Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Post-RfC

Thank goodness that's finally closed :-) Should we narrow it down to two choices and a run a final A/B RfC? Leviv ich 04:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this has already dragged on for a long time, I've boldly replaced the lead with a version of E½, taking into account the comments in the RfC. I made one change deriving from C½, which was to move the phrase "when other explanations are more probable" to the first sentence (with a corresponding removal of the words "or secret plot" to avoid awkward phrasing). This retains a key component of the definition, and (in my view) is the most important aspect of C½ that is lacking in E½, with E½ otherwise being superior. (I also think the second sentence of E½ is overweighted and shouldn't be in the first paragraph, but I don't see any better place to put it regardless.)

Whether or not this goes to another RfC, I hope editors can at least agree that this is an improvement over the original version. At some point we will need to write some expansions as well, since there are still large parts of the article the lead does not summarize. Sunrise (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative and doing the work. I agree it's much improved from the previous version. Leviv ich 04:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that, as I rarely log in, I came to the party just when it was over... but I agree that it's certainly improved over a version of early March that I randomly looked at. Thanks! Harald88 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for contributing and working towards consensus. Autonova (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that altering E (or E½) by moving the phrase "when other explanations are more probable" to the first sentence compromises its neutrality. Neutrality was one of the aspects of E cited in its favor by those who supported it in the RfC. We should be careful to preserve that, especially since it is Wikipedia policy in any case. Tim Smith (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The lede summarises the pejorative connotation well, however the sources are in sharp agreement over the neutral definition. Autonova (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, and I agree with removing "unnecessarily" from the short description. Leviv ich 14:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, whether or not the definition should include conspiracy theories being unlikely/unwarranted/etc is one of the issues under debate. It was the central topic in the numerous discussions on the talk page during February, where it was addressed in much greater detail than in the RfC – which ultimately discussed it relatively little, and e.g. at least a couple editors also described it as an important part of the definition (a point that I agree on as well). FWIW, some form of that statement has been in the definition for a long time; in fact, "when other explanations are more probable" is weaker than certain previous versions, cf. "without credible evidence." I think the recent source analyses by JzG are relevant, but I've dropped a note at FTN since others may have been following the discussions more closely.

ETA: To be a bit clearer, I think there is a consensus (both from this past February as well as existing before that) for the definition to include a component that expresses this general idea, and that this consensus was not materially affected by the RfC. As such, if there are still editors pushing for this and no additional input, then I think it would have to go to another RfC. However, in that case, it may be better to wait for a while first given everyone’s current level of exhaustion with the subject. Sunrise (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to be a relitigation of the basic argument first presented here, and subsequently overridden by a consensus of the RfC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That can't be, because the lead sentence A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. was not in any of the RfC options, so it can't be that the RfC reached consensus on that language. Rather, E/E1/2 had A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, or secret plot by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation. Remember that after E was posted, it was the near-unanimous choice, and even made some C voters change to E. Where those two conflict, E should prevail, in my opinion. Leviv ich 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean it was a relitigation of an argument for certain specific language. I meant it was relitigation of a basic argument for a "neutral" definition and against against any component that expresses the general idea that conspiracy theories are unlikely/unwarranted/etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we have pages such as Mike Cernovich's that cite him as a conspiracy theorist. I do not know much about him, but it seems odd that he is linked to a page that says conspiracy theorist is a pejorative term. This makes it appear as though wikipedia is slandering someone, whatever that may mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryker Genesis (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I'm late to this party. I thought it would be wise to point out that nearly every criminal prosecutor will run into a case where he must prove to a jury that a group of people acted in secret to perpetrate crime. The crime is called a conspiracy to ... and the jury is instructed to vote at the end whether or not the theory proposed by the prosecutor is true or false. In short, conspiracy theories are presented to juries on a regular basis and form a healthy portion of the criinal justice system. "when other explanations are more probable.[4]" makes no sense in this context. David Aaronovitch was most likely referring to "conspiracy theory" as qualified by the rest of his title: in the context of shaping history. If we write Wikipedia articles using the vulgar and popular meanings of the entries we describe, we do a great disservice to the diversity of thought to which Wikipedia is dedicated. I move that those words and the reference be struck. Dscotese (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

See Conspiracy theory (legal term). - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As LuckyLouie points out, there is a difference between the legal term for criminal conspiracies and the colloquial term "conspiracy theory." This article is about the latter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedias vs. dictionaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion is closed, please don't keep adding to it outside the template. If you wish to bring up a related topic, start a new discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request withdrawn, no point piling on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

---

One of the primary principles of Wikipedia is that it's not supposed to be a dictionary. Yet the people who keep deleting my improvements on this article apparently want to do just that. And please don't accuse me of being the only one who is edit warring, because you're doing the same thing. Look up "conspiracy theory" in any major dictionary, and you'll see that the primary meaning is always neutral. The automatically pejorative meaning of conspiracy theory is more recent. Ask any historian: conspiracy theories range all the way from absurd to improbable to probable to those who have been proven true. That's why I've changed the claim that ALL conspiracy theories are improbable. I'm not trying to encourage the delusions of those who see conspiracies everywhere, or believe them because it offers an attractive, easy solution to why things are the way they are, nor am I a supporter of conspiracist ideation.(Notice that I didn't touch that passage; I agree with it, and consider it well-stated)

But I'm not going to give up on insisting on not rewriting the dictionary, and I'm not finished improving this article. I'll seek outside resolution if necessary. But the best thing would be a little common sense, folks --- please! Joseph Rowe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We just had an RFC about the lead section, which you can find a couple sections above. If you want overrule that RFC, you're going to need a consensus at least as strong for your proposed changes. - MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the dictionaries say, but what academic writing on the subject say. And contrary to what you say, no conspiracy theory can ever be true unless there really is a highly organized secret cabal that is all knowing, all powerful and all evil manipulating every aspect of society. TFD (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is a collection of opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you don't seem to get it: Wikipedia is not supposed to replace dictionary definitions. That's one of the principles of edition. Look it up.

I mean, dictionaries aren't even authoritative. They're just produced by companies that researched certain meanings of the words, and kept the ones they preferred. They also change all the time to keep up with new usages. So "don't rewrite the dictionary" is not a compelling argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. Guy (help!) 23:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Who are YOU to say dictionaries aren't authoritative? When ALL dictionaries contradict this meaning for "conspiracy theory" they ARE authoritative. And dictionaries are compiled by people more knowledgeable than you, or me, by a long shot. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just looked through all this stuff. I see others have tried to talk reason here, and have been ignored by those who have nothing better to do with their time than grind their axe against all conspiracies. There are several of you with time on your hands, and who have an agenda of convincing people that all conspiracy theories are either discredited or deluded. The crowning absurdity is this remark: no conspiracy theory can ever be true unless there really is a highly organized secret cabal that is all knowing, all powerful and all evil manipulating every aspect of society." Duh? What about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln?

