what's important. Just include whatever seems important to any editor who's seriously involved. Only as long as it IS really in the article, of course. Does that work for you?

That's been my approach REL CONTENT the last couple years I've been involved in this article. An awful lot of one-time editors like to dump their contributions in the intro, then disappear. Most of those contributions remarkably have been seemingly worthwhile scholarly additions with citations, which just needed to be moved to an appropriate place in the body (sometimes not easy to find). Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"may" and "can" imply there are other reasons. I find "various" redundant and unhelpful. If there are any more notable reasons then state them. I guess Stalin and Hitler are the despotic regimes so why not say with examples that the sources give. (though isn't it just propaganda when countries use conspiracies? All governments, despotic or not, invent conspiracies about the enemies). I made some edits above, but I prefer to edit on the article. The talk page isn't good for drafting. Just add your changes to the article. Yes, I know that the lead doesn't have to source if the sources are in the body. This lead is way way under the normal length for a lead so there is no need to worry about length. Bhny (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"People may believe in conspiracy theories to explain power relations in social groups or as an explanation for evil forces. Conspiracy theories can be categorized by the locations and alignments of the supposed enemy, specific event conspiracies and broad linked conspiracies. (IMO this is a good start but need expansion here 2B a sufficient summary of the categories.) Conspiracy theory is traceable to its psychological and socio-political origins. (Obviously s/b developed further, but what to include? And where do you stop?) Conspiracism is a world view that places conspiracy theories centrally in the unfolding of history, has had a significant impact. In much of history despotic political regimes have both been part of real conspiracies and have used conspiracy theory to manipulate their subjects." (Ditto my remarks for last sentence.)

1. All the material in this article, including in intro needs to be qualified as subjective opinion, not hard science, not based on research or trials, not fact. A close reading of the article, which I admit requires serious brain drain, reveals disagreement on explanations and categories, even on what CT means and what are examples of CT. Adding qualifiers or changing verb tenses to qualify does not make it waffling or lacking content.

2. Good. We agree: 'Needs to be expanded. When summary is complete, delete the "variouses" and "such ases". Until the material is adequately summarized, it needs to not be stated as if it is complete.

3. Regime Cs and CTs are covered in multiple places in article--probably more than just the three I mentioned above--and apply more broadly than to two leaders. It may be propaganda as well but much more than that too.

4. Better to make proposed revisions in new space. I've restored what I wrote and put your revision below your remarks.

5. User:Bhny has raised important issues about improving the intro: It needs to stand alone and include more actual content. That should not be confused with or substituted for properly QUALIFYING the content by its degree of completeness and its non-factual character. Paavo273 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I like your edits. I just did some copy edits and replaced some weasel words. "Scholars say" is classic WP:WEASEL words. It is either redundant, if properly sourced, or it needs to be replaced with the actual persons name. That is what I tried to do. Bhny (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive FB. I also appreciate that you have raised the issue about the stand-alone doctrine and the deficiency of the prior intro according to that standard.

However, you apparently missed the following in the weasel words link you provided:

*** "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." ***

As far as redundancy and repetition, you will always have some if there is any intro at all. IME it's not useful and not regularly done to include names of the sources in the intro unless some particular author stands out above the rest or s/he provides his/her own summation of the body material. In this case, Barkun is not as far as I can tell the main writer on conspiracism. So why single him out? Next, logically, you'll have to name them all. If so, then why have any intro? Now you've got real repetition and redundancy. Name them and discuss them once. Then name and discuss them in body AGAIN.

As I noted in talk above, you can't state as fact something that is opinion--per WP:Neutral point of view:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."

Paavo273 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Avoid stating facts as opinions - If the source states it as a fact and it is not contradicted by other sources, wikipedia should state it as a fact. Tell me- does the source state this is opinion. Do other sources contradict this? Bhny (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is problematic

This article seems to put undue focus on the 'psychologizing' of conspiracy theory by some scholars. The discussion of psychological syndromes causing conspiracy theories juxtaposed with admissions that such theories are often correct and formulated through reason and careful analysis seems very awkward. Is a conspiracy theory a psychological syndrome until it is proven correct? Why have we not suggested that an incorrect theory is simply wrong and the result of faulty reasoning, rather than implying it is the result of a mental illness or disorder?

The isolation of any theory that posits a secret, illegal plan into its own category is unnecessary. A theory about a conspiracy is not fundamentally different from any of myriad other kinds of theory. Since the elements in a conspiracy theory are often simple, human actions and motives (e.g, a man wants to get elected to political office, so he sabotages an opponent by blackmailing him or spreading a false rumor), the barriers to entry are often lower for theorists than for theories on science or mathematics. This could explain the large number of bad conspiracy theories. Similarly, there is a lot of incorrect and senseless theory about sporting events, but there is no sport theory article.

I made several edits that qualify statements, such as changing 'psychologists' to 'some psychologists.'

Frankly, this article should be considered for removal, or changed to 'analysis of conspiracy theory' or 'beliefs about conspiracy theory.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csp0316 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"is itself a matter of some public contention."

The general discussion of conspiracy theory is itself a matter of some public contention. What is this supposed to mean and is it sourced to something? It is so vague as to be meaningless. Bhny (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's the topic sentence of that paragraph. TSs are necessarily s/w vague due to their brevity until they are elaborated by what follows. In the case of this article, that statement is an accurate assessment of not just the paragraph but the entire article. Paavo273 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph only has one other sentence. There's no need to set it up. "Discussion of conspiracy theory" is contentious how? Is it supposed to mean defense of specific conspiracy theories by adherents is dismissed as fringe? If so, it is worded wrong. Bhny (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Bhny on this point. Topic sentence or not, it lacks specificity to an egregious degree. If a suitable topic sentence cannot be constructed, better to leave one out altogether. This kind of sophomoric content erodes WP's credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csp0316 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to new WP user Csp0316's remarks and explanation for my edits to Csp0316's edits to article

1. Welcome new user Csp0316, and thanks for your IMO several instances of astute and on-target observations and edits. Your edits to qualify are IMO excellent. As far as your changes to the article, I have left many intact and the ones I have changed, I explain below:

• a. You cannot have a conspiracy by one person. Your example, "[E].g, a man wants to get elected to political office, so he sabotages an opponent by blackmailing him or spreading a false rumor" is NOT a conspiracy.
• b. Tags aren't typically used in the intro and are not needed UNLESS they do not appear in the body. In this case the intro was reverse engineered from the body. Sources for every summarized point in the intro are clearly cited in the body.
• c. The problem with changing "believe in" to "formulate" is that it indicates they've made them up/created them, whereas a key point in this entire article which I believe you have separately pointed out yourself is that SOME "conspiracy theories" ARE TRUE. Thus in some instances the believing in is in something real.
• d. "Conspiracy theory" has an almost universally negative connotation now.
• e. Rel your opinion about "one scholar" even in the intro being weaseley, the WP guideline on weasel words specifies such terminology is appropriate for the intro as long as it is backed up with sources in the article. IMO it's fine to choose some other word AS LONG AS you don't name the scholar(s) because it creates unwarranted emphasis, and if you then name ALL the scholars, why have an intro at all.
• f. Rel your idea about deleting or changing article title, I don't think deletion is likely to happen, but potentially with enough user input, it "might could" be split into separate articles.
• g. Overall, it is a somewhat complex and unique situation because say 50 years ago, "CT" meant a theory that might well be true. Now it is used by MOST to ridicule false, even demented ideas. YET as discussed with citations in the article, there are many "CT"s that even nowadays prove to be true. So what are you going to call those--UNTIL they are universally accepted as true? And often they never are universally accepted as true, even though they well may be. Paavo273 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A) You absolutely can. If a person is found to have planned to kill someone or commit any other crime without necessarily colluding with others, the charge is conspiracy. All major dictionaries allow for one-,man conspiracy. If the sabotage was planned in secret and involves an illegal act (blackmail/slander), it is a conspiracy. B) The points are not significant enough to get mention in the introduction. They are relatively obscure theories from a handful of academics. C) Believing often implies faith and absence of evidence. It would be better to say formulate a theory or theorize, and accept a theory. 'Believe' is not used for theories in other disciplines, and should not be for theories about conspiracies. D) The negative connotation has been receding as of late with the discovery that many conspiracies thought to be imagined were in fact real. Whether or not it has a negative connotation, if any conspiracies are real the article must treat such theory as potentially correct and not dismiss it as mental illness. E) The comments of a few scholars aren't significant enough to include in the intro to such a broad subject. The term should simply be defined and the scholar's opinions discussed later. The definition plus the table of contents is enough to inform the reader of what is to come. F) They should simply be called theories until they are found to be true. The fact is that the term has become weaponized and is used to ridicule and bully ideas out of discourse. But this cannot be used as a way to marginalize all conspiracy theory, since much is found to be true. That's why the article is problematic. The term itself is chiefly a rhetorical device and not necessarily encyclopedia article fare.

Connotations (which are observed by some, not all, people) aside, CT has no articulable meaning that applies to all CTs other than a theory about a conspiracy. Since in all subjects except conspiracies there are no articles about theory in general (only articles about specific theories themselves), and there is no fundamental difference between those subjects and the subject of conspiracies, there should not be a conspiracy theory article, or at least one so heavily weighted with material that reduces such theory to mental illness. Such material should be confined to a specific section of the article or the article removed.

Much of the article treats conspiracy theories as if they are hallucinations, but they are not analogous. If phenomena first thought to be visual or auditory hallucinations of schizophrenic people were later found to actually exist in some cases, they couldn't be continued to be called hallucinations. The focus on psychological syndromes is OK for certain sections in the article, but absolutely should not be in the introduction.

Let's continue conversation in below paragraph which I wrote while you were typing this.Csp0316 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The intro is for this article, not the subject as a whole or the way you wish the article read. If you have relevant, source-cited material to add, once it's added it would then be appropriate to change the intro. WP rules (including WP:No original research are quite clear. We can't use our own reasoning to create or edit WP articles, however astute that reasoning may be.

If you really think this article should be deleted, you can certainly apply for that to happen. I think a better way w/b, as you suggested, to break it out into two articles. That's going to take some serious time. Paavo273 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A much better way than breaking it into two articles would be to explain the following in the introduction A) the technical definition of the words conspiracy and theory, and in a second paragraph of the introduction B) that the term has become a rhetorical device that sometimes refers to more than the technical definition of the words. Any psychology theories that relate to conspiracy theories can be treated in their own section of the article. They may be worthy of treatment in the article, but are wholly secondary to the actual meaning of the phrase and do not belong in the introduction.Csp0316 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

poor writing

It is just poor writing to say "One scholar" instead of saying who it is. This lead is really badly written and it is depressing to see my simple copy edits reverted. Bhny (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

* Is this a trend emerging? After an initial identification of an actual problem with intro, there have been now at least three instances where a clear understanding of the article or WP rules has been missed: First, the fellow editor alleged he cannot find the idea that conspiracies and conspiracism has played a major role in oppressive regimes in history, when in actual fact this a thread woven pretty consistently into the story. Next, the fellow editor has asserted that statements such as "Scholars have asserted" are automatically "weasel words" when in fact a specific common-sense provision, apparently missed by the editor, is stated in the rule (quoted and bolded above).

* Now it seems the same discredited arguments are showing themselves yet again in new edits. Please obtain consensus and make sure the edits are actually improvements prior to making them, e.g., a conspiracy theory is not necessarily an "accusation." That is a problem with form as much as substance. The lead is a pretty reasonable one and has not been improved by reducing conspiracy theory to an "accusation." As specifically noted in talk previously, unless a particular author is notably a heavy hitter, it's not necessarily productive to drop the name in the intro. It gives undue weight, especially in this article, to someone who is just one of many contributing scholars.

* Regarding the fellow user's interpretation of WP:NPOV quoted from above, "If the source states it as a fact and it is not contradicted by other sources, wikipedia should state it as a fact," that is a misinterpretation and misstatement of the rule/guideline. Please re-read and understand WP:NPOV. Paavo273 (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There are only two people here so consensus is just you reverting my edits. It makes no sense to say "one scholar" instead of the persons name. Can you at least see that? I can't follow your long arguments about policy. What I was doing was simple and uncontroversial copy edits. I wasn't changing the meaning, I was just aiming for concise prose.Bhny (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I second Bhny's opinion that 'one scholar' sounds silly and smacks of weasel style. I will revert edit accordingly unless anyone has a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csp0316 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do. The lead has a much better version that you can use here- [2] Bhny (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition of conspiracy theory, intro first paragraph

A conspiracy theory can certainly be made with regards to one-man conspiracy. If it was theorized that a king's aide planned to kill a king and poisoned him rather than him dying of natural causes, the accusations of the former might be called conspiracy theory. A mayor of a small town might be the subject of a conspiracy theory, but the event might not be of great impact. 'Social, political, economic' (since it includes nearly everything) is a bit superfluous in my opinion and not necessary here. The crime conspiracy, per Webster's, Oxford, and other dictionaries, can refer to secret, illegal plans by one or more persons. Webster's defines conspiracy theory primarily as 'a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan.' Number of conspirators and scale of conspiracy do not seem to be important.

The other three paragraphs of the intro are unsourced, and seem to represent the views of certain scholars rather than being held by most people.

The idea of only 'believing in' conspiracies seems to be comparable to believing in ghosts. The fundamental difference between the two is that while countless cases of proven conspiracies have been discovered, no credible evidence of ghosts has been put forth. Since many conspiracy theories are correct and proposed in a reasonable and scientific manner, the word formulate for the originator and accept for the adherents is preferable to believe.

Csp0316 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1. The article with its many sources is about large scale conspiracies, so the intro should reflect that. If necessary, I can cite the sources for that fact in the intro as well.

2. No Webster or Blacks or any other source IME and IMO will support a conspiracy for one.

3. Any substantive contribution to this article or any other WP article must be supported by accurate qualifying source citations, preferably of SECONDARY sources--per Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research as well as other authority. Paavo273 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the article mostly discusses large conspiracies, this does not change the definition of the word. See Webster's and Oxford definitions including 1.1. Major, general English dictionaries trump technical dictionaries such as Black's in authority. It admittedly usually refers to two or more people, but it can also refer to one, and there is no elegant way I can think of to say 'as few as one but usually two or more.' For the sake of accuracy over elegance the current edit is preferable Csp0316 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no authority in the dictionary sources you cite for a conspiracy of one. Webster's is pretty much verbatim to Black's, and Oxford nowhere states one person. You need to change it back to two or more persons until you find a compelling source, or for starters ANY source, that says one person, which IMO isn't going to happen. Otherwise, it's worse than OR, using a source to support your position when in fact the source states the opposite of what you say. WP frowns on that. Paavo273 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Webster's: 'the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal' Oxford 1.1: 'the action of plotting or conspiring' does not specify planning by multiple persons. It is not uncommon for an individual who does not have co-conspirators to be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime. Csp0316 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't specify, but it's your OR to translate that to ONE. The charge NEVER arises that an individual is charged with conspiracy unless prosecutors allege he/she had at least one co-conspirator. What DOES happen is only one of the co-conspirators is CHARGED. Big difference. You need to change the definition back to two UNTIL you find a valid source that actually supports your contention. It's OR plus misuse of your sources. Paavo273 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not OR. A dictionary exists to provides definitions i.e. set limits around meaning. That multiple people must be involved would certainly be a limit that would be mentioned. The above-quoted definition, which was certainly not haphazardly formulated, unequivocally does not refer to multiple persons. If it does not refer to multiple persons then it necessarily may refer to one person. Re: 'good' conspiracies. Some people such as the sourced author Walker incorrectly believe there can be good conspiracies. As dictionary sources indicate, this is not possible. Such actions could be called plans, projects, etc, not conspiracies.Csp0316 (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Two quick Google searches (conspiracy definition, & "conspiracy theory" definition) reveal a plethora of definitions:

conspiracy n.1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

— The Free Dictionary

conspiracy theory n.A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

— The Free Dictionary

conspiracy n. 1.the act of conspiring. 2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

— Dictionary.com

conspiracy theory n. 1.a theory 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. 2.the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

— Dictionary.com

conspiracy n. 1.a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful: a conspiracy to destroy the government. 1.1 [MASS NOUN] the action of plotting or conspiring: they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

— Oxford dictionaries

conspiracy theory n.a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event: they sought to account for the attacks in terms of a conspiracy theory.

— Oxford dictionaries

The recurring theme here over and over again is the requirement that there be more than one person. If we were to consider etymology, the "con" or "co" originates from the Latin "cum": with, and is always used to emphasise joining or working together (there is an unrelated prefix "con" which is used for emphasis, but that doesn't apply here).

While it would theoretically be possible to extend the meaning of conspiracy to include solo deceitful actions, there is no evidence such a definition is in common usage. Furthermore, it is not the role of Wikipedia to perform such extensions of meaning. We do not create, we report.

Our definition needs to be limited to cases of two or more. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2014

If you (Csp0316) want to change the article, including the intro which summarizes the article, you need to find sources that agree with your view or interpretation and cite those. Please read carefully and understand clearly Wikipedia:No original research B4 making further edits to this or any WP article. An editor is not allowed to insert his/her own interpretation, opinions, or facts. WP is ENTIRELY derivative. Therefore, unless you have a qualifying published source that says it, you can't use it, no matter how correct you think it may be. The statement, "While many small- and large-scale conspiracies are indeed real, some psychologists believe that false application of conspiracy theory can be attractive to those with certain mental illnesses and disorders, or undertaken for political purposes," is unacceptable for two reason: First, it is OR; it is not supported by source material in the article. Secondly, it confuses conspiracy with conspiracy theory; they are two very different things. I think I see your point in this change' if so, I don't even disagree with you. But the fact is that nearly all the sources cited treat CTists in a negative light and the CTs they believe in as nutty. That is the reality of the sources in the article. And the reality of the use of the term in the early 21st century. It may be unfair. It may be wrong. It may unfairly belittle those who believe in real-happening conspiracies. But that's what the literature says; and unless you come up with sources to support your interpretation, you can't use it. 'Cuz it's OR. Paavo273 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since most definitions note 'usually' or outright note two persons, I am OK with the two-or-more definition. Although note the following: if a wife approaches an undercover police officer posing as a hitman to murder her husband and does not actually commit the crime, or solicits people she believes to be organized crime syndicate members but is rejected by them, or law enforcement otherwise obtains sufficient evidence to prove that she planned to commit murder herself at a specific time and place even though she did not do it, there are circumstances in which she can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder even though there was only one participant in the crime.

There is absolutely nothing in this edit that can be construed as OR. The previous edit admittedly contained a little OR in the phrase (since they confront members of establishment, etc) but that has been removed. I only added that phrase previously because the current version is too vague even for intro sentence and it's not at all clear what it means. My vote is for either further explanation or deletion. It is established in the first paragraph that there are and have been real conspiracies and the clause about psychology theories is self-evident since the article is full of such discussion along with citations. This contrast between correct conspiracy theory and incorrect conspiracy theory is the essence of the article in its current state and is appropriate for the intro paragraph.

The first paragraph serves to A) define exactly what is a conspiracy theory (i.e. a theory about a conspiracy, and nothing more, and this simple definition is supported by a preponderance of major reference sources) B) what types of conspiracies are theorized about. Other than Walker, there is no basis for positing 'good' conspiracies. The good conspiracy notion can stand in the section regarding Walker's views, but should not be in the intro. All reference sources clearly contradict the notion of good conspiracies and make clear that a conspiracy is illegal and/or harmful. An appropriate phrase for 'good conspiracy' could be 'secret plan' 'secret project' 'confidential plan' etc.

For intro paragraph purposes, the definition of conspiracy theory and a note explaining what type of conspiracies are theorized about far outweighs mention of niche psychology theories about conspiracy theories. The second paragraph in this edit ties together psychological and historical implications of conspiracy theory that are explained later. The second paragraph should be smaller than the first. In spite of the large body of psychology, sociology, and history works on the subject of conspiracy theory, the subject is very simple and does not need a 4-paragraph intro that redundantly restates things explained later.

The best that these theories on conspiracy theory warrant is a brief mention in the introduction. Ideally, given the difference in importance between actual conspiracy theory (which often reveals major crimes and injustices) and the opinions of a handful of academics on conspiracy theory, there should be a separate article for the latter which I do not have the time to initiate. Frankly, I don't think these theories even warrant their own article. The vast majority of extant academic works in general do not have their own articles and are not discussed on wikipedia. Just because someone said or thought something does not mean that it is appropriate for WP.

Your impressions on what the current connotations of the term conspiracy theory are have no bearing on what the phrase means. They are important but subject to daily sea changes in popular opinion and trends in academia. They can get discussion in non-intro paragraphs. I will work on creating a sub-category, perhaps 'theoretical/academic work on conspiracy theory' or something to that effect. The trend of exposition/definition of the subject in the intro paragraph followed by 'academic response'- type section later is more appropriate for WP than previous edit. The current edit is also easier on the eyes and spares the reader of in-depth theoretical discussions but allows him to continue if he wishes. I note again that talk consensus currently supports major changes to the intro paragraph.Csp0316 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1. It's all good and fine to believe in something, but for WP articles you have to go with what the sources say. I would analogize to a courtroom. There you've got witnesses testifying and evidence presented. Counsel can't actually just "say" stuff. The complaint is, "Objection, Your Honor: Counsel is testifying." The point is you can't just replace what the sources say with what you think. B4 you go changing anything, even adding material to rebut the existing sources, you need valid sources. That's what the critical non-optional guideline for WP editors, WP:No original research is about.

2. The fundamental flaw in your m.o., IMO, is that you want to use CT as an often good and true belief, more or less interchangeably with conspiracy; whereas virtually all the so-far found literature says otherwise. Also, you have to have inline sources for anything you add. CT≠conspiracy. Not the way it's used in the literature.

3. To put it another way, as depicted by the wealth of sources in this article, "conspiracy theory" has evolved into a very specific term of art applied to denigrate certain beliefs in conspiracies that the seemingly ubiquitous users of the term wish to ridicule. As such, the term "conspiracy theory" is not even close to being just a theory about a conspiracy, which is what you are saying above if I understand you correctly. "Conspiracy theory" has taken on an entire life of its own in the mass media, in popular culture, in politics, etc., which is the way the overwhelming majority of sources in the article use it.

4. As discussed already above, you need to source-cite any additional info you add. If it doesn't say it, you can't use it. Also, the source has to actually support your position, unlike with the sources you cited for conspiracy being possible involving only one person. It can't be based on your understanding or argumentative opinion without a source that directly states it. You also cannot synthesize, extrapolate, or cherry pick sources, nor make reasonable but unstated inferences. See Wikipedia:No original research#Using sources.

5. Please indent your paragraphs in talk using one more ":" than the section above you (just one ":" if the previous contribution is the first of the thread) so that what you say can be followed as a thread.

6. What do other editors think? It seems like activity is picking up on this article. There are always a lot of silent watchers on an article like this, over 1,200 yesterday alone. Paavo273 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not acknowledging the difference between a word and its referent i.e. the thing to which it refers. No matter how we employ the words and phrase, and no matter how much material academics produce on the topic, conspiracy theory cannot become anything else. As long as there have been humans there have been both conspiracies and theories, and theories about conspiracies, albeit simple and small-scale conspiracies originally.

As far as illustrating this reality with sources, which WP requires, the preponderance of major reference works absolutely trump all academic sources, regardless of how many you cite. We all know there is a body of academic work on conspiracy theory. Whether you take the time to cite one, a few dozen, or hundreds, the combined sources will still be superseded by the major reference sources.

Regaring some/many/most, some is usually preferable to many unless there is very good reason for many. Many seems promotional. There are millions of psychologists, and a few have been noted here. I doubt the bar that justifies many will be reached. Most would have to be supported by data, and I don't believe that data exists, but feel free to build a case and we will discuss it here.Csp0316 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"[T]he preponderance of major reference works absolutely trump all academic sources, regardless of how many you cite. We all know there is a body of academic work on conspiracy theory."

I look forward to your citing those "major reference works." Paavo273 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note on perpetuate and believe vs formulate and theorize. Perpetuate implies the theories already exist, but in this context it is more appropriate to discuss the origin of the theory before discussing the nature of its acceptance or adherence. Discussing a theory in the perpetuate/belief context takes the theory for granted and sidelines it from discourse. This would be more appropriate for talk about a specific, long-standing, and relatively static theory rather than the subject of theory in general. About the reference works, Merriam-Webster and Oxford have already been cited. They are generally accepted as the most authoritative sources for American and British English. Several other dictionaries have been cited as well. Csp0316 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rel the "preponderance of major reference works absolutely trump[ing] all academic sources" which apparently IYO include dictionaries, moves WP into a new era. I think you better get WP policy changed B4 using that as a basis for editing. Paavo273 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If obscure scholars and psychologists want to be in the business of redefining words, they should start by submitting an application to MW or Oxford. When we are stating the meaning of a word or phrase, if there is a source vacuum then we can accept such a source, but if major reference works are cited they have higher authority.Csp0316 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Weasel words" in intro

@Bhny: 1. Rel your reference to Weasel words, just as with citing sources, you can't cherry pick what you want from the rule. You need to comprehend and follow the entire rule. The second paragraph of the rule you cite, as also quoted above, states, "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." It's fine if you want to choose some other term, but citing authors in the intro is not a great idea for the reasons much discussed previously in talk. This short guideline also provides an answer to your previous objection that the topic sentence of a paragraph was vague. 2. Editors should also know and follow the rules, especially when referred to them. On January 6, the fellow editor wrote, "I can't follow your long arguments about policy." You don't need to follow any argument of mine. Just comprehend and follow the stated policy. Paavo273 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your editing of neutral 'some' to an unsupported 'most' is a valid example of a weasel edit that has been made. Several others were made previously but have already been corrected. I'm OK with using some in the intro re: Hitler conspiracy as long as there is a second prominent scholar cited. Otherwise he would need to be named.

This has already been discussed, but just because an academic has said something about CT does not warrant its inclusion in the article, let alone the intro. Barkun, as opposed to Chomsky or Rothbard, is hardly a household name, even among highly educated people.

I removed 'long' since there is only one example given and it is from less than 100 years ago. More examples from at least several centuries must be cited to use that word.

Saying 'CT is attractive to mentally ill' is problematic. Mentally ill people may formulate correct conspiracy theories as well as incorrect ones. Distinction needs to be made rather than labeling all theories made by the mentally ill or those with disorders as the product of their condition. I changed 'used' to 'abused' to denote misuse and make thematically consistent with false application sentence. While I do not endorse Hitler's actions, it is certainly conceivable that a leader could justly employ a correct conspiracy theory to achieve political ends.Csp0316 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, we're not writing some high school essay here. The intro is supposed to be self-contained. It doesn't hide information that is later revealed. "A scholar" obviously must be replaced by the name. "Some scholars" can be replaced by the main people referenced in the article. Read some of the WP:GOOD articles on wikipedia to get a feel for how to write. Bhny (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

believe vs refuse to believe

I feel the section 'why people believe' leads the reader to some degree into an impression that rejecting conspiracy theories and accepting the establishment account should be the default position. Of equal importance is why people refuse to acknowledge evidence of conspiracy theories. While the section is light on material, I feel it is appropriate as it keeps theme of contrast between real/false theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csp0316 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Intro needs to be a summary of the article.