I give up for now. Unlike you, I don't have time on my hands to master the complicated protocol that would gather me allies to defend myself from a tiny bunch of fanatics who conduct an edit war against me, and then report me as an edit warrior. I know there are plenty of potential allies --- the discussion of this topic shows that, and one of them spontaneously contacted me to thank me for my edits. But those people probably don't have time on their hands either, the way you do "Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain."Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The definition we use is based on substantial academic sources. Asserting that a dictionary somehow nullifies this is not only silly, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Guy (help!) 12:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"substantial academic sources" baloney --- in other words, picking and choosing a few academics who agree with your agenda. And it's not "silly" to accuse you of rewriting the dictionary; your effort to do so shows that you're the one who doesn't understand the stated policy that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"... you're in violation of this policy, and you've reversed its meaning and intention!Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We could always mention the fact, as long as RS point out the discrepancy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems we can close this now,. as the request has been withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's why they call it "the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln," not the "Lincoln assassination conspiracy theory." We know that Booth murdered Lincoln as part of a conspiracy with several other people. But when one adds the Jews, the international bankers and the Catholics into the mix, it is considered a conspiracy theory because it is cannot be true. TFD (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's true that we no longer think of the Lincoln assassination conspiracy as a theory. But it certainly WAS a theory for at least awhile, before the conspiracy was proven. And at that point it was a conspiracy theory, by God! There are surely plenty of events in our times which are very probably conspiracies; and even if there's only one ... well, remember the aphorism: it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. (Please don't ask me to give you an example of such a "white crow", you can do that for yourself, if you honestly try.)Joseph Rowe (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I realize this is closed, but the discussion seems to miss the central point. Dictionaries aren't authoritative for our purposes, at least not in any final and universal way, because we have different scopes. Dictionaries write about words, while encyclopedias write about concepts. There is one dictionary entry for revolution, because there is one word "revolution". We have scores of entries for revolution because there are scores of distinct concepts or objects that are described by this word. Single words can describe multiple mutually exclusive concepts, multiple distinct words can describe overlapping concepts, and words themselves can often become an active impediment to trying to figure out what the concept it describes even is. Encyclopedias also occasionally write about words as concepts, and in these cases, things like dictionaries, thesauruses, and etymological encyclopedia become a great deal more useful. But in the vast majority of instances, we are describing a thing of which words are only an often poor approximation, and so sources describing words as words are usually a poor source to use as an authority. GMG^talk 11:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• The point about the distinction between words and concepts is a good one. At the same time, I do think that dictionary definitions are at least relevant in a case like this. It is one thing to add detail or nuance to a dictionary meaning, but if we deviate too far from the dictionary meaning in the lede we ought to have pretty strong reasons. I also think we have to be careful citing scholarship in support of the meaning of a concept. There is a difference between a case in which a scholar merely provides a perfunctory definition and one in which a scholar actually analyzes the concept at length and supports his/her conclusions. It seems to me there may have been an over-reliance on the first type of case in previous discussions. In contrast, the recent book Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them has a four-chapter section that concentrates on the meaning of “conspiracy theories.” Based partly on that, I plan to post a rather long proposal for a couple small but meaningful changes to the first two sentences. Stay tuned. Knuteson (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed modification to opening sentences

Sorry for the long post, but in light of the preceding discussions about the opening lines of this page, it seems any change requires significant justification. Partially in light of recent academic work on conspiracy theories, I think that the opening two sentences have subtle but significant problems and thus require some tweaking. The main issue is the question of whether or not the phrase “conspiracy theory” always has a pejorative meaning. Let me acknowledge that scholars such as Jovan Byford, Quassim Cassam, and Robert Brotherton (and presumably others) have discussed the meaning of conspiracy theory at length and favor a pejorative interpretation. But many other scholars, who have also considered the issue carefully, have taken a contrary position (see below). Indeed, it is worth noting that Cassam distinguishes “Conspiracy Theories” (capitalized) from “conspiracy theories” in order to articulate his disagreement with the interpretation of other scholars on this matter. And Byford acknowledges, “in literature on conspiracy theories, consensus has been lacking even on some basic issues such as precisely what kind of explanation constitutes a conspiracy theory” (Conspiracy Theories, p. 4). Psychologist Christopher Thresher-Andrews, who himself supports a pejorative interpretation, admits that the issue not settled. He writes, “What exactly constitutes a conspiracy theory is itself a topic of debate both within psychology and further afield in sociology and political science.” Psychologist Robert Brotherton explores the issue in an article called “Towards a definition of ‘conspiracy theory’.” He suggests that there is wide agreement regarding examples that are clear cases of conspiracy theories. Based on that, he argues for his own particular pejorative definition. But what is taken to be already agreed upon is just the examples. He has to develop an argument for his particular characterization of the qualities of a conspiracy theory precisely because this is not already agreed upon. And his arguments are unlikely to settle the matter. The point is that this issue is contested, and it is not even clear which side has the advantage (although we may each have our own opinions about that). In such a circumstance, Wikipedia should not take a side in the lede. It should rather cover specific positions in the body and stay neutral/ambiguous in the lede. That is why I am making this proposal. I will suggest a way to a more neutral lede with minimal change to the existing text, retaining the qualities currently mentioned, just not suggesting that they are necessary conditions. Currently, the first two lines read as follows (with key parts in bold and abbreviated references included):

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation [Goertzal, Dictionary],[2][3] when other explanations are more probable [Aaronovitch].[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence [Byford]. [5]

I propose that it be tweaked slightly to read as follows:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by powerful actors, often sinister or political in motivation. The term is often used with a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence, or that other explanations are more probable.

To be clear, I am suggesting three rather modest changes:

1. Moving “sinister” so that it is prefaced by “often” because conspiracy theories do not invariably posit sinister motivations (e.g. faked moon landing, Elvis is alive, chemtrails to avert global warming). The idea that conspiracy theories invariably imply sinister motives, besides being obviously untrue, is explicitly rebutted in several academic papers. I can easily add references if that is demanded, though I don’t think that is desirable here. I would also note that the dictionary definition, which is one of the current citations, includes “oppressive” only as a “typical” feature. That leaves only one citation for support, and it is a strange one indeed (and should be fixed or removed): Goertzel 1994 is cited, followed by a quotation that does not occur in Goertzel 1994. (I see this was pointed out before on the talk page, but not ultimately corrected). The quotation can be found in a paper by Douglas et al (2017), which does not involve a careful exploration of the meaning of the term; the definition is simply stated without any reasons, evidence, or citations for support. In any case, as I have said, the idea that conspiracy theories always involve sinister intend has been contested (and in this case pretty much refuted) by many other scholars who have more carefully considered the matter. (However, there is no problem, I should think, with suggesting that conspiracy theories often have this quality. Quibbles with that are best relegated to the “philosophy of conspiracy theories” page.)
2. Rather than saying the term has a pejorative connotation, a claim that is contested, I suggest adding some nuance by saying instead that “the term is often used with a pejorative connotation,” which is no doubt true. In addition to what I’ve said above, I offer a further justification below for this subtle but significant change.
3. Related to proposed change #2, the idea that “other explanations are more probable” is something that people who use this term in a pejorative way often imply. However, there is much disagreement, both in the academy, and among regular folk, about whether this is true. See below. (Incidentally, the “more probable” line references Aaronovitch, who has been responded to by Charles Pigden. Essentially, Aaronovitch argues that conspiratorial explanations are less probable than non-conspiratorial ones. Then he precedes to give examples in which a particular conspiratorial explanation is not as good as another explanation—but often that other explanation is also conspiratorial. So, most of his examples don’t really exemplify his point, but rather undermine it. At least, that is the critique.)

(Also, I happen to think all citations here should be deleted, but I will be content to defer to consensus on that matter.)

The phrase “conspiracy theory” is not invariably pejorative. It is not even clear that a majority of academics who have considered the matter carefully view it that way. For example, the recent book Conspiracy Theories and the People who Believe Them (Oxford University Press, 2019) has a four-chapter section (Chapters 3-6) called “What is a Conspiracy Theory,” which also includes an introduction by the editor. All six contributors to this section, in one way or another, undermine the idea that a simple pejorative definition of conspiracy theory is broadly accepted.

The editor of the book, political scientist Joseph Uscinski, in his introduction to the section, writes: “The term conspiracy theory and its derivatives can evoke strong emotional responses; therefore we want to be clear that our terminology is intended in the most impartial way and without pejorative connotation. This issue is of such importance that we have dedicated four chapters to it.” (p. 47)

Chapter 3: Jesse Walker suggests that there is no standard definition. He writes: “What exactly do we mean by the term conspiracy theory? The problem is vexing enough in the academic literature, where scholars have made countless attempts to formulate a firm definition. In everyday usage, the expression is even more slippery: Its meaning constantly stretches and narrows, particularly when it is used as a pejorative” (p. 53). (Note that the last clause implies that it not always used as a pejorative.) See also Walker’s essay https://reason.com/2015/03/18/what-i-saw-at-the-conspiracy-theory-conf/ in which he describes various different academic perspectives on the meaning of conspiracy theory at an academic conference where the pejorative meaning was hotly contested.

Chapter 4: Andrew McKenzie-McHarg, who points out that 19th century usage of the phrase was neutral, concludes by noting that “There is a polyvalence to conspiracy theory. Reconciling the need to dismiss conspiracy theories in the interest of social science, with the need to entertain them in the interest of investigating crime has never been easy” (p. 78).

Chapter 5: Martin Orr and Ginna Husting emphasize that the phrase is often used as a pejorative, but they stress the unfairness of this: “The epithet conspiracy theory is used to tarnish those who challenge authority and power. Often, it is tinged with racial undertones: it is used to demean whole groups of people in the news and to silence, stigmatize, or belittle foreign and minority voices” (p. 82). They imply that the beliefs labeled “conspiracy theories,” in certain contexts, should not be summarily dismissed.

Chapter 6: M Dentith writes: “In the end, the worst that can be said about working with a non-pejorative definition of conspiracy theory is that it does not rule out the possibility that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational in a range of cases. That is, this definition entails the denial of a generalist thesis that there is something wrong with belief in conspiracy theories. If this is a problem for certain scholarly research programs, then this is not a problem with the definition. Rather, it is a problem that stems from working with definitions of conspiracy theory which bake in the irrationality or suspiciousness of such beliefs. The issue is not that conspiracy theories are epistemically suspect; the concern is we are working with a suspect definition of what counts as a conspiracy theory. It is, after all, curious that as soon as we front theory with conspiracy some of us automatically treat such theories as prima facie suspicious. If certain scholars want to make a special case for conspiracy theories, then it is reasonable for the rest of us to ask whether we are playing fair with our terminology, or whether we have baked into our definitions the answers to our research programs” (p. 104).

In addition to Dentith (who is the only philosopher in the list above) most other philosophers who have published on conspiracy theories also favor non-pejorative definitions, including at least the following: David Coady, Charles Pigden, Lee Basham, Kurtis Hagen, Brian Keeley and Juha Räikkä. In this context, Cassam is an outlier. (Philosophy, by the way, is the discipline that takes defining terms as part of its specialty.) Given all this, it seems the more qualified version I have suggested (or something like it) is a more appropriate characterization of “conspiracy theory” for the lede. And this improvement can be accomplished with minimal modification of the current version. If there are arguments against making these modest and conservative changes, I would like to hear them. Knuteson (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson, No thanks. We spent months honing the current opening sentence. Also, WP:TLDR. Guy (help!) 19:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, there were a number of proposals, a number of differing opinions about them, no consensus, and then someone took bold action. I’m not sure I would call that “honing.” In any case, I’ll drop the matter for the time being. Even if no changes are to be made now, at least I am on record as having provided substantial reasons to think that the current version is not a neutral reflection of current scholarship and that changes in the direction I have suggested really ought to be made at some point. Knuteson (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be two camps here: those who believe that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not always pejorative (my own camp, and I believe that of Knuteson and many others), and those who believe it is always pejorative. I believe I've accomplished a compromise between these two camps, with my VERY brief recent addition, making it clear that "conspiracy theory" as defined in this article does not have the same meaning as "theory of conspiracy" ... I'm using this space to appeal to those who would automatically revert it to please take a moment to consider a common-sense distinction, which at least one member of the other camp — Guy Macon — agress (see my talk page). Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to undo it, but I cannot see where Guy agrees to this, care to provide the diff?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I too would like to see a diff (and a precise definition of what it is that I supposedly agree with). There are of course individual sentences that I have no problem with, but let me say for the record that I strongly disagree with wuat I believe to be the main thrust of Joseph Rowe's argument. As far as I can tell, Joseph Rowe's talk page appears to show him strongly disagreeing with my essay at WP:YWAB and failing to convince me to change it, nothing more.