I have deleted the following wording as it infringes wiki policy in a number of ways.

While theories on small- and large-scale conspiracies are often correct, some psychologists believe that false application of conspiracy theory can be endemic to certain mental illnesses and disorders. Some recent political regimes have misused conspiracy theories to manipulate their subjects (e.g., Hitler's “Jewish conspiracy”).

If only some psychologists believe this, then it should not be given such prominence in an introduction to the term.

Who are these psychologists? This claim must be verifiable with reputable reliable referenced sources.

Why is there a vague claim made about "some recent political regimes" followed by an unreferenced example that does not appear, as far as I could see, in the rest of the article? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am in support of these changes, as well as a third editor. There is a single editor who has voiced support for the deleted content (Paavo273). The opinions of a handful of academics and psychologists do not share equal weight with the actual definition of the term. The previous version was several paragraphs long and I condensed into this brief paragraph, but it is not appropriate and IMO it would be better to remove it altogether.Csp0316 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, I have no objection to that paragraph's deletion. The objection I had was rel what Csp0316 was changing the intro TO. My only objection here, which I am correcting, is that a conspiracy only requires TWO people, not three. Of the ten sources cited by Mystichumwipe, those that mention a number at all, e.g., #2 and #4, specifically say TWO.

2. As pointed out by another editor, an intro s/b a summary of the article and can be up to four paragraphs long, but there was major disagreement over how that EXPANDED summary s/b presented. I am adding back a couple points that had been deleted from the old original lead. See this diff [3] to read my original expanded intro below the old intro. (The Hitler/Stalin info appears under the conspiracism heading.)

3. The main point of contention as revealed by this page and the archived talk pages is that Csp0316 maintains that this article should be about something other than what it is, i.e., conspiracy theories that are real, e.g., "At least half of the article should discuss real conspiracies, how they were uncovered, and methodologies for uncovering them. Psychology theories about theories on conspiracies should be a sidenote to this article, or better, a separate article.Csp0316 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)" As mentioned above, IMO this will never fly, although it may be the proper subject of some other article, such as, e.g., a list article on real conspiracies.

4. "If obscure scholars and psychologists want to be in the business of redefining words, they should start by submitting an application to MW or Oxford. When we are stating the meaning of a word or phrase, if there is a source vacuum then we can accept such a source, but if major reference works are cited they have higher authority.Csp0316 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)" As far as I can tell, Csp0316 is taking issue with a huge percentage of the substance of this article and using DICTIONARIES to rebut the copious scholarly source citations. In fact as the term has evolved as presented in the article, "conspiracy theory" has a significantly greater and DIFFERENT (mainly NEGATIVE and FALSE) meaning from the two words individually defined and added together.

5. Unless an editor is clear rel the meaning of the term as the TERM OF ART that it is and rel the thesis statement of the article, it will IMO be an exercise in frustration.

6. Csp0316's most recent contribution, "Why people refuse to believe" is IMO unlikely to withstand scrutiny in its present form, for at least two reasons: The way it is presented legitimizes the professor's unconventional views. The first source, Inside Higher Ed. features an article about how the professor is being pilloried in his home state (and that his views are self-admittedly controversial) AND vegsource.com [4] does not measure up as an RS. MAYBE this material has some place in the article but is not IMO worthy of this treatment. See WP:Undue weight. Paavo273 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your views are still in the minority and multiple editors other than myself have voiced problems with your edits. The fundamental issue here is that you want to turn conspiracy theory into something else based on how scholars you align yourself with view the subject and on the temporary connotations the word has to some people. This article was in the past inundated with edits that added one-sided material by obscure academics, and you have fought to keep these fringe psychology theories that have come to dominate the article. Those are the sections that need a separate article. You seem to want to have your psychology theories become the main article while the actual article subject is treated someplace else. There is a reason this article has been named recently as needing significant improvement. The previous intro paragraph was completely inappropriate and focused almost entirely on abuse of conspiracy theory by mentally ill people and despots. The fact is that CT is simply theories on conspiracies, often great and often small. Some are correct, some are not. The word phenomenon is inappropriate. Situation is more inclusive and appears in all reference sources while phenomenon does not appear in any. Regarding added paragraph, there is no shortage of RSs that can and will be added at a later date. Moreover, you mischaracterize the controversy around one source. One newspaper editor and a politician protested Woodward's views, but his own university and national association of professors strongly defended him. Considering that there is a page-long section on a single, short-lived media trope ("fusion paranoia"), including four paragraphs about a single article in a newspaper, it's frankly laughable that you would throw the relative weight of a 4-line paragraph on a major subject like cognitive dissonance into question. Csp0316 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

The pared down version of the intro has received a lot of support and contributions from other editors. It's more precise and concise, and focuses on the definition of the subject rather than giving undue weight to the views of a handful of little-known academics who specialize in conspiracy theory. Otherwise there haven't been many significant changes to the article other than in the proven conspiracies section.

If you have issue with the recent additions to the 'proven conspiracies' section, cite which ones. All of the 'proven' additions are conspiracies (planned, secret, illegal, and unethical) which were originally suspected as such by some (who were ridiculed by adherents to the non-conspiracy belief), and later uncovered or declassified. All are based on direct government admissions or have consensus by most historians (e.g. Reichstag), and none can be considered controversial, but again, if you have issue with certain additions, make them known instead of an unsupported 'dubious' label. All of the proven conspiracy content that has been added is well-sourced in the respective main wiki articles on the subjects, and is not considered controversial or dubious in the source articles. The changes to intro and additions that have been made since the version you restored are productive, have consensus, and have not affected the bulk of the article.Csp0316 (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You state in your recent edit summary that "consensus supports current version, see talk". [5] Can you please indicate where, and by whom, this 'consensus' is given? I can't see much evidence of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Much of the discussion has expired from the talk page, but in the last several weeks at least 4 editors have voiced support for the single paragraph intro that focuses on the definition of conspiracy theory instead of the 4 paragraph intro weighted towards psychology theories about conspiracy theory, founded on the belief that CT is mental illness, which stands in stark contrast with conspiracy theories that have been and continue to be proven correct.

If there is any question to the stability of the article, all of the recent edits were made to the proven conspiracy section. There were several dozen edits due to the style of my editing. Other editors might have made the changes in only a few edits. Prior to that, the article could not be considered unstable. I am happy to retract any of the added proven conspiracy material, but ask that editors cite specific sections that are not appropriate. All of the added material is comparable to the long-standing content in the section previously. It is well-sourced in its main articles and while not well-known, is not the subject of controversy.Csp0316 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for evidence (including names) regarding consensus for the 'current version' - not just for a shorter lede. That is what your edit summary claimed existed. And regarding the section on 'conspiracy theories that have been and continue to be proven correct', where is the section on 'conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false'?

Incidentally, you referred earlier to "the views of a handful of little-known academics who specialize in conspiracy theory". Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? This would seem to suggest to me at least that academics specialising in the subject of an article are precisely the sources we should be using. What Wikipedia-policy-based grounds do you have for suggesting that including the views of these specialists is "undue weight"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, Mystichiwum, Jdkag, Dragonflysixtyseven, myself, and several others whose posts have expired have all voiced support for the 1-paragraph intro, and Bhny, Jdkag, and myself have voiced support for expanded discussion of proven conspiracies. I have no problem including the views of those academics in the article, but they are one-sided perspectives that use psychology theories to marginalize conspiracy theory. They get full exposition of their views in later sections, but do not deserve to get a second full exposition in the intro. It looks silly, contrived, and out of place when following the straightforward and objective first paragraph. If you want to create a section that discusses major conspiracy theories that were conclusively proven to be wrong and are no longer subject to controversy (the same criteria that has been used to mention proven conspiracies), I'm fine with that. The list of proven conspiracies has been present in the article for several years now and is not a recently added section. If you have issue with certain added content, elaborate on specifics. Even after the added content, the article is still weighted heavily towards casting CT as a psychological and sociological disorder or phenomenon (rather than an intellectual method and methodology for uncovering real conspiracies). Since very few people have even heard of these academics, let alone share their views, it has to be assumed until demonstrated otherwise that their view is of a tiny minority, therefore not appropriate for the intro but OK for later sections.WP:Undue weight Csp0316 (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to 'where in Wikipedia policy you base your assertion that academics specialising in a subject should be excluded on the grounds of 'undue weight'? There is certainly nothing in policy that suggests that 'nobody has heard of them' is a valid reason. This is an encyclopaedia - we are expected to inform our readers of things they haven't heard of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear you're reading my whole comments, or have read the article itself. The views that were previously part of the intro are currently discussed in the body of the article. Previously, they had their own sections in the body, but were repeated again in the intro. Since they hold an apparent minority viewpoint they don't belong in the intro, but I'm OK with their work being fully discussed later, as it currently is.

Also, after viewing some of your edit comments, it doesn't appear that you understand the 'verified conspiracy' section. The Holocaust was once thought to be an incorrect conspiracy theory, but was later proven to have happened, which is also the case for all of the other mentioned conspiracy theories. That's why it was mentioned in that section. You were correct to remove state terrorism and false flag operations since they lacked detail. For the record, those two items have stood for years and were not recently added.Csp0316 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough repetitive crap from you. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing - you don't get to exclude academic specialists in a subject just because they are 'a minority'. Of course they are a minority - academic specialists are a minority by definition. What matters - all that matters - is whether the views of these particular academics are in the minority amongst academics as far as their views on the subject are concerned. Which you have completely failed to demonstrate. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook - we don't include or exclude content on the basis of whether we 'like' it or not.

And as for your comments on the Holocaust, I suggest you actually study the subject a little before making more facile comments - you clearly have little understanding of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It still appears that you haven't read the actual article. If you had you would have noticed that the academics in question and their views are currently fully covered with multiple paragraphs each in the body of article and have not been excluded from anything. The issue has been whether or not they should be covered again in the intro paragraph, or whether the intro should remain as it is, a brief overview of the subject at hand, not a platform for an academic to plug his most recent book. I spent many years at a prestigious university studying history, including WWII and the Holocaust. Until the war was ending and camps were encountered by Allied troops, many did not believe rumors of mass extermination of Jews and dismissed them as incorrect conspiracy theory.Csp0316 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". If the views of people who study the subject belong in the article (if?), they must be mentioned in the lede. It is a summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to work up a sentence or two that summarizes the overall views of the academics, that is OK, but it's not appropriate to give an intro paragraph to every academic who happens to publish work on CT (which was the previous state of the intro). I previously did this, but other editors wanted to delete the section entirely and leave it as is, and I am OK with that. Incorrect CTs as well as those based merely on a hunch are already mentioned in the intro, and this is enough to prepare the reader for ensuing academic discussion on how and why these kinds of unsupported and often false CTs are formulated.Csp0316 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability of conspiracy theories

The whole conspiracy theories that were later verified section is probably a claim is made elsewhere that pages sources will usually be a good starting point for research.good idea, a decent percentage of our readers will be looking for information like this. As long as this page also continues to document the conspiracist lunatic fringe. However this section needs many more sources, to allow other editors to verify. Note that the existence of this information elsewhere in Wikipedia is insufficient, although if a --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup it needs sourcing, if it is to remain - and to be specific, it needs sources which make clear that they were the subject of conspiracy theories which were later verified to be correct. I've already removed some hopelessly vague ones, as well as the ridiculous 'example' of the Dreyfus affair - which as even the lest-informed should know concerned the conviction of Dreyfus as the result of a false antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Frankly though, I have my doubts about including such a list, even if properly sourced. It looks too much like original research to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

All of the mentioned proven conspiracies are documented by primary source documents, in almost every case in the form of admissions from the actual conspirators themselves (e.g. declassified documents). Is there any specific content that has been added that you believe will not hold up to scrutiny? If so please let me know and I can add further source documentation. Since nearly all of the proven conspiracies listed are matters of public government record and could readily be supported by ample sources, I do not consider them to be on un-solid ground.Csp0316 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what needs sourcing - if these are examples of 'conspiracy theories' we need evidence that people held such theories - and that these theories were later proven correct. And yes, every example cited needs proper sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the section is called 'proven conspiracies' and simply discusses the reality of conspiracies, it is more appropriate to change the heading to list of proven conspiracies. After this changes further sources aren't necessary as we're dealing with major events here. Major events like COINTELPRO and Operation Gladio do not need to be sourced to demonstrate that they existed, and none of the main articles for the listed conspiracies indicate controversy or a lack of supporting source material.Csp0316 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If the subject of the section is 'proven conspiracies' it doesn't belong in the article at all - the subject of this article is conspiracy theories, not conspiracies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Since it is evident that the list related to (allegedly) 'proven conspiracies' rather than 'proven conspiracy theories', I have removed it as off-topic for the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From the intro through the entire body of the article, the contrast between correct and incorrect conspiracy theory is being highlighted, i.e. the sociological and psychological ways that incorrect conspiracy theories develop, as well as the intellectual methodologies that can be used to formulate correct theories. That is why a discussion of actual conspiracies is appropriate here, to demonstrate what a real conspiracy looks like, and demonstrate the characteritics that a false one may have. The section has stood for many years and been collaborated on by many editors, and has never been nominated for deletion. Your attempts to delete the whole section have been reverted. Csp0316 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So now we are writing a 'how to spot real conspiracies' manual are we? Nope - not even remotely compatible with an encyclopaedia. Anyway, I've seen enough facile arguments for tonight, and will return to this later with substantive proposals for a complete restructuring of the article to ensure that it is (a) on topic, (b) properly sourced, and (c) compliant with Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an article on Greenland or photosynthesis, it's an article on psychological and intellectual processes, therefore discussion of how and why those processes work the way they do is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. If we follow your line of thought the only material left in the article will be the intro paragraph, which in reality is as much as a traditional encyclopedia would probably grant this subject. However, the article has become something more, and in order to keep it balanced all aspects of CT must be covered, including a brief list of only the most notable conspiracies that were eventually verified after supported and unsupported theory had been put forth for years. Countless activists theorized about COINTELPRO long before it was admitted, some blacks and American Indians theorized they were being intentionally poisoned and infected by the government, and this CT also applies to NSA spying, NAU, MKUltra, Mockingbird, Gladio, and every other listed real conspiracy, with the possible exception of Sunshine. All of those conspiracies went through many stages of doubt and were thought by many to be incorrect CT before enough evidence was uncovered and enough time had passed to consider them to be verified. Csp0316 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Changes to list of proven conspiracies. I removed JFK from the list, since there is still a lot of controversy around it, and many people who have studied the event believe Oswald acted alone. I changed the wording on North American Union and reeducation camps. While most would agree that the text of the manual prescribes what is commonly understood to be reeducation, some consider it to be sensationalist, and while the Army did write the instructions, I have not seen sources that document that FEMA or DHS accepted the instructions. Regarding the NAU, I changed the words to include only the talks and not further implementation. There have indeed been secret diplomatic talks that are well-sourced, and that they occurred is not a matter of controversy. If you think anything else in the list is bunk, then explain why it is bunk. Most of the material in that section has withstood scrutiny for many years, and the content added is among the least controversial since it has been made a matter of public record by the government and is not contested in any reliable source.Csp0316 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Either add sources which demonstrate that these are notable as conspiracy theories, or accept that they are off-topic for an article on conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked some of the articles linked from your list and more than a few don't even mention the word conspiracy. Your list needs to have a source (a good, reliable secondary source calling it a conspiracy theory that was proven true. Honestly, this is a subject that has seen a fair amount of academic research. What may be viable here are a couple of good examples of conspiracy theories that were proven true and how perception changed over time based on that academic research. Your list as it is now though? No way. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Attn: Ravensfire, I responded to your talkpage comments. I removed the Iraq War section, which incidentally has stood for years, but it's still controversial to say that entry into the war was based only on oil and that leadership was certain there were no WMDs. I also deleted the sections on the NAU and internment camps. They occurred, and were well-documented and uncontested, but since they were not implemented and some editors take issue with them, they have been removed. If anyone has any more issue with this section, please be specific. It borders on vandalism when an entire section that has stood for years with no nominations for removal is suddenly removed in whole with no specific argument made. I will also remove Gabriel and Sunshine, PBSUCCESS, and some others since they were a PR disaster and unethical, but may not have been illegal. Please allow me a few minutes to make the major changes. Csp0316 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You MUST include sources. You also really need to post what you want to add here, not in the article and address the issues multiple people have identified. Did you not read the WP:3RR page I linked to when I warned you? You are OVER the 3RR limit. Understand that continuing to force your changes into the article WILL get you blocked. Don't go there. Use the talk page, address the concerns MULTIPLE editors have raised and get consensus before making your change in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed PBSUCCESS since it was a typical covert operation to aid a coup and not thought of as illegal to many people. I also removed Gabriel and Sunshine since while they did conduct testing on corpses without telling families, it may not have been illegal. The other conspiracies are 100% uncontroversial matters of public record, and they all meet the definition of conspiracy: they were secret, planned, and unequivocally illegal. They regularly involved murder, illegal break-ins, blackmail, subjecting people to brain damage, hiring prostitutes and mobsters and allowing them to commit crimes and not as informants or part of criminal investigation.

The section has been heavily edited from the time a lot of the controversy surrounded it yesterday. If you have any issue with it now, please cite specific items. Again, the section has stood for years with no controversy, and it seems odd that the entire thing is suddenly unacceptable to multiple editors. It's more likely that there were a few items that bothered certain editors, and I think the changes made address those isolated issues.Csp0316 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC) I have also removed several more items that don't fit the description. Please allow me some time to return this long-standing section to a state that may be acceptable to other editors. Only AndytheGrump has voiced opposition to the entire section, the other editors feel that only certain items are unsourced or do not belong.Csp0316 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Put. The. List. Here. Work. On. It. Here. There. Is that straightforward enough for you? Do that and self-revert back to the version without your list. Don't add the list until you get consensus HERE that it's good. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not right for you to remove the entire long-standing list when it's not at issue. It would be absurd for you to delete the entire article except for one or two paragraphs, and then force any editors who are paying attention to reconstruct the entire article via the talk page and wait for your approval, and that's essentially what's happening here. I remind you that I am reverting your reverts, and is you who has already passed 3RR. Which items do you oppose? I have already removed a dozen or so items from the list that generated controversy. Every item that was even questioned by another editor has been removed.Csp0316 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

But, it is 'an issue' as demonstrated by the number of editors removing it. Please take Ravensfire's advice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This. Sigh - I'm done with this for now. Csp0316 has been reported to WP:EWN and I'll let that run it's course before pulling this back out. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ravensfire has been reported since he passed 3RR. Dbrodbeck, you and other editors took issue with certain items, and those items have been removed. Only one editor has questioned the whole section. What remains in the list are quintessential conspiracies, the overwhelming majority of which are secret plans that involve killing innocent people with results of great international significance. The section is no longer very large, if you have an issue with it please name a point and say what your issue is, and I will attempt to correct or remove it until consensus is achieved. Csp0316 (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with unsourced sections. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Csp0316, I suggest that while you are waiting out your block, you read WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:IDHT... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Which items lack sources? Name a single item that you believe is unsourced. I don't need to source that the USSR or Abraham Lincoln have existed, and I don't need to source that COINTELPRO existed. It was admitted by the FBI, there are books and thousands of documents that say that it exists. Please name one conspiracy item that you believe is not supported by facts. Csp0316 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Verifiability to your reading list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You still won't name a single item. There are about 20 articles linked to, and not a single one has a warning that it lacks sources or is controversial. All the articles are vetted and extremely sound. You seem to think that conspiracies are imaginary. All of those listed have happened, and any historian worth his salt knows it. Do you want me to transplant a couple dozen sources from the main articles? Csp0316 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? This isn't an article about 'conspiracies', it is an article about 'conspiracy theories'. You need sources which explicitly discuss such matters in such terms - otherwise they don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Support for proven conspiracy section

I personally support proven conspiracy section and feel it is relevant to article. Csp0316 and a few other editors support this section based on recent talk and contributions. Looks like there are 3 editors that do not support it based on recent contribs and talk comments. Therefore, I don't see a consensus against the section. I encourage anyone else who supports the section to step in.Leonespin176 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Something smells here, like clothing worn on the feet ... Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It does humm a little. Will you do the honours, I shall I? 15:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Working on that now. Could be a WP:MEAT though. EDIT: See SPI case here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, WP:DUCK. In addressing Csp0316's comment, local consensus does not trump global consensus WP:CONSENSUS. Second Quantization (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Clear bias by LuckyLouie and Mangoe

There needs to be a discussion about the strong bias from these editors.

LuckyLouie: "Undue weight on a fringe view, likely taken out of context" Louie clearly has never read a word of Rothbard, nor the essay in question, or he wouldn't say that. He's just making things up and hoping other editors will take his word for it, which demonstrates zero intellectual integrity.

LuckyLouie: "Rem. excess weight on Parenti. Our article is about conspiracy theories, not conspiracy. Also RICO seems out of place, move to "Legal use"

Then LuckyLouie goes on to say in his modified intro that conspiracy theory is conspiracy and mentions real conspiracies.

Mangoe: "It's not utterly clear but from the methodogical description it would appear that people who gave an opinion about who it was not were lumped into "other".

Again, zero intellectual integrity. There is nothing in the article that supports any of his statement. There is also nothing listed about the methodology. Worse, the poll he's talking about doesn't even exist, but is an average of other polls, and there is no indication his statement applies to any of those polls. He simply made it up hoping that other editors wouldn't look into it.

Mangoe: "removing section: seems to be pushing the idea that it's reasonable to theorize"

Can we possibly give any credibility to this editor after such an outrageous statement?Csp0316 (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have had no real problem with those edits, I guess there needs to be a discussion about me too? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, you have yet to say or do anything of substance other than jump on the bandwagon and revert edits, preventing other editors from going over 3RR WP:MEAT. You wouldn't name a single item in my list you had an issue with in our talk discussion, and now you won't address any of the substance of what the editors wrote, other than "you have no real problem." I believe it was you who labeled the US Army internment camp manual as 'bunk' even though I named the manual, quoted it, and offered a link to the primary source. The membership of the supposed consensus that suddenly formed is not very impressive. Bunch of zero integrity apologist hacks. Csp0316 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you accusing me of being someone's meat puppet then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just saying it could be true, similar to the bogus meat accusation made above about me.Csp0316 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

'Cognitive dissonance'

I have removed this section entirely - it was sourced solely to 9/11 'truthers', in gross violation of WP:NPOV policy. It should also be noted that only one of the two sources actually used the term 'cognitive dissonance' at all - and that seemed mostly to be in relation to the alleged harmful effects of a non-vegan diet.[6]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The 'Controversy' section is largely sourced to one polemical chapter of a book by one author. Hardly seems to justify being given so much weight as a legitimate controversy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. It takes more than one opinion to make a controversy.

Incidentally, that section is a fine illustration of yet another flaw in this article - it is far too US-centric. This is supposed to be an international encyclopaedia, and should be written accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This section will be returning to the article with more RSs cited, as well as additional reasons why people deny conspiracy theories despite a preponderance of evidence. According to your perspective on 9/11, there are two types of people in this world, 'truthers' as you call them, and non-truthers. Those who believe the 9/11 official story, and those who believe it not to be true. Over 85% of Germans in a major poll believe the official story to be false, and majorities in the Middle East, as well as large percentages in Africa, South America, and many European countries believe it to be false. I could just as easily say that an article sourced entirely to non-truthers lacks a neutral point of view, as in many countries that type of person is in the minority. Opinion polls about 9/11 conspiracy theories indicates that only 46% of people worldwide believe Al Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks.Csp0316 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least that's out in the open now. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There are more perspectives on 9//11 than 'believing the official story' vs 'truther'. As for opinion polls, it should be noted that the poll Csp0316 cites puts support for the 'truthers' at 15% worldwide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You misrepresent the poll. It's actually 29% who name an alternative perpetrator (US 15, Israel 7, Other 7), and 25% who say they don't know who the perpetrator is but do not believe it to be Al Qaeda, for a total of 54% who do not believe it to be Al Qaeda, hence they fundamentally reject the official story and do not believe we know the truth about 9/11, and assuming they would like to learn the truth they must be called 'truthers.' Your neutral point of view argument is invalid and won't justify future reversions on those grounds.Csp0316 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Complete and utter bollocks. "Don't know" means exactly what it says, regardless of how much spin you put on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's plainly spin. It's not utterly clear but from the methodogical description it would appear that people who gave an opinion about who it was not were lumped into "other". Mangoe (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The most important part of the official story as far as the meaning of the event is that Al Qaeda and OBL were the certain perpetrators. If someone says they don't know, it unequivocally means they do not currently believe that Al Qaeda is the perpetrator, thus they are in a state of uncertainty and want truth, and are truthers. The point is that the truther label cannot marginalize a source and that a source's rejection of the official story cannot be used to discredit it. If 30% of people worldwide believe something, and another 25% are open to belief, it is not a fringe belief.

Mangoe, your opinion about what it would appear to be is baseless assumption. 'Not utterly clear'- how about there is zero indication it is the case, but you're going to say it anyway. There is no indication anyone at all was asked about who it wasn't, only who it was, let alone how that would show in the poll results.Csp0316 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bollocks repeated is still bollocks. And this is not a forum for your promulgation of nanothermite-powered tinfoil-hattery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. The tinfoil hat label is beyond old, and anyone who uses it nowadays looks increasingly foolish and out of touch.Csp0316 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, and why is that exactly?. Speaking of out of touch, consider people who use the loaded phrase "official story" and what they are trying to push by that phrase. There are the facts about what occurred, and then there is the conspiratorial allegations, please cease the conspiratorial language if you want a meaningful discussion about editing the article. Second Quantization (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason the term official story is used is because some people only count things as facts when they come out of government and CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX microphones, and marginalize everything else as non-RS lunatic fringe, when those parties themselves have engaged in conspiracies time and time again (a small sampling of which I had highlighted in my list), and are not worthy of such deference.Csp0316 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you use the term 'official story' because you alone know the Truth^TM, and the rest of us are just sheep, blindly swallowing everything we are told. Yeah right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, more like you think your government and BBC have a monopoly on determining Truth^TM, and everything else is 'bollocks'Csp0316 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't have the faintest clue about what I do or don't think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between intro and body

Several editors who demanded removal of the proven conspiracy list rallied around the point that conspiracies are not the same as conspiracy theories, therefore references to real conspiracies do not belong in the article.