"Is it hot in here or am I crazy?" --Charles Manson

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe, this is a rather obvious attempt to supplant consensus with your own views. We had a very lengthy series of RfCs and discussions and agreed the current wording. True, conspiracy theorists don't like it, but the current wording reflects the dominant view: a provable conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory, in modern parlance, and the term conspiracy theory is considered pejorative. Guy (help!) 10:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as you never agreed, I will now undo it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think he was claiming it was the other Guy. Guy (help!) 18:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon and other interested editors: Please read these words and think again, here and now about the real intentions of people and reasons why many feel the need of a commonsense clarification of this article, instead of merely reacting, and impulsively reverting my edit. Also, Guy Macon, please read my previous post more carefully, I took care not to claim that you agreed with my edit, and only said you agreed with a certain common-sense distinction. It's true that I hoped you might therefore agree with my edit, based on that distinction; but it would seem that you don't — at least not yet. Please consider this quote from your own words on my talk page: "a conspiracy theory isn't a theory about a conspiracy." I would hope that everyone agrees that "a theory about a conspiracy" in this context has no important difference in meaning from "theory of conspiracy." However, just in case this hope is also ill-founded, I've decided to bend backwards even further in my willingness to compromise, and use your own phrase (though I think "theory of conspiracy" was better). Again, I'm not claiming that you support this, or any of my edits, only that you have agreed to the validity of a certain common-sense distinction — unless you've changed your mind since you wrote those words. Joseph Rowe (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot reconcile the claim "I took care not to claim that you agreed with my edit" with the previous "Please don't automatically revert it, without seeing my discussion with Guy Macon" edit comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that I am not sure that "theory of conspiracy." is a widely used or common "phrase". Nor do I see why we need to make the distinction as this article (in the lede) makes it clear we are not talking about that kind of conspiracy. We have thought (and talked) about this a lot. And for many of is the "commonsense clarification" is in fact a lot more harsh then we currently have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Note to Joseph Rowe: defining the term based only on the meaning of its two words is imprecise, which is why Wikipedia has disambiguated specific contexts such as Conspiracy theory (legal term), Conspiracy (criminal), Conspiracy (civil). Note to Knuteson: see Talk:Conspiracy_theory#Lead_(RfC) where not one, but two RfCs, were conducted to get community-wide input regarding changes to the lead. It would be best for you to start a new WP:RFC if you desire to overturn this consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a number of issues with the proposed changes. As noted above there was a lengthy prior discussion and the current wording was deemed to be the best consensus compromise. In general I'm disinclined to give WP:UNDUE weight to obscure epistemic discourse as that it is not how the topic of this article is typically discussed and commonly understood in the majority of recent RSs. I take issue with the specific phrase "theory of conspiracy" that you seem to claim is supported by the Oxford 2019 reference. Here are some of the mentions that I saw in the book:

1. "Is it possible to develop a systematic theory of conspiracy theory politics..." p 123
2. "And that makes crafting a theory of conspiracy theory politics extremely important and immensely challenging." p 122
3. "Though there are doubtless novel trail to blaze, and though there may not be a grand unified theory of conspiracy beliefs for us to discover..." pp 270-271

You are claiming some variation of "theory of conspiracy" as a standalone phrase or name for an interpretation but it is clear that the source sentences should be parsed as "theory of..." "conspiracy theory politics/belief." Claiming otherwise to support your point is disingenuous.

Above Joseph Rowe claimed that there are "two camps" of participants in a statement that implies that both perspectives should be taken as equally valid claims and that a "compromise" midway between the perspectives is appropriate. This is a false dichotomy and that is simply not the way that WP works. We give prominence to mainstream interpretations and usage (as demonstrated by the majority of RSs) in the lead and relegate the occasional idiosyncratic usage to a brief mention deep in the article. I might be inclined to support a sentence or two below the psychology and sociology sections but only after: 1) the multiple issues at Philosophy of conspiracy theories are resolved 2) and suitable neutral language is suggested that does not overstate the importance of a minority academic interpretation of the topic. I would discourage opening a new RfC to include these suggestions in the lead as it is highly unlikely to succeed.

Personally, when expressing an opinion here about a suggestion, I give weight to the quality of an argument and disregard the quantity. If you have a brief comment about my concerns please feel free to post it on my talk as the discussion here has already become far too lengthy. --mikeu ^talk 17:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me make this quite clear, any changes to this article should be discussed here. I do not intend to watch half a dozen different pages to see what is being proposed. As such I will (and do) oppose any change no discussed here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am discussing it here. Yet again, my edit has been reverted. At this point, I'm not prepared to take the trouble to marshal sufficient support to challenge this questionable consensus, nor to request something like a peer review. But for objective readers of this debate, I propose that THIS reversion, after all the compromises I've offered, seems to offer very strong evidence, to any non-involved and reasonable observer, that those who are doing the reversions are motivated by a wish to obfuscate the fact that the automatic pejorative meaning of "conspiracy theory", no matter how popular or widespread it may be, is nevertheless a historically recent phenomenon, and that it is not the preferred definition of the phrase according to the best dictionaries. And it's disingenuous to claim that it's not necessary to point this out. They don't seem to want readers to know. Why? I don't know... but perhaps it's because they don't trust readers to be intelligent enough to think for themselves about a theory of conspiracy that someone has branded as a conspiracy theory, thereby making it unnecessary to think any further, much less take the trouble to investigate the matter for oneself.Joseph Rowe (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"they don't trust readers to be intelligent enough to think for themselves" is itself a conspiracy theory. There is no organized plot to hide anything. There is just one person (you) who pretty much everyone else disagrees with. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This may be a semantic issue. The term pejorative means "Expressing contempt or disapproval." (lexico)[1] Social scientists generally do not want to disparage people and often when they study belief systems they take no interest in whether they are true. But none of them are arguing that conspiracy theories follow normal logic and or could be true within a rational world-view. TFD (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggests you read wp:brd yes if a user disagrees with a change they should revert it, and then the person who wants the change takes it here to be discussed. As to the rest, there may be an argument for an article about real "theories of conspiracy". But I would say (if anything) that watering this one down even to include "ahh but not all conspiracies are conspiracy theories" just muddies the waters for our readers. This article is about Conspiracy theories that fall into the pejorative meaning of the term. If readers are to make up their own mind we just present the claim, and let them look at the evidence. But thanks for making it clear what this was really all about.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe, see MPOV. Your edit history does not indicate that you are likely to understand our policies well enough for this to be worth pursuing further. Guy (help!) 12:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, no doubt I have much to learn about editing policies ... but I suggest you have another look at MPOV yourself, and think about its relevance to this controversy a little more deeply. For one thing, I'm far from alone in my view of how this page needs to be improved (though it would no doubt comfort you to think otherwise). Nor are you alone in your opposition to my view; and we each believe reason and numbers to be on our side, though neither of us can offer anything like decisive evidence for that (a small tag-team is not an authentic consensus). However, the striking difference between us is this: I have not insinuated that you are a meglomaniac, whereas you have done that very thing, unless I'm mistaken. Please note that the kind of mindset that supports and nurtures megalomania isn't always confined to one individual. Indeed, that's what makes megalomania a social danger, and more than just an individual pathology. When a band of people get caught up in that mindset, it's called fanaticism. One of its most notorious symptoms is its attempt to discredit dissent by dismissing dissenters as lone deviates — and if they persist, then calling them "megalomaniacs." (Talk about projection!) But I'm not yet claiming that this is what you're doing. It seems so, but I have to allow for the possibiity that your seeming insinuation was merely carelessness. But... if the shoe fits, wear it. Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy of conspiracy theories