Yet the 'improved' intro that has just been foisted on the article (without a peep from the aforementioned editors) states that conspiracy theory does in fact refer to real conspiracies, and this is from the editor himself who reverted my edits based on the idea that proven conspiracies have nothing do with conspiracy theory. Which is it? Previous edit will be restored unless this is addressed.Csp0316 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from telling other people what 'will' be done concerning this article. There are only two things that determine article content: Wikipedia policy, and consensus amongst contributors. You don't get to have a veto on what is or isn't in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

hear hear Andy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, zero comment on the issue raised and on actually improving the article, just more blathering about policy.Csp0316 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ensuring that an article complies with policy is an improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Making sure that an article follows policy is far from 'blathering on'. There are rules here, such as no edit warring for example. Please learn to follow them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rothbard

Seems like the defense-of-conspiracy theories stuff cited to Rothbard was originally added as part of a POV push to distribute a sympathetic view of conspiracy theories throughout the article. If it's a significant minority view, it probably should be specifically attributed and identified as an one, e.g. an Anarcho-capitalist viewpoint. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He is well known enough it seems, but, is he known as an expert in conspiracy theories? If not perhaps just remove the whole section about him. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Did a bit (a small bit) of reading, he seems, while well known, to be pretty fringy.....Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Have his opinions on the subject been discussed in academic RS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that I can find, but like I said, it was a cursory look. Some of his other ideas about things are out there let's say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In the cited paper, Rothbard is essentially arguing in favor of conspiracy theories (and is well known for doing so), so I have made the necessary attributions [7]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy facts

We need a part of the page for Conspiracy facts. 96.52.0.103 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read above on this talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Blanking the stable, long-existing RSd version of the article or adding dubious new info--BOTH BAD--both discouraged by WP policy

• Please do not blank RSd info that has been part of the stable version of this article for many years. Instead find your own RSs to rebut the info. As I understand it Csp0316 and some others want to turn this into an article about real conspiracies. Two or more other recently involved editors want to block out all mention of real conspiracies. A good compromise is leave the carefully sourced article the way it was until you come up with your own RSs and are willing and able to represent them faithfully in your edits. Otherwise it's just plain OR violating one of the most fundamental rules of all WP editing, or worse, OR posing as validly source-cited info. Paavo273 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Which version would you like, and which policies are you referring to? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• The version B4 an editor came along determined to root out the "fringe scholarly sources" and replace them with dictionary definitions and whatall and B4 other editors apparently started blanking any or all info that referred to real conspiracies. There really IS an interplay, a logical juxtaposition, between CT and real conspiracies; it's not WP:POV to distinguish these, especially since the term CT has EVOLVED over the last decades from neutral to pejorative.
• I suggested, obviously to no avail, that the editor who didn't want to accept the existence of the modern usage of CT, write a NEW article listing actual conspiracies or whatever.
• No OR, Verifiability, Scholarship, Blanking, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paavo273 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 March 2014‎

This is not an article about conspiracies themselves but about conspiracy theories, hence the title. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was arguing, pretty much by myself, to another editor, for some months. (Well, it's an article about CT, singular, the concept.) There is, however, a big difference between pointing out that real conspiracies have been falsely labeled CTs as the term is now used AND loading up the article with extended discussion of real or allegedly real conspiracies that changes the focus away from CT. The former helps distinguish what CT actually is from what it is not. Carefully sourced examples given in the article, unless they too have been blanked, include the uncontroversial Watergate, CIA meddling (which is pretty global in scale), and the Vietnam debacle. Unless it's been blanked, one scholarly source cited in the article attacks another scholarly source on CT as denying the existence of any real actual conspiracies, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That kind of distinction elucidates, not distracts from, what CT has come to mean. Paavo273 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you were left to cope with a recent POV push. The editor responsible has since been blocked for edit warring. I made some effort to remove undue emphasis on fringe views and the extensive "conspiracies are real" arguments in your absence. And - I hope you agree - the article can always be improved further. For example, the US-centric focus could be remedied. And an entire section sourced to Parenti, an admittedly fringe view that paints a picture of controversy where there likely is none, can be cut down. Also I'm not sure how RICO fits into the mix, since AFAIK law enforcement and courts don't refer to evidence gathered to prosecute criminal conspiracies as "conspiracy theories". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• 1. Agreed: This or any WP article can always be improved. What I object to is (A) blanking long-standing RSd info that contributes to an understanding of the meaning of CT as it has permeated our political and social culture AND (B) changing the MEANING of the term away from what it has evolved into as established by relevant scholars.
• 2. Agreed: The cultural systemic bias is disturbing. IME this runs through all English Wikipedia, and there should be specific WP policy against it. More non-Anglo-American examples and source material w/b helpful.
• 3. I don't know Parenti, but he is not depicted in his WP article as a kook--appears 2B a widely published author educated at one of the U.S.'s top universities, which at least figures into identifying scholarly sources.) I have no opinion on the relative weight his views should be given, but it appears he deserves some space.
• 4. I personally have contributed extremely little content this article; my main role was doing some serious reorganizing and limited combining of info to improve coherence.
• 5. RICO is there to rebut George and Wilcox's small-and-single-event characterization of REAL conspiracies compared to CTs, to point out there really are large-scale actual conspiracies. Other mentioned examples include the NSA's and CIA's well-established "work". Providing it is not controversial to s.o., IMO it w/b appropriate to delete BOTH the RICO thing AND what George and Wilcox think about scale distinguishing CTs from real Cs.
• 6. IMO it's critical to an understanding of CT to know as well what CT is NOT. And that's where the limited discussion of actual conspiracies comes in.
• 7. IME, the real objection of user Csp0316 is that he does not want to accept that CT has taken on the meaning it has--as suggested by his statements such as,

• "Frankly, this article should be considered for removal, or changed to 'analysis of conspiracy theory' or 'beliefs about conspiracy theory.'" 22:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC);
• "... [T]he preponderance of major reference works [dictionaries apparently?] absolutely trump all academic sources, regardless of how many you cite." 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC);
• "... [Y]ou want to turn conspiracy theory into something else based on how scholars you align yourself with view the subject and on the temporary connotations the word has to some people. This article was in the past inundated with edits that added one-sided material by obscure academics, and you have fought to keep these fringe psychology theories that have come to dominate the article. Those are the sections that need a separate article." 07:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC); and
• "If obscure scholars and psychologists want to be in the business of redefining words, they should start by submitting an application to MW or Oxford." 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My reply to these, as B4, is WP policy is quite clear: You have to stay w/i the 4 corners of what reliable sources say. If you want to add to or change the established definition of CT or any other WP article subject, you need to find and faithfully represent RSs that agree w/ you. In this case, you'd need to find scholarly sources equating CT with real conspiracies. You can't just add your own ideas, no matter how good your logic or how just your cause.

Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion rel an appropriate place and the appropriate way to amplify discussion of real conspiracies in connection with CT

As I have previously suggested, the listing (and brief discussing) of actual large-scale conspiracies, most probably has a place as an article in WP, as long as such an article consists of the faithful depiction of RSs.

That place, however, is not as the replacement of THIS RSd article consisting of the depiction of many RSs contributed by a lot of different editors over a long period of time.

IME the way it is typically accomplished, and IMO would be most logical to do here, is as a standalone article, as a spinout or related article. There could be a link under, e.g., the Proven conspiracies heading of THIS article, to the spinout. Paavo273 (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

examples of conspiracies in the lead that are unreferenced and not in the article

In history political regimes have colluded to form real conspiracies (e.g., Hitler and Stalin agreeing to divide Europe) and used conspiracy theory to manipulate their subjects (e.g., Hitler's “Jewish conspiracy”).

I have removed this sentence from the lead. I can't see either of these in this form in the article. The lead should summarise the article, not introduce new material.

Plus, the idea of using talk of a Jewish conspiracy "to manipulate their subjects" is not exclusive to only one historical person. So this part of the deleted sentence is much too much of an OR over-simplification.

E.g. "In violent opposition to all this sphere of jewish effort rise the schemes of the International jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy ... this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing." ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, London, February 8, 1920. By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill. http://concen.org/forum/printthread.php?tid=32152

In the interests of furthering Wikipedia being received as a reputable reliable source, the use of Godwin's Law, Reductio ad Hitlerum, or argumentum ad Hitlerum arguments to emphasise the accurate use of "conspiracy theory" I regard as inadvisable and unhelpful. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Hi User:Mystichumwipe, Could you please explain what you mean or what your point is rel the quote, "In violent opposition..."

2. Also, could you say in simple terms what you mean by your last paragraph, "In the interests of furthering Wikipedia..." WHAT specifically do you regard inadvisable and unhelpful? Surely you're not suggesting we cannot mention Hitler's name or m.o. in a WP article because that might taint the article. ??? Paavo273 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Paavo273. May I instead ask you if you don't understand to read the points again. I think they are clear enough plus I don't see how your questions pertain to the really crucial reasons for this edit. The bottom-line is that if we want to keep this sentence, we need to show where it appears in the article and there needs to be a verifiable reference for it somewhere. If we are unable to do so, then the sentence infringes basic Wiki policy of original research and verifiability plus doesn't fulfil the purpose of the intro which is to serve as a summary of an article's most important aspects

The article cites Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (ref.45) saying something similar but not with anything like the same wording as was in the intro. Plus as this also is without a page number, it is unverifiable, so really that shouldn't be in the article either.

Having written all that, I do think the whole article is unbalanced in that it concentrates, discusses and explains almost exclusively the derogatory usage of the term and then concentrating on current usage in America. As Wikipedia represents international knowledge this needs to be stressed or corrected. I therefore agree that the intro needs to include accepted, non-fringe conspiracy theories for balance. Can we not come up with a better example?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What happens with the article

Why is "Controversy" so short? What happens with "list of proven conspiracies"? I think it would be recover some material from earlier editions. Fer48 (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to intro paragraph needed

There is an extreme lack of sources in the intro paragraph to this article, and in my opinion the writing and ordering of content is substandard. Removing all but the first paragraph would leave an introduction that is short and to the point, and prepares the reader for what follows, i.e. a discussion of both real and imagined conspiracies and how we study them. I would like to hear if there is any opposition to these changes. If none comes forth I will go ahead and make the change.Csp0316 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The second two paragraphs are not necessary. They reduce analysis of real conspiracies to a mental illness or 'need to believe,' suggesting that any critical analysis of an event that uncovers actual conspiracy is somehow accidental and that theory proof is somehow divorced from theory formulation. It is frankly senseless to believe that humans cannot intentionally cause events to occur and that everything is random. It's also senseless to believe that nothing is random, but this intro section only discusses the former notion. The fourth paragraph saying that conspiracism has 'squeezed-out democracy' doesn't seem to make any sense. It's a non-sequitur. One can theorize about conspiracies and also participate in a democracy. The note about Hitler and Stalin agreeing to divide Europe acts as if such a conspiracy was unique, when hundreds of large-scale conspiracies have been uncovered since then.

Consensus appears to exist for major edits to the paragraph. A minority of editors appear to be promoting very narrow views on CT from a small handful of scholars. Since several of the scholars such as Hofstadter are prominent, it's OK to represent their views later, but they don't belong in the intro.

The article begins by noting distinction between the discovery of real conspiracies and the dismissal of over-application of conspiracy theory, but proceeds to focus solely on the latter. Even Rothbard's view is mischaracterized. He endorsed 'conspiracy theory' and believed that many major events thought to be relatively random were largely authored by conspirators.

At least half of the article should discuss real conspiracies, how they were uncovered, and methodologies for uncovering them. Psychology theories about theories on conspiracies should be a sidenote to this article, or better, a separate article.Csp0316 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraf has problems. It has 10 citations, but they are all at the very end, even tho' it is a moderately long paragraf and has a number of factoids. You can't tell which sources support which factoid. The citations should be diffused thruout the paragraf.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Leads should only summarize what's in the body, and nothing more. If a claim has a source, it should be cited only in the body. If there's something that's only in the lead, we're doing it wrong. See WP:CITELEAD. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is generally correct and also is the way it is IME usually done on WP, although the authority you cite does not exactly EXCLUDE citations in the intro: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." In any case this intro is well supported by the body. Paavo273 (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding, that the lead may not need references. In that case are some of the references that I criticized for being clumped, unnecessary? If so, remove them. If some or all of them should stay, though, I recommend diffusing them so that you can tell which sources support which factoid.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Solomon. The references were added this way by another editor and I have not had time to look at it. I believe some of the references appear later, and some may be left over from earlier versions of the intro and do not apply to the current content.Csp0316 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead currently has 13 citations in 3 clumps. I still think it is too uneven.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As a whole, this Article is derogatory

One of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia is to be a reference,giving a Unbiased base definition of a word or term Its intended or original Meaning,purpose and use,"its origin" and what it originally implies and or conveys,Supplemented With a factual Elaboration upon its use Historically up to currently in society,showing evolution if any of its what it is intended to convey, how its used,and how it is interpreted up to today.Proper research and understanding can not be made with this clearly one sided if not down right misleading misuse of the Term Conspiracy theory with intentional or unintentional misuse, misleading or derogatory statements or writings of individuals "Opinions" "believes" at the most they are only theories of their authors and not even a general consensus.The Most erroneous Use of the term Conspiracy theory, The "implication" of a connection between the term "Conspiracy theory" there by the "Conspiracy theorist" as a psychological illness or dysfunction as suggested on the 2nd paragraph demands removal from the main heading of this article as it is an out rightly derogatory misleading and erroneous use of the term. detrimental to the proper understanding of this term and its meaning.as well as the integrity of this publication.

(REMOVE FALSE)                    

Some scholars suggest that people formulate conspiracy theories to explain, for example, power relations in social groups and the existence of evil forces.[4][5][6][7] It has been suggested by some thinkers that conspiracy theories have chiefly psychological or socio-political origins. Proposed psychological origins include projection; the personal need to explain “a significant event [with] a significant cause;" and the product of various kinds and stages of thought disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to diagnosable mental illnesses. Similarly, socio-political origins may be discovered in the need of people to believe in event causation rather than suffer the insecurity of a random world and universe.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

these lines could go under a sub heading of examples of misrepresentation or examples of attempted marginalization examples of dis-empowerment of a theoretical concept examples of derogatory use of the term examples of institutionalism and its false Assumptions

in reading further down this article I see it all needs revamping! as it is misleading yet again by its derogatory sub headings and attached articles linked with their one sided uncorroborated overly indulgent pontificating of a few individuals on the subject of conspiracy theory or more to the point the individuals or groups inclined to this approach to theoretical thought.In affect the presentation as it is of Conspiracy theory in this publication once again portraits an endorsement of this biased and inappropriate portrayal of the term "Conspiracy theory" a all to plausible and proven possible fact in human Society and a necessary type of theoretical thinking and understanding of what man is capable of.