Is it a pov fork? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

As of 2 November 2019 the answer to that question was "No Consensus". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of conspiracy theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, since when, it has become abundantly clear that it is... Guy (help!) 13:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It is clear to me as well that it is a POV fork, but I abide by the result of AfDs even when I disagree with them.

On the other hand, if there is new evidence and a reasonable expectation the the answer will be different, I have no objection to a second AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

A tad too soon for my tastes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree -- unless there is new evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Best to give it some time and see how it develops then. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And then there's this, where the article is actually being used as a POV fork. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Philosophy of conspiracy theories didn't link itself. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed my comment below (which was in the wrong place anyway), because I noticed that Tom Harrison said what I had to say better, and shorter.Joseph Rowe (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed at length at the link provided by Guy Macon above. As I suggested there, the accusation needs to be more specific. Is the charge that the page does not accurately represent the discussion in the philosophical literature that it purports to describe? If so, what is your evidence? Is the charge that the work of academic philosophers on this topic is not notable? If so, on what basis, or by what standard? Or, is the charge that the content really should be part of the conspiracy theory page, not its own separate page? If so, I'm open to discussing how best to incorporate it. Knuteson (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the accusation is it violates WP:CFORK.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But that is really a new charge, and not any more specific. CFORK seems to suggest that there is significant redundancy, which doesn't seem to be the case. (Please cite specific examples of redundancy if you disagree.) In general, I find it tedious dealing with vague accusations. It would help if critics would specify how the page exemplifies a purported problem. Further, if it is a somehow a CFORK, and yet not redundant, does that suggest that the material should be incorporated into the conspiracy theory page? Knuteson (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It can also mean stuff that was rejected here so a new article was created to hold it. Given what happened over at Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) its not that an unremarkable suspicion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. But I had nothing to do with that. Further, while I'm not sufficiently familiar with the norms here to judge whether or not that was out of line (or how far out), it is not truly relevant in any case. It doesn't change the merits or demerits of the page. The fault (assuming it is a fault) is with the disambiguation, not with this page, and appears to have been corrected. Anyway, shouldn't this be judged on objective merits, not postulated intentions. (There seems to be considerable irony here.) Knuteson (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the article seems to track pretty closely to a philosophical defense of conspiracy theories, as seen here, I wonder how thorough a survey of the literature on the topic was done, and if the proportion of opinions represented is accurate, or weighted in favor of certain points of view. However, the only way to discover the answers would be to access, read, and evaluate all of the literature both cited and uncited, something which I do not have time for, and I imagine few people do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to delete someone else’s work, it doesn’t seem too much to ask that they have some idea what they are talking about. But it is still possible to spot check without a full review of the literature. Finding some misrepresentation with any part would at least be a start. I have previously suggested some ideas. I’ll repeat one: If one could just access the introduction to the book Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, one could check whether what is written in the corresponding section is anything other than a straightforward summary of the editor’s own summary of the main contributions to the literature from 1995 through 2006. If it passes that test (as I’m sure it will) then perhaps one could give the page the benefit of the doubt, as the rest more or less coheres with that. Knuteson (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson, in case you hadn't noticed, this article is based on a lot more than one book. We already know that by assiduous cherry-picking one can assemble a version of the article that posits some kind of parity between conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. That was rather the point. Guy (help!) 16:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither the topics chosen, the papers chosen to comment on, nor the aspects of the papers chosen to describe involve cherry picking, nor do they involve misrepresentation. It is both unfair and unkind to suggest otherwise unless one has some evidence. Knuteson (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thirteen years ago when I started editing Wikipedia I used to start with what I already knew to be true (it's not the things you don't know that get you. It's the things you know for sure that aren't true...) and then looking for references to support my position. A wise old Wikipedian advised me to instead start with no preconceived position, look at the sources starting with the most reliable, and have the article report what is in the sources no matter whether it does or does not match what I thought was true. This was a breaktrough for me, avoiding a huge amount of conflict and creating far better articles. I would advise pretty much everybody to do as I did. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate section, that is essentially what I have done. Notice that the first two paragraphs are based entirely on the book’s introduction. (Much of the introduction to that book can be read on Amazon preview, with page numbers; the whole chapter, but without page numbers, is on Google Books. So please take a look.) The third paragraph is based mostly on the introduction to the special issue journal. For other sections it simply could not be done in quite the same straightforward manner. I did have to use my knowledge of the field—knowing where the discussion started (Pigden 1995) and knowing what issues were addressed repeatedly—but in composing it I used secondary sources (or aspects of works that functioned as secondary sources) as much as possible. When that was not possible, I looked for statements that functioned as thesis statements or summaries of main points of an article. I did not pick out tangential issues. I did not cherry pick. Knuteson (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Knuteson#November, 2009. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, At this point, that question requires a yes or no answer. Urgently. Guy (help!) 21:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Knuteson I invite anyone involved in the present discussion to comment there. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The opening two sentences of Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate are: “Over the past decade, a small group of philosophers distributed widely around the globe have begun a debate about conspiracy theories. This book includes all the published contributions to that debate.” Thanks, I was unaware that your article represented a small subset of philosophical opinion, which brings WP:UNDUE into play. As you may not know, Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Why does the fact that the book includes “all the published contributions to that debate” (up to that point) make you think that the page in question “represented a small subset of philosophical opinion”? It includes a summary of the main contribution of each these authors. But I suppose you mean that there are only a small number of philosophers engaged in the discussion, and therefore their debate can be treated as not notable. Well, everything starts small; that was 2006. At this point, as I’ve mentioned previously:

“Bona fide philosophers who have written at least a couple articles on the subject include: Charles Pigden, David Coady, Steve Clarke, Quassim Cassam, Matthew Dentith, Lee Basham, Kurtis Hagen, Brian Keeley, Patrick Stokes and Juha Räikkä. Other philosophers who have written at least one article include on the topic include: Keith Harris, Neil Levy, Pete Mandik, Philippe Huneman and Marion Vorms (jointly), and Joel Buenting and Jason Taylor (jointly). Other notable scholars who are not philosophers, such as Cass Sunstein and Adrien Vermeule, have contributed to the discussion in philosophy venues (such as the Journal of Political Philosophy).”

Further philosophers who have contributed to the discussion include Susan Feldman and Daniel Cohnitz. The following academic books fall into this category: Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, Taking Conspiracy Theories Seriously, The Philosophy of Conspiracy Theories, and Conspiracy Theories (by Quassim Cassam). And there have been two special issues of philosophy journals focused on this. Finally, four of the authors mentioned above contributed to Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, making their voices a significant part of a larger discussion, even though that was a book edited by a social scientist, and thus was weighted more heavily in that direction. The page does not imply that philosophers represent the majority academic position. Their debate is nonetheless a distinct and noteworthy topic. (By the way, your apparent glee gives the impression that, rather than being fair or objective, you are looking for any excuse to make this page go away.) Knuteson (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson, the reason we don't allow academics to control content on Wikipedia is that it is very common for academics to advocate for an idea or theory, and to perceive that they and like-minded colleagues represent the consensus view even when they do not.

The content of this article reflects a long debate between multiple editors with differing views of the subject. What you are trying to do is move the ratchet towards your view. Experience shows that this is a process that never ends until either people are removed from the article, or the article reflects one (often minority) POV - at which point we have to go and start all over again.

Your speciality is conspiracies, ours is Wikipedia article writing. We know our content policies. We're not going to write articles that advance a technical academic definition of a term over the commonly understood meaning, especially at a time when conspiracy theories (in the commonly understood sense of outrageous and baseless accusations of conspiracy) are being promoted by the most powerful man in the world. Guy (help!) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

When did Vladimir Putin promote conspiracy theories? Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the available evidence, last time he spoke to the President on the phone, for a start. Certainly since 2017. Guy (help!) 12:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I hereby question Guy’s objectivity on this issue. The expression of a pollical motivation as a reason for censoring a notable and fairly described phenomenon is highly inappropriate. Clearly, even if Trump is a raving lunatic, that has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the Philosophy of conspiracy theories page. The suggestion that it does evinces a troubling degree of conspiracy theory panic. Knuteson (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Let’s put a little context to this. Once upon a time, philosopher Peter Singer said, essentially, “Hey, wait a minute, is it really so crazy to think that animals have rights?” Long before that, philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft said, “Hey, wait a minute, is it really so crazy to think that women have rights?” Also, philosopher James Rachels said, “Hey, wait a minute, is it really so crazy to think that sometimes quotas and euthanasia (though not quotas for euthanasia!) are morally acceptable?” Questioning conventional wisdom is something that philosophers do. Should Wikipedia editors really be in the business of censoring the debates that stem from this sort of thing? I don’t think so. If something is notable and accurately described it should not be stamped out of existence on Wikipedia. Knuteson (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why they have special places they can go. We are here to be a repository of notable knowledge, which is to say others have noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Others have noticed it. From the back cover of Taking Conspiracies Seriously, which collects some recent academic work on conspiracy theories, mostly by philosophers (as well as a few social scientists):

“In our current age of conspiracy, it’s vitally important for everyone – academics, journalists, and engaged citizens – to study and try to understand conspiracy discourse. This provocative book gives us the tools we need to take conspiracy theory seriously.” --Kathryn Olmsted, Professor of History, University of California, Davis

“Matthew Dentith is one of the most important social epistemologists studying conspiracy theories. In this fascinating volume, he has assembled many of the top minds studying conspiracy theories to tackle the most important emerging questions regarding conspiracy theories and their study – the answers to which will both satisfy and agitate. This volume is an essential collection for anyone seeking to truly understand conspiracy theories and the people who believe them.” --Joseph Uscinski, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Miami. (And editor of Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them.)

In addition, some philosophers were also included in Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, which is weighted more toward the social sciences. One essay there, by a pair of historians, has a section called “The Debate in Analytical Philosophy on Warranted and Unwarranted Conspiracy Belief (Mid-1990s to the Present).” Knuteson (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The back cover of a book is not enough to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The scholarly discussion of conspiracy epistemology hasn't yet reached the level of notability that other once obscure topics have (this isn't comparable to the Bohr–Einstein debates.) Claiming that this topic has similar notability to the above examples is dubious. Peter Singer and the animal rights movement are obviously WP notable on their own. I'd also like to point out that only one philosopher referenced in philosophy of conspiracy theories meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Conspiracy theory cites and links to a number of prominent and notable academics who have contributed to public discourse about the article topic. This might simply be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Wikipedia is not a specialist journal and articles shouldn't be written primarily in academic language. Over reliance on primary sources is problematic and those sources alone do not establish notability. --mikeu ^talk 17:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Philosophy_of_conspiracy_theories#Requested_move_24_November_2019. --mikeu ^talk 12:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory as a polemic term?

The term Conspiracy Theory is used as Propaganda weapon against Dissidents in the US but also in other countries.--92.74.251.167 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an RS for this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Popularity in other countries

With the COVID-19 outbreak, conspiracy theories pop-up, so this is a great learning moment and occasion to show people the wikipedia articles on conspiracy theories. Is there a lot of countries that have published research on what % of their population believes in what conspiracy theories? What would be the best place to bring those together? For the moment just bringing them together in the chapter "Popularity" and when it becomes a larges section, to put it in a grid and dedicated article? And what do we do with the references - how do we transfer those when e.g. copy/pasting from e.g. below example from the french wikipedia? Is it enough to put a reference to the french wikipedia article if people want references to every number/link or do we have to transfer these too somehow? Herewith an assist from the french wikipedia "Historic evolution of conspiracy theories in France":

"

In January 2018, a survey by the IFOP of 1,252 people among the French population concluded that only 21 ± 2.5% of them did not believe in any conspiracy theory, and that these beliefs are more present in young people. The most common belief relates to a collaboration between the Ministry of Health and the pharmaceutical industry to hide the side effects of vaccines (~ 55%). Almost half of the sample believes in the "great replacement", around 32% think that the AIDS virus was created in the laboratory and tested on the African population, about 9% believe in the possibility of the flat earth theory. On the other hand, the majority of French people think, in accordance with the consensus in the scientific community, that global warming is due to human activities.

"

Let me know if it is ok to copy/paste this to add it to the article here. Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

You can't source to other Wikis (or english WP). You'll need to provide a reliable source. I'm also not sure that this is terribly relevant to this broad article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Lenin page, conspiracy theory section

Hi, folks who are documenting conspiracy theories and their background. Please take a look at Lenin's page. I'd like to keep a section there dedicated to conspiracies which I think is completely valid but it keeps getting deleted. What are your thoughts? Berehinia (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That this is not the right venue to discuss another article's content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Justin Fox

There is a paragraph about Time magazine's Justin Fox's views in the section Conspiracism as a world view. Is this really due? It's one persons's opinion in a non-academic magazine and it makes what are quite extraordinary and specific claims. Surely this section should stick to how a conspiracist world view is treated in more authoritative sources (i.e. academic consensus). Remove? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Time magazine is often cited by academics as an authoritative source. Keep it. Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: is this particular opinion or similar opinions cited by them? To me saying that Wall Street traders are especially conspiratorial and that investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists seems like an extreme position not shared by many sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Justin Fox is a highly regarded expert on Wall Street. In 2009 (date of his quote) he was the business and economics columnist for TIME. Before joining the magazine in 2007, he spent more than a decade writing and editing for Fortune magazine. After TIME he was the editorial director of Harvard Business Review. He published the bookThe Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street (2009)==the reviews were very positive. At issue today is his analysis of why conspiracy theories are popular in Wall Street. You will have a hard time finding a more reliable expert on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen, compelling argument, I'd say. Guy (help!) 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

psychology paragraph from Big Pharma article

I removed a paragraph on conspiracy theory psychology from the Big Pharma conspiracy theory article which may be useful to this article. It can be found at Special:Diff/952564277. Daask (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

CIA memo removed & blog post re-added

In this edit, I've added the 1967 CIA memo about the term, using both Esquire and the New York Times as sources. It was removed by Toa.

I removed a blog post, and it was re-added by Toa.

I'll leave this to others, as this person is following me around and I need to deal with him elsewhere. petrarchan47คุก 20:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

1) Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is not a blog and is generally considered authoritative in skepticism. Additionally, author of the article is a professor and expert in the subject area, specifically conspiracy theories.

2) An op-ed article from a food critic in a men’s lifestyle magazine is hardly a reliable, authoritative source on linguistic history. Toa Nidhiki05 21:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

So false information was replaced by accurate information provided by an expert. In any case, the a straight forward reading of the text from the CIA does not support the conclusions that conspiracy theorists say it does. TFD (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This one? https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117 91.76.22.132 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence and 1st paragraph

The 1st sentence is true, but it should be expressed in a better way. For example: "A conspiracy theory is.......(insert the definition). Often times the term conspiracy theory is used as a pejorative term" or something like that. I recomend changing it. Thoughts? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

See extensive discussions on this at Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_20. I don't think anyone wants to go through the process of working out a new lead sentence again. - MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought the previous one (which has stood until four days ago) was pretty good. Do we all agree with this edit on April 5? Antandrus (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That lead implies the definition may or may not be true and could be rightly or wrongly pejorative. Not an improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's not an improvement; shall we change it back? Antandrus (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. I think the previous was better (as suggested by Jam ai qe ju shikoni). Antandrus (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright folks, thank you for your understanding! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to argue for the point I was trying to make in the April 5 version for the following nuanced set of reasons. "Conspiracy theory" is an example of a term which, though in principle and in some contexts neutral, has acquired a preponderantly pejorative connotation. As befits a dictionary, the Wiktionary entry on "Conspiracy theory" with its accompanying usage note explains this distinction well. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it has has become so successful and influential that for many people it is their first stop in trying to understand a new subject or the meaning of an unfamiliar phrase. Therefore in the case of terms that may or may not be pejorative, I feel it is important for Wikipedia to note that fact early on, as I believe I did in my version. Being extra careful about this, as Wiktionary is, would help protect Wikipedia from the unfounded accusation, which one hears occasionally e.g. from the Alt-right, that Wikipedia itself is an elitist institution that unfairly suppresses dissent in cynical violation of its own NPOV ethic, in this case by implying that any conspiratorial explanation is ipso facto implausible and undeserving of being considered on its merits. Having thought it over some more, I think the best way to get this point across may be by linking to the Wiktionary definition, as I now have done.CharlesHBennett (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources. WP:UGC O3000 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, dictionaries are only authoritative in how a word is spelled. The definitions are only provided to help ensure you are looking for the right word. Encyclopedias are more authoritative than dictionaries when it comes to explaining a subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if people check Wikipedia articles just for the first sentence, they are missing the whole point of Wikipedia. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, we don’t need to have text discussing conspiracy theory (legal term) in the lead since the disambiguation link is already prominently visible at the top of the lead. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to form a consensus on the points mentioned above. Dictionaries are authoritative on matters of meaning and etymology, because that is their special remit. I think it would be easy to find examples of conspiracy theory being used both pejoratively and non pejoratively, and discussions of under what circumstances good journalistic or encyclopedic writing should permit or eschew pejoratives. Finally, because Wikipedia exists for its readers, even unsophisticated ones, and has itself become very influential, an elephant in the room as it were, the lede of an article should tread carefully and not even give the appearance of partisanship or excluding certain points of view.CharlesHBennett (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I am sure we have had an RFC in this recnently, but have another if you wish.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, fine. Could you please tell us your proposed lead? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The one that has been there. O3000 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, either of the versions I proposed (Apr 5 or 11) would be preferable, for the reasons I outlined. I invite further discussionCharlesHBennett (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As I think I may have said before, we go with what RS say, so each argument must be backed by RS. Yes a dictionary tells you how a word is used, but so does an expert source. Now the issue is what is our article about, the term (we are not a dictionary) or how it is most commonly used?Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A large part of your rationale is that Wikipedia is influential and so should strive to get the definition right. See the extensive discussion and consensus [2] that took place for just such reasons. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Please remember that this is Wikipedia, not WiktionaryJam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for giving us the benefit of your 165 edits' worth of experience. Experience that suggests a fondness for the work of David Icke. This has been debated at length and the consensus is as represented in the article. Guy (help!) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that's allright with me; if this is what the community has decided, there is no reason for me to oppose it. Thanks for informing me!Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am content with the intro in its present form, though it is not exactly as I would have written, which would be way too much for any editor to expect of Wikipedia. Thank you all, including those I suspected of having too itchy a trigger finger on the revert button.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What is "tendentious" about the section about Occam's razor?