Example of assumptions of anti-conspiracy theory detractors:

The conspiracy theorist's five assumptions[edit]

In his essay "Dealing with Middle Eastern Conspiracy Theories", Daniel Pipes notes that conspiracy theories are outstandingly common in the Middle East and writes that five assumptions "distinguish the conspiracy theorist from more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all".[35] this also is just an unproven biased opinion. and should have the heading as such. or removed altogether as it is misleading and derogatory. 69.132.23.116 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases articles on published sources - if the sources are generally negative about a subject, then so will our article be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy psychology

I propose creating a new page titled "Conspiracy psychology" that goes into more depth on the psychological aspects of conspiracy theory. With the rise in conspiracy theories, especially in American culture, in the past several decades, a number of studies have been done trying to unravel the reasons for this condition, enough that this could be considered a distinct field or specialty within psychological/sociological research.

In particular, here are some topics that could be covered by the new article:

• Psychological factors associated with belief in conspiracy theories
• The tendency for believers in one conspiracy theory to believe in others, or to support the possibility of multiple, contradictory conspiracies
• The relationship between conspiracy theory and mental illness

A good starting point would be the "Psychological origins" section of this article. Augurar (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not opposed to it if it can be addressed in an academic way. Location (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources misused to argue a POV

In the past, I've found citations being misused to synthesize an editorial argument (e.g. because conspiracies like Watergate existed, conspiracy theories are being unjustly given a bad rap). - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Digging deeper, I think the article needs to be once again scrutinized section by section and the misuse of sources weeded out. For example, in the As popular knowlege section, "Knowledge Goes Pop: From Conspiracy Theory to Gossip" by Clare Birchall has been selectively quoted and misused to cite an opinion sympathetic to conspiracy theories. Reading through Birchall's book I found that her ideas have been seriously taken completely out of context. I'm not sure how many more examples of this can be found in the article, but it bears looking into. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. I'll try to take a more thorough look later. Location (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a review of Birchall's book by another academic, Gary Walton, here. Related information from the same guy here. Citing page 44 in Birchall, he states:

These narratives occupy a public space that Birchall has called "popular knowledge" [1]: i.e. a type of unofficial knowledge that helps individuals to "rewrite or re-cognize events, and perhaps more importantly, to reconfigure context (by bringing apparently peripheral narrative threads to bear [on the subject at hand]) and the boundaries of contextualization (when the knowledge employed to interpret and cognize a story becomes an integral part of that story)" (44). Indeed, such alternative narratives help readers negotiate the aporias extant in official narratives, whose evidence sometimes seems too full of coincidence, or the "available evidence is 'too present'" or when it is "implausibly convenient" (56). Thus, not only do these narratives offer a kind of limited resistance to the regimes of truth that dominate our culture, they offer traditionally disenfranchised individual information consumers opportunities to participate in the creation of public knowledge(s).

Birchall and Watson's material is perfectly suited to the "Why people believe" or the "Psychological origins" sections, but the text that appears in the article doesn't accurately summarize Birchall's POV on this. Location (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to copyedit and move the Birchall / Watson material to an appropriate section, I think it will be an improvement. Digging around further, I was surprised to see the 2006 version (coincidentally, the one cited by Paul Krugman in his NYT article) quite rational and informative, and chock full of general citations to serious academic sources. I wonder what happened to bring the article to its present sorry state? - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That old version is WAY better. Plus, it cites a buddy of mine.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Parenti

I am removing the following text attributed to Michael Parenti in the section entitled "Controversy":

Michael Parenti, in his 1996 essay which examines the role of progressive media in the use of the term, "The JFK Assassination II: Conspiracy Phobia on the Left," states,

"It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a 'conspiracist' who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces."

...and...

Michael Parenti gives an example of the use of the term which underscores the conflict in its use. He states,

"In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy."

The citation points to a dead link, but the source can also be found here. I believe this material was addressed by User:LuckyLouie previously. There is nothing neutral or academic about this approach to the subject. The generalization of those with left-leaning viewpoints and the assertion that the CIA is inherently conspiratorial (i.e. causes or covers up, through secret planning and deliberate action, illegal or harmful events or situations) fails WP:REDFLAG. Location (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The claim that the CIA frequently engages in covert, illegal, and harmful actions is a well-established fact; see e.g. Family Jewels (Central Intelligence Agency), Operation CHAOS, Project MKUltra, CIA transnational human rights actions, etc. I would say WP:REDFLAG is not applicable, since this is not an extreme or unverified claim, but a commonplace and extremely well-documented one.

In general, the lack of neutrality of a source does not necessarily preclude its use, as long as it is presented with sufficient context and appropriate weight in the article. That being said, this particular source may not be appropriate, I'll leave that for others to decide. Augurar (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a biased source may be used in context. In this instance, it might be used in an article presenting criticism of the CIA. The problem with its use in this article is that the material does not present information accurately. The definition of "conspiracy" appears to include "covert" and "illegal", and the above material suggests that they are synonymous. Although "most" CIA operations may be covert, it is not verifiable that "most" CIA operations are illegal. To be clear, that is not to deny that the CIA has committed illegal acts. I have not read the entire section, but this source appears to approach the topic of CIA and conspiracy theories with a bit more scholarly approach. Location (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory regarding the Conspiracy theory page...

I have a conspiracy theory that this conspiracy theory page doesn't actually exist, but is a figment of my imagination :) I think philosophy of conspiracies would be very useful to include in this page! 129.180.149.171 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracism as replacing democracy

I retitled the section "Conspiracism as replacing democracy" to "Prevalance", and removed this claim:

and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind.

This is a very strong claim, which seems dubious. It also concerns the future, so might not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia generally. There are no fewer than four books cited as supporting this claim, but no page numbers are given. I'm skeptical that any of the authors of these books are actually saying this; if anyone cares to check, it would be useful to have a short quote from each one. It would also help to clarify exactly what is meant by "the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind"; that might be too vague to even be falsifiable. -- Beland (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bruno Latour

The article summarises Latour's views thus: 'The fact position is anti-fetishist, arguing that “objects of belief” (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts onto which power is projected; ... The “fairy position” argues that individuals are dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces ... .' The article on Latour says exactly the opposite. Needs to be checked. Pelarmian (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

edit warring by Sfarney

Sfarney you have been continually adding content to this article that has been reverted by various editors. Please come and discuss the changes you want to make. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Is it your intention to represent that all conspiracy theory is paranoid and psychologically unbalanced? Is that the purpose of this page? Slade Farney (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

the article makes a distinction between actual conspiracies (e.g Watergate) and conspiracy theories, which are fringe ideas about history or current events. Why are you obliterating the difference? (that is a real question) And I recommend that you stop edit-warring and discuss the issues here on Talk. If you continue you will be blocked per 3RR. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I replaced Kathryn Young's statement about the components of conspiracy with a reference to the Department of Justice, which is a much better source. Young's statement about Watergate is preceded by a much stronger statement on the same page denouncing the characterization of all conspiracy as paranoia, which I added. But someone else has now reverted that reference. Why? Slade Farney (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer one of your questions, I am not obliterating the difference between real and fanciful conspiracy theory. I am trying to present a balanced picture of the subject. One mention of Watergate does not balance 1500 lines of psychologizing about how sick conspiracy is. Slade Farney (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

confusing. you say you are not obliterating the difference, and in the next sentence, you do it. This article is about conspiracy theories, not conspiracies. The article offers explanations of why people engage in conspiracy theory; the article is not about why conspiracies (full stop) exist. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus, we don't do 'balance' per WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Other pages work hard for a neutral point of view, and so should this one. Slade Farney (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not writing a contradiction and I do not intend to "confuse" you. What do you not understand? Slade Farney (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

argh. "conspiracy theory" is not the same thing as "conspiracy". You are obliterating the difference. You wrote "One mention of Watergate does not balance 1500 lines of psychologizing about how sick conspiracy is." I will repeat that - you wrote "how sick conspiracy is". This article is not about "conspiracies" (which are real) it is about "conspiracy theories" (which are paranoid delusions-ish). Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC) (added "ish" - not meaning to make a hard definition here, just give the flavor. conspiracy theories are not conspiracies. different animals. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Oh, I see. You are using an unstated definition for "conspiracy theories" -- but that definition is not universal, and does not even agree with the first sentence on the page. Katherine Young writes that "For political purposes, some people have expanded this clinical definition of paranoia. They accuse those who point out either real conspiracies or real conspiracy theories of paranoia -- of mental derangement." In that quote, Young does not make draw the careful line you are drawing between conspiracies and conspiracy theories -- In fact, she obliterates the line. Since the page now quotes Katherine Young as an authority on the subject, I think her words are significant. Don't you? Slade Farney (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ah, you are finally listening! Please take a breath now that you understand that, and please rethink the stance you have been taking. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My stance is the same. Perhaps I am only now being understood. It is impossible, a priori, to say that a theory about a conspiracy is a "conspiracy theory" (as you define it) until all the facts are known. When a child comes to his father and complains that the other children are conspiring against him, does the father pull out a book on paranoia, or does he consider the facts of conspiratorial bullying? Bullying happens at all levels of society and all ages. Much of bullying (called "mobbing" involves conspiracy among multiple people to harass, assault, rob, embarrass, denigrate, frustrate, sabotage, and perform other evils against the target, some of which are felonies. The same takes place in some work environments, neighborhoods, social clubs, political parties, governments, and government agencies. In past times, much of it fell under the term "court intrigue." This article should conform with the defining statement on the page. Slade Farney (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney. In "Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man", Katherine Young and coauthor Nathanson are actually arguing that ideological feminism and goddess religions embrace "false and in some cases possibly paranoid" conspiracy theories. Let's avoid taking sentences out of context in order to spin a sympathetic view of conspiracy theories please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

She wrote what she wrote: Some people use the accusation of paranoia for political purposes to nullify very real accusations of conspiracy. That is a part of the context that should not be left out. Slade Farney (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Its unclear to me what specific content we are discussing here. This is WP:NOTFORUM for general discussion, and the thread was about edit warring which has now stopped. I suggest that if there any topics raised here, about article content, that someone wants to discuss, please open a new section for it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Sfarney, but I was discussing citation 23. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Content Does not agree with Intro line

The first line of this article states: "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation."

However, most of the subsequent content has been edited to take an off-beat definition of conspiracy theory, best described by jytdog (talk · contribs) in the text just above.

This article is not about "conspiracies" (which are real) it is about "conspiracy theories" (which are paranoid delusions).

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) apparently prefers that the article should imply that "conspiracy theory" means the speaker has a screw loose, instead of saying overtly that a special definition is being used. I maintain that Wikipedia should not be just implying things by selective content -- it should be overt and plain speaking like any honest reference material. The common man uses "theory" to mean something he provisionally holds to be true, though he cannot or has not proved it. "I have a theory about that ..." Many books such as October Surprise begin because the writer has a theory about a conspiracy -- or a conspiracy theory, for short.

If you are the kind of person who trusts whatever the government does because, well, it's the government, I can just advise you that your experience and your memory is somewhat limited, and you should not impose your suppositions on others until you know more. Many, many, many people, writers, commentators, authors, and officials harbor conspiracy theories about local, state and national governments. That is not a diagnosis for a straight jacket -- conspiracy is a fact of playgrounds, offices, throne rooms, and nations. Every boardroom that discusses some scheme for evading taxes is hatching a conspiracy. History tells of dozens and dozens of conspiracies hatched by nations against other nations, against their own people, against their own rulers, against the biosphere, ... the Wiki is doing a terrible disservice to suggest that everyone is crazy who notices the color blue -- or notices anything other facts in the wide wide world including conspiracies. Slade Farney (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I edited that comment before you quoted. It is not reasonable to quote something I do not stand by, nor do I think would anyone else. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Say whatever you want about the differences, and then answer the question: How do you reconcile your special definition (according to which you are pruning the article content) with the defining first sentence in the article? Slade Farney (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The article explains the original meaning of "conspiracy theory" and explains how this meaning has changed. I don't have a problem with that, since it acknowledges both meanings. So, conspiracy theory means different things, depending on who used these words and when. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The article explains the first meaning as though that is the one it is going to use, as quoted above. The article never explains the second meaning as jytdog explains it. If I am wrong about that, you are welcome to point out the explanation. At the same time, please explain why there is no further text on the first meaning, apart from a vague wave at the Whitewater scandal (which was among the weakest of weak conspiracies in history). Slade Farney (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is continuing the discussion that Sfarney started away above, about "definition." Especially in the sense that it is paranoid delusion-ish. I disagree that the article never explains this. This notion is laid out in the following sections:

• Acquired derogatory meaning
• Psychology
• Types
• Conspiracism: a world view
• Prevalence
• Psychological origins
• Socio-political origins
• Poltical use

In other words, pretty much the whole article. I agree that the lead doesn't reflect what the whole article says, and we should amend the lead to make it more clear. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement on the article's cognitive dissonance. But I don't agree we should amend the lead sentence to make it agree with the text. If you want an article about a rare mental disorder, change the title to reflect your meaning. Change it to "Conspiracy theory (obsession)." In point of fact, I don't know anyone who uses it with that second meaning -- probably because they never have occasion to. Do people really believe in reptilian overlords? If they exist, they seem to be as rare as manticores and philanthropic billionaires. So who needs a Wikipage to describe those people or ideas, as though they stand behind you at the bank?

For every one of those poor folks, there are a hundred real conspiracies, from tax frauds to adultery rendezvous, from embezzlement schemes to corporate frauds, from military secret programs to lying product labels. It just doesn't make sense to be announcing Definition One (the reality), then rhapsodizing about Definition Two (the fantasy) and leaving Definition One to go begging without a page, as though real conspiracies are a chimera, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to get his head candled. Slade Farney (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is a psychological disorder. I don't think anybody else wants to make the scope of this article be about conspiracies, generally. It is about conspiracy theories. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

and Wikipedia already has Conspiracy (civil) and Conspiracy (criminal) which describe actual conspiracies, as well as List of conspiracies (political) which is also about actual conspiracies. This article is about the delusional-ish kind of theorizing. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog. How "conspiracy theories" are defined (one example of many) is very widely accepted. Our references support this concept and we accordingly give weight to it. Our references do not support giving weight to identifying concepts such as tax fraud, bullying, adultery, etc. as conspiracy theories.- LuckyLouie (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I too agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To the man with hammer, the whole world is a nail. And to psychiatrist, everyone with an idea needs a diagnosis. That's the way it is. On the other hand, to conspiring politicians and news media that cooperate with Project Mockingbird, anyone who believes in conspiracies is crazy. But this is Wikipedia, not a funny farm or a propaganda factory. The Title should reflect what it is. The title on this page should be "Conspiracy Theory (Pathological)". The first line (caption line) should explain that this page is based on the presumption that all conspiracy theories are pathological delusions. Slade Farney (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

in my view, the title complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

But it is ONLY your opinion that is the meaning of the term. Such ideas are a product of the company you keep, the entertainment you select, and other factors specific to your individual life. In contrast to that, the meaning of words and terms is established by etymologists through broad surveys of literature and populations. Dictionary.com, based on Random House Dictionary, does not put the pathological definition first. Nor is it second. In fact, it does not appear at all. Instead:

1. a theory 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. 2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Merriam Webster also omits any pathological definition:

a theory that explains an event or situation as the result of a secret plan by usually powerful people or groups

Cambridge Dictionary, the same:

a belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people

The Free Dictionary:

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. The belief that the government or a covert organization is responsible for an event that is unusual or unexplained, esp when any such involvement is denied.

So, rather than using personal opinions or isolated examples from the popular press, let's use the real thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

nope, as i and others have pointed out, there are plenty of sources for the definition that drives his article. It is not my definition. Please discuss content, not contributors, per the talk page guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

by the way, folks talking here should be aware of this: [8]. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Grief! "Please discuss content, not contributors" and then you put a link to my sandbox?? Wow. I await your critique of CONTENT.Slade Farney (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dictionaries are not the best sources for an article. I would support deriving a definition from an academic work dedicated to conspiracy theorism specifically or to aberrant thinking in general, but I'm hesitant to ever use a dictionary as a source beyond explaining etymologies or the history of a word (something you'd need something like the OED for). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So you would prove that the general on the street expected meaning of the term is the pathological one, and you would prove it by referring to "academic work dedicated to conspiracy theorism specifically or to aberrant thinking in general" ??? You know what? That is not an objectove or neutral approach. We are not discussing "the best sources for an article," so again that is the wrong source. We are discussing the meaning of a term in common speech to use as the TITLE of an article, and for that, a dictionary IS the best source.Slade Farney (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, even if the common understanding of that topic is ignorant in comparison. We don't treat Intelligent Design as a viable alternative theory to Evolution just because half of America doesn't know better, nor to we dumb down our definitions of myth because of non-academic use of the term. An academic work that examines conspiracy theorism from an outside perspective would be far more likely to be neutral than the "on the street" definition, because the "on the street" definition is less likely to have studied the relevant sociology, psychology, and philosophy that allows one to mechanically describe the belief system both without value judgements while still assessing the reality of its claims. The "on the street" definition is more likely to be involved in conspiracy theorist thinking (either for or against).

Seriously, are you suggesting that let things be defined by an immensely stupid general public, or by academics who have studied the relevant research and been trained on how to conduct accurate research?

Sticking to academic sources is the neutral approach. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

agreed that the dictionary is not the best source and we should use the academic sources, like the ones already cited in the article. also sfarney no one here is saying that "conspiracy theorizing" is pathological. There are separate articles for actual psychiatric conditions (namely: Paranoid personality disorder, Paranoid schizophrenia, and Delusional disorder) and there is a separate article for the psychiatric symptom, paranoia. This article is not any of those. i have tried throughout to say "ish" (delusion-ish, paranoid-ish) and I've been using the -ish terms, to make a distinction in talking with you, between conspiracy theory and actual conspiracies, since you have been treating them as the same thing. If you would stop arguing with straw people this would go more smoothly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Re high quality academic sources, see Abstract and text. Note page 4. The concepts described and defined as conspiracy theories conform nicely with the content in our Wikipedia article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

When the choice of academic sources narrows the definition to the one already chosen, there is nothing "academic" about that process. The etymologists are highly qualified academics. They research long and hard to determine what people mean when they say a word. And I suggest that contempt for the general public is not and appropriate approach to editing the Wikipedia, and not at all in keeping with the vision of the project. 2. I do NOT treat conspiracies the same as conspiracy theories. I made a typo once, and jtydog has never let me forget it. The theory is the conjecture ABOUT the conspiracy, while the conspiracy is the act itself. Usually it is the victim of the conspiracy who is stuck theorizing about the conspiracy. When his stocks are suddenly thrust into the basement while the company is doing well, he wonders. Later he may learn that he has been the victim of a securities fraud. Ho hum. But the Wikipedia will say that he is not supposed to consider there has been a conspiracy, because that will be evidence he is crazy. I do not think that is fair to the general public, regardless of how "immensely stupid" we may consider them to be. Slade Farney (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In analogy, this article uses a common term (for example, "cat"), defines it properly in the first line, then proceeds with a dozen citations to Computer Aided Tomography (CAT). I argue that the definition of the word should be what people expect when they look up "cat." And the answering argument here is that 1. ordinary people are "immensely stupid" 2. Dictionaries are not the Wikipedia way, and 3. All the academic references consulted on Computer Aided Tomography use this definition for "cat". I hope this helps to explain my objection. Slade Farney (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not how we think about article titles in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Article titles and please see the link that was provided to you above, Dictionaries are not the best sources for an article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The wiki policy says the title must be "natural and recognizable" -- that is the issue, is it not? Dictionaries are your reference for the "natural and recognizable" meanings of words, and scholarly articles are often neither natural nor recognizable. Avoiding dictionaries is not the way to create "natural and recognizable" text. Slade Farney (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

, oy. This is "grabbing something out a policy to support your argument." Please - please, review the responses you have gotten here on Talk, and consider what kind of traction you are getting for your perspective on this, and then consider WP:CONSENSUS, especially the third bullet point under Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building_pitfalls_and_errors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In this preference for the idiomatic phrase over common definition of words. we see a classic example of cognitronics in action. That is, "cherry-picking information in blogs or news that reinforces existing beliefs." The refusal to use a dictionary as an index to the language is a staggering admission of failure for the Wikipedia project. Slade Farney (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition

At the start, I read that: "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation".

There are three references but none of them contains anything close to that text. In fact I see only one definition (actually, two on the same page) which explicitly involve "usually powerful" people. This makes sense to me. After all, saying two people robbed a shop isn't what I would call a conspiracy theory, although it fits the definition on the page: two persons; caused it; secretly planned it; deliberate act; illegal. But if I say it was a government operation, then it would. "Powerful" people behind it.

Isn't every conspiracy theory not simply a hypothesis that examines 'what if it wasn't as we were told?' I do not think that the loaded term conspiracy theory serves any good purpose. 121.209.56.5 (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Any theory has to be assessed through its base of evidence. The term "conspiracy theory" is nowadays widely used by people, who do not know about "theory" and (even more sadly) "conspiracy".--139.30.30.238 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

As painful as it may be to language purists, myself included, "theory" actually has additional definitions. You argue for definition #1. But the definition used in this phrase is #2

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

You cannot prove anything without a hypothesis, which means at some point you may believe or conjecture it to be true, though the proof at that point may be deficient. That is where most "conspiracy theories" stand for most conspiracy theorists. They lack the resources and opportunity to force incontrovertable proof, but nevertheless hold provisional belief that their theories are true. Naturally the public is not interested in the "two men robbed a grocery store" scenario -- unless they own the store. Conspiracy theories enter the general public dialog only when the subject is the general public welfare. That too should be axiomatic. Given the lying and deceit of tobacco and asbestos companies for decades, why should the American public be fooled twice or three times on the subject of thimersal and vaccinations? And given that Harvard intellectuals such as Sunstein and Vermeule (who have both held important government jobs) advocate broad government propaganda campaigns of lies and deceit, and given the US government's own long record of deceit -- why should anyone believe the government -- or scholars who vouch for the government? As it stands now, this page might as well have been written by Sunstein and Vermeule -- who might well be on government payroll to say exactly these things. After all, that is the way they think the country SHOULD be run, and they are not crazy -- or are they? Slade Farney (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There were and are, no doubt, real conspiracies, so not *all* conspiracy theories are paranoid. But the usual ones, available on blogs, websites of quacks, propaganda pamphlets, etc., are paranoid conspiracy theories. So, it depends in the first place upon how bizarre is the conspiracy theory, if it makes claims that tin foil hat prevents electronic stalking, or that vaccines are a Satanic plot for reducing world population, or that Jews seek to enslave the free nations through the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund, etc. Do consider that hard sciences do not have to engage in deceitful propaganda, even if once in a while they are wrong. It is more that those who are subject to democratic checks and balances or otherwise need public support try to lie their way out of certain problems. But this isn't of course just the case in the US or in recent world history, it has always been like that. If American politicians lie to the public, this isn't something they learned from Leo Strauss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

jytdog "not *all* conspiracy theories are paranoid" ??? Then this page should not represent that they are. However, deceptively selective quotes from Kathrine Young and a selection of other references lean toward the unbalanced picture that all conspiracy theory is paranoid. What's up with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As examples, there are reasonable conspiracy theories about the assassination of J.F. Kennedy: done by the Soviets or the Mafia. And there are paranoid conspiracy theories about it: done by the CIA, the Freemasons, or the Reptilians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

jytdog Yes. There are sane and insane versions of everything, from national security and corporate personnel policies to watering the garden and using a match. I don't think I get your point here. Slade Farney (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

that was actually not me, but rather Tgeorgescu Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, coming back to Sfarney's comments, the article does not exactly claim that all conspiracy theories are paranoid, but implying that conspiracy theories are paranoid it is an important way of using the term in everyday parlance. People might say "that's just a conspiracy theory" when they really mean "that's a paranoid conspiracy theory" (perhaps they shy from using the term "paranoid" since it might be seen as offensive). So, Wikipedia has to explain the way these words are used in speech and writing. And WP:UNDUE applies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The opinion of one or two people on speech usage is not scholastically significant. Lexicology is a subject all by itself, and the findings of that subject are recorded in dictionaries. "Wikipedia has to explain the way these words are used in speech ..." ... but not just the idiomatic usage of a few people. Please leave that heavy lifting to the experts, then piggy-back on their work. You can find the common meaning of "conspiracy theory" in three popular reference dictionaries, Merriam Webster, Random House, and The Free Dictionary -- none of them use the term as it is used here. The delusionary meaning is only a corner case, a minority usage. Slade Farney (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Cognitive bias theory can do the same denial

While conspiracy theories can be used for denial, claiming that the evidence was made up by a conspiracy, it is equally possible for cognitive bias theories to claim that the same evidence are illusions caused by panhuman genetically-based cognitive biases. Agreement on historical events can be explained away as easily as culturally universal similarity of mythologies. Even data on, say, numbers of people disappeared can be explained away by assuming an innate panhuman glitch in arithmetic ability.37.250.40.241 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please cite mainstream academic sources, as Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The conspiracy theorist's five assumptions (removed)

I just removed the content see below. There are several issues: They way the reference is presented, USEPS applies We have a weblink to Pipes' personal website danielpipes.org serving as reference for the claim in the article. but here we read the following: "N.B.: (1) The research for this study was commissioned by the CIA. (2) This text differs substantially from that published in Orbis."

So we have an author working for the CIA (not reliable here), publishing on his own website (WP:USEPS) while claiming "well its not the original stuff I wrote once". Its not reliable as source for the claims made in our article here. Besides you must review the ORBIS (quarterly) magazine which is not published by any independent source at all. Its published on behalt of Foreign Policy Research Institute. I cite from its articles lead: "By its own description it is "devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests."" No reliable source again. Hope you understand.Spearmind (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

-In his essay "Dealing with Middle Eastern Conspiracy Theories", Daniel Pipes notes that conspiracy theories are outstandingly common in the Middle East and writes that five assumptions "distinguish the conspiracy theorist from more conventional patterns of thought: appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all".-

References

I found and read the actual article from Orbis and the quote is there, so I reverted. It is verified and WP:SPS doesn't apply. As for the journal in which it is published - they do peer review and otherwise have the trappings of an academic journal. according to this and this it is not a super high quality journal; they both rank it below average as a journal. I don't think the "bias" thing will get you far. I also don't think the notion that conspiracy theorizing is common in the middle east, is very controversial. So I don't agree with deleting this... like i said your primary objection of SPS is addressed. I am happy to keep talking, hear from others, and consider getting rid of this or replacing it with content sourced from a stronger source. Do you have one in mind, for the key notion discussed here?