Why was the section about Occam's razor reverted for being allegedly "tendentious"? It contains referenced criticism of the generalization that all theories of repressed truths are unnecessarily complex, it does not allege that any specific truths are repressed.213.212.53.28 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If it was the edit summary that was deemed "tendentious", why delete an entire section for how an edit was summarized? The limited space in the edit summary section makes certain omissions necessary, unlike the article section that can be and was written in full.213.212.53.28 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edit for a few reasons. First, one of the books appears to have been published only eight days ago. That tends to raise eyebrows here. Secondly, inserting a new section near the top of the article with arguable text requires consensus after talk page discussion. In fact, it's inserted above Walker, Barkun and Rothbard. Thirdly, it looks like Blue sky thinking, and may not really fit this article at all. Fourthly, I'm not certain there isn't some WP:OR WP:SYNTH involved. O3000 (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A recent article

An recently published Off-Guardian article about the term "Conspiracy theory" contains some interesting points not included in the Wikipedia article.

• Firstly it says the Wikipedia definition strays "some distance away from the dictionary and legal definitions" but the "depiction of the delusional conspiracy theorist, as described by Wikipedia, is the popularly accepted meaning".
• The earliest written reference to something approaching the modern concept of conspiracy theory appeared in the 1870’s in the Journal of Mental Science vol 16.
• The work of American historian Richard Hofstadter who "suggested that people’s inability to believe what they are told by government was not based upon their grasp of the evidence. Rather it was rooted in psychological need".
• The weaponisation of the term "conspiracy theory" in response to criticism of the Warren Report. "In 1967 the CIA sent an internal dispatch to all field offices called Document 1035-960: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report. Revealed by a New York Times Freedom of Information Request in 1976, the dispatch is the first written record we have of the combination of Popper’s "conspiracy theory of society" with Hofstadter’s "paranoid style" militant. It defined the modern concept of the conspiracy theorist. It can be considered as the origin of the weaponised term "conspiracy theory". It recommends a set of techniques to be used to discredit all critics of the Warren Commission Report. Once you are familiar with them, it is obvious that these strategies are commonly deployed today to dismiss all who question official statements as "conspiracy theorists".
• The drive to convince the public to use only “official sources” for information has seen the rise of the fact checker.

Burrobert (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

That's an article by a confessed conspiracy theorist and is not a reliable source. This article represents the mainstream view, which is why Davis cites it. A conspiracy theory is not merely a theory that an event was caused by a conspiracy, but a belief that it was caused by an omniscient, omnipotent and absolutely evil secret cabal. the rules of evidence are ignored because any conflicting evidence is seen as planted by the cabal and hence further evidence of its existence, which is circular reasoning. Of course the term is weaponized and overused. But that's no different from calling people whose opinions you wish to dismiss crazy or insane. It doesn't mean there aren't crazy people out there. TFD (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know anything about the author but he seems to be proud of being a "conspiracy theorist" in the dictionary sense, not the common or Wikipedia sense. After all he has titled the article "A Conspiracy Theorist Confesses". The article is an apologia for conspiracy theorists. I think the core of his defence is in the last section:

"The label of the conspiracy theorist has been deliberately created in order to convince you not to look at it.

Regardless of whether or not you think someone’s opinion is a conspiracy theory, you owe it to yourself and your children to consider the evidence they cite. Perhaps you will reject it. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But to reject it, without knowing what it is, really is crazy. Your only other option is to unquestioningly accept whatever you are told by the government, globalist think tanks, multinational corporations and their mainstream media partners".

However, let’s put all of that aside as it wasn’t the reason I mentioned the article. Irrespective of the author and the source, the points which I itemised may be relevant to the “Conspiracy theory” wiki page.

• The mention of the term in the 1870’s in the Journal of Mental Science could be added.
• The work of American historian Richard Hofstadter could be mentioned.
• The "Political use" section could mention the weaponisation of the term by governments to stifle dissent. This could include mention of the CIA’s ‘’Document 1035-960: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report’’ as defining the modern concept of the conspiracy theorist (if in fact that can be established).

Better sources would need to be found for each point and I thought perhaps other editors might be aware of sources that discussed these. Burrobert (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You lost me at you owe it to yourself and your children to consider the evidence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If it makes things easier, ignore the quote and start from “However, let’s put all of that aside ... “. Burrobert (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Davis is a conspiracy theorist in the common sense. You can read his website to learn his views on 911, vaccines, hydroxychloroquine, etc.[3] Believe me, as a contributor to this article, I am familiar with the defenses conspiracy theorists use. To answer your points: (1) whether or not the 1870 writer used the expression with its modern meaning, you would need a reliable secondary source to explain its significance. (2) Hofstadter is already mentioned in the article. (3) I agree we should mention that conspiracy theorists interpret the CIA document as a directive to weaponize the term conspiracy theory. That's another conspiracy theory. If we can find reliable sources indicating that the term has been weaponized we can consider adding it.

Conspiracy theories should accept that Wikipedia policy requires articles to be written from a mainstream point of view. If they don't like that, they need to get the policy changed or get experts to change their views, assuming they're not part of the conspiracy.

I suggest by the way that before presenting sources, you should be familiar with the author, know what this article already says and perhaps read through the discussion archives to see if your points have already been raised.

TFD (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have filed it away appropriately. As mentioned by Orwell in his instruction manual 1984, it is important for a properly functioning society it have a way of protecting itself against thoughtcrime. Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

So you have given up the pretension of rational reasoning and descended into "argumentum ad Orwellum". Sounds like EOD to me. Good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of definition in Wikipedia conspiracy theory article

The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories cites David Aaronovitch's book, "Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History," as a reference for the view that a "conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation ... when other explanations are more probable."

Iain Davis in an article Zero Hedge states that this definition falsely includes the characteristic that a conspiracy theory is an attempt to ignore other more plausible explanations. It is a theory based upon prejudice or insufficient evidence, it resists falsification and suffers from circular reasoning