Revert you tried was only in reaction to WP:USEPS claim. Still the Pipes work is, as he decscribes himself, for the CIA and the Orbis magazine is published on behalt of Foreign Policy Research Institute which is a think tank and by own description "devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests." I challenge the sentence relying on him in the article, and the source is not reliable.Spearmind (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow you totally repeated yourself and didn't answer my question.... and edit warred on top of that. I won't restore the text yet, but i look forward to a response to what I wrote above. And to hearing from others on this. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I was was expecting to hear from you if you really think Pipes working for the CIA is a reliable source which should be used in such conflicting subjects. And the ORBIS magazine is published serving "national interest". Do you really think this work is independent? Pipes was called a "anti-Arab propagandist" in The Nation. James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim". Christopher Hitchens: arguing that Pipes pursued an intolerant agenda, and was one who "confuses scholarship with propaganda". Pipes has a long record of "xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990" says an open letter published by an amazing big list of professors on the University of Toronto.Spearmind (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the funding of the article, WP:RS is strangely silent on that. WP:MEDRS, the parellel guide for health content, is explicit in saying : ""Assessing evidence quality" means that editors should determine the quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." So I am not sure the CIA funding really matters. But I see why you would object to the source. Would you please, finally, answer my question? Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

actually don't bother. I just dealt with it, in this dif. I'm done here. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I really mean it. Wanted to add some more information I think we know what is it about. Using Daniel Pipes is not helpful. Conspiracy Theories is a subject which needs a balanced view and reliable voices. For example Pipes claims that "as the population of Muslims in the United States grows, so does antisemitism." or "Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and Kuwaitis." Thats just not acceptable to argue that way where it also touches our articles subject.Spearmind (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

edit warring removal of quotes

Spearmind you are edit warring a global change without consensus. Stop, and discuss first. I will revert one more time. I note that if you re-revert you will go over 3RR. As I wrote in my edit notes, other editors took the time to add quotes to aid with WP:VERIFY; your removal of them actually violates WP:CITEVAR. There is no policy that I am aware of that forbids quotes in citations, and indeed templates have a place for them. Again, you need to discuss these kinds of global changes before implementing them. There is no deadline - make your argument and see how other people who watch this page respond. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR: Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity - thats what im doing here.Spearmind (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Spearmind: You're not replacing material, you're just removing it.

I'm curious what part of WP:CITEVAR justifies removing quotes. "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change" strikes me as an argument to not remove consistent quotation that has been part of the citation for a long time. I see a bit saying not to switch between inline citations and ref tags within the article, but that does not mean we cannot include inline citations inside ref tags. The inclusion of quotes does not even fall under in-line citations, it's a different issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Read here If there is a source there is no need for quotes. Thats what policy is about.Spearmind (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

first, that is a guideline, not a policy. and secondly, it says nothing about removing quotes. this was a really strange thing to get blocked for edit warring over. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

note - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Spearmind_reported_by_User:Jytdog_.28Result:_.29. I reckon we will not be hearing from Spearmind for a while, pretty soon. But we can discuss with him while he can still edit. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Spearmind:The point of WP:CITEVAR is to not alternate between inline citations and ref tags in the article. For example:

blah blah blah (Arthur Writer, p.12), blah blah<ref>Someguy Adude, p.14</ref> -- This is problematic.

blah blah blah<ref>Arthur Writer, p.12 (Someguy Adude, p.14)</ref> -- Questionable, but there can be reasons to do this.

blah blah blah<ref>"blah blah" - Arthur Writer, p.12</ref> -- Totally fine, because quotations are not inline citations.

At this point, referring to quotations as inline citations again would violate WP:IDHT, and citing WP:CITEVAR again would WP:REHASH. Please do not give the admins reason to make your block longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should bring this to another board now we have the article locked few days. Like I said im fulfilling (protecting) policy here.Spearmind (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Quotations are usually accompanied with in-line citations, but are not in-line citations in themselves. My degree is in English, and unless you can present some damn good sources that refer to quotations as in-line citations, I'm going to have to tell you that you are absolutely wrong. The MLA refers to quotes as distinct from citations, as does the APA. And as I already explained, CITEVARS prohibits using in-line citations and ref tags next to each other, it does not prohibit using in-line citations in ref tag reference if that is needed to provide a fuller reference.

You are not protecting policy, you are distorting a single guideline to remove material for no adequate reason. In fact, you are violating the first sentence (and the essence of) of WP:CITEVAR. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Term "conspiracy theorist" removal

I remove the negative term/label "conspiracy theorist" it was used extensively, not in any case covered by a source. "Conspiracy Theorists" say do this do that and alike. It makes no difference the term is missing now. I dont touch it when its a direct citing. Just recently we did speak about the use of such term at DRN.

To make it clear Im citing DRN Volunteer Bejnar: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)"

See also his talk page on that: "Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)"

I was astonished right now how deep Latour was cited wrong: "Latour notes that such social criticism has been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including global warming denialists and the 9/11 Truth movement" ne doesnt note that at all. Terms "9/11" "denialist" "truth movement" even "theorist"-alone are not used in his work. I attached the pdf link to ref. And it goes on. "French sociologist Bruno Latour[52] suggests that the widespread popularity of conspiracy theories in mass culture may be due, in part, to the pervasive presence of Marxist-inspired critical theory and similar ideas in academia since the 1970s." total bullshit again; search terms "popularity" "marxist" "widespread" "1970" "mass culture" - nothing there. See pdf. I think I cleaned all the mess around Latours notable and interesting essence. All projections made onto "denialists" "truth movement" "conspiracy theorists" "marxists" "9/11" by the editor of the article here were entirely fictitious, possibly in bad faith.Spearmind (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

stop censoring wikipedia because it uses terms which you personally find disagreeable. Reliably sources call conspiracy theorist nutters conspiracy theorists. Deal with it. ... and there have been plenty of publications noting the conspiratorial ideation of global warming denialists and also the truthers are infamous for their elaborate conspiracy theories. Second Quantization (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Censoring? We did speak about it on DRN board. Use of term "conspiracy theorist" not covered by any source here. Please ack. If reliable sources call someone "conspiracy theorist" and its covered by cite I wont delete. If "plenty of publications noting the conspiratorial ideation of global warming denialists and also the truthers are infamous for their elaborate conspiracy theories." as you say, then provide a source! Latour never said something like that and it was false claim here.(see Latours article pdf)Spearmind (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

[9]. Take your pick, Second Quantization (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You revert my edits in general, no matter what, not challenge something in specific and reasonable explain. Please stop it. No I idea what you want to tell with your google link.Spearmind (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's simple. You've made edits which try to hide the fact that conspiracy theorists exist and you made specific edits which make conspiracy theorist nonsense appear more legitimate than it is. Some of what you write specifically promotes conspiracy theories, such as your edit converting " believe in a wide variety of conspiracy theories" to "gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories". Which changes a statement of fact, that conspiratorial types are fairly common, to a claim that this justifies conspiracies. Another example is removing the quotation marks around conspiracy so that purported "conspiracies" are presented as real conspiracies. Long story short, read WP:FRINGE. Second Quantization (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

agreed with Second Quantization. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in multiple venues (search the archives at WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVN and you will find several). Despite the fact that the terms can be used disparagingly, the simple fact is that the term "conspiracy theory" can neutrally be applied to any theory that proposed that a conspiracy has occurred, and the term "conspiracy theorist" can neutrally be applied to those who advocate such theories. These are the actual dictionary definitions of the terms. As long as a theory says that a conspiracy has occurred, it is a "conspiracy theory"... and those who advocate it are "conspiracy theorists". The terms do not necessarily imply that the theory is nutty, or that the theorist is a nutter. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Spearmind was just blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I have restored to last good version while discussion here continues. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I too agree with Second Quantization Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I found the DRN thread Spearmind was talking about. The DRN was about the General Motors streetcar conspiracy article, not this one. The findings of that DRN could be applicable to other articles that are not specifically about conspiracy theories as a whole, but it goes against WP:COMMONSENSE to say that we cannot call people who believe in conspiracy theories conspiracy theorists. It's like saying we cannot refer to people who believe in Christianity as Christians.

I understand (do not necessarily agree with but do understand) the concern in the finding: it is inappropriate to call someone a conspiracy theorist for if they are not noted as being conspiracy theorists. For example, there is a case to make that someone who only advocates holocaust denial but no other batshit ideas should only be called a holocaust denier, and cannot be called a general conspiracy theorist unless a source describes them as such. However, by definition, if we are discussing people who believe in conspiracy theories in general, we are discussing conspiracy theorists.

I'll note that this is not the first time that Spearmind has misrepresented and misapplied specific non-policies as if they were general and universal policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Wikipedia policy is not created on the dispute noticeboard anyway - and that decisions made there are of no more significance than those made anywhere else. Dispute resolution is an informal mediation process, it is not a system of binding arbitration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• note - this diff was by a sock of Spearmind. Sock is now blocked. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Already added to my file. Unless Spearmind makes an about face, I'm going to call for at least a topic ban at ANI. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor (pedantic?) point, bit 'theorist', usually attaches to the person advancing (or disseminating), a theory, not simply believing it. Otherwise most of us have suddenly become evolutionary theorists. I'm not sure that, in this context, a single word exists for somebody believing in a conspiracy theory.Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to those who have tried to maintain the stable version of this article.

'Have been away from this article for about a year, and it’s gratifying to see that most of the info that was deleted by both sides has been restored. About a year and a half ago, I did a major reorganization of longstanding info that had been placed in often hit and run, random order. There are a few well-sourced items that were deleted and not restored that need to be. ‘Will try to do so as time permits. Some of the info that has stayed deleted is far more scholarly than some of what has stayed in or been added recently, if one wants to assess the qualifications of the authors cited in this article.

Most of the edit-warring on this article AFAICT has been between "conspiracy theorists" who think they are being unfairly picked on by being labeled as such and "anti-conspiracists" who at their cores believe "conspiracy theorists" are ipso facto kooks. No question political idealogy of editors plays a big part. Face it, you gotta' let the published sources speak for themselves. Wholesale deletion of relevant sourced material will not improve this or any other article. I see such behavior continues to ignite edit wars here. Paavo273 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Added back wrongly deleted info

It appears that an editor (I think I know who) decided to scrub this article clean of "leftist" input. LOL, we've got journalists with no qualifications at all cited in this article. Scholars with the academic qualifications of Chomsky and Parenti belong here, whatever you might think of them. 'Kind of ironic isn't it, how this subject brings together people from the left AND the right; strange bedfellows, huh. The material could be better organized perhaps; I've added it back pretty much verbatim although in a slightly different order. But to wholesale delete highly relevant info like this: Uh uh! It IMO helps the info in the rest of the article cohere. Paavo273 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The civil AGF approach would be to add ref tags if you find the sources unreliable. The info is highly sourceABLE, and it's uncontroversial that these authors hold these views. This material existed in the article for many years without objection. It would seem in spirit of the prescribed collaborative nature of WP editing to try source it first, rather than jettison. Paavo273 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, if another editor believes that the material is not fact sourceable (e.g. as indicated by deletion), then it is your responsibility to provide the sourcing before returning the material to the article. Sunrise (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sunrise, that is a plain misstatement of the rule you cite and link. Also a source WAS cited. The editor who removed the content originally and again recently stated that the source did not qualify for use on WP; he did not allege the material was unsourceable. It's typical WP:JDL behavior AFAICT, which doesn't help build a credible encyclopedia. The material was in the article for YEARS, and in fact it IS easily citeable, with WP-qualifying sources. Cite-tagging would have been appropriate; wholesale deletion WASN'T appropriate. There are a lot of POV pushers here as there are around many controversial articles. Such as rel the nonsensical, unsupportable assertion that the CIA is not in the business of conspiracy. Paavo273 (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Paavo273, you may be interested in the list of documented political theories I have compiled and posted on the List of political conspiracies talk page for consideration. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paavo273: Given that your original post only passively referred to unspecified edits by unnamed editors, I'm not sure how you expected Sunrise to know what the heck you are talking about. From your last comment, I can assume that you are talking about this edit by LuckyLouie in which he argued WP:WEIGHT not "unsourceable". Now if you are talking about someone else or some other edit, then grow some cajones and be specific. Dismissing the actions of those you disagree with as POV pushing simply because they "just don't like" what you like is really weak and just plain hypocritical. As far as your opinion of my argument, it is noted... but feel free to jump into the thread down below if you have something to argue yourself. - Location (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Repetition of content

I noticed there is some repetition of content, specifically 'a broad cross section of Americans today' believe in CTs (in prevalence and controversy) and 'sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore' object of study (in psychology and prevalence). Might I suggest merging prevalence and controversy under the title 'prevalence' (there is really only one mention of 'controversy') and 'clipping' the text in psychology to refer only to psychologists. I'm posting here as the article has been subject to edit warring.Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I notice a number of themes repeated more than once. "Despite conspiracy theorists often being dismissed as a fringe group..." shows up twice, once in Acquired derogatory meaning and again in Controversy. And "A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct…" shows up in Examples of proven conspiracies and again in Acquired derogatory meaning. Merging/consolidating all repeated content would be a vast improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the following material from the section titled "Examples of proven conspiracies":

Some conspiracy theories have been proven to be correct. Examples include the theory that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, and the theory that aides of President Ronald Reagan's conspired to cover up the Iran-Contra affair.

As LuckyLouie noted, the material about Watergate cited to Knight already appears previously in the article in fuller context, and the Iran-Contra citations are contemporary reports of the scandal and do not mention anything about it the context of conspiracy theories or of being a proven conspiracy theory. This is an original analysis (i.e. OR) of the sources. I have also retitled the material that remains in the section, but a closer look will need to be given to its relevance and where it belongs in the article. - Location (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Category rename

I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists. It is about “Persons who have criticized or tried to debunk conspiracy theories.” It should be re-titled “Critics of conspiracy theories”. Btw, I placed it in Category:Criticisms, which I changed to Category:Critics. (When I created Category:Anti-conspiracy theorists, I didn’t know that Category:Critics existed.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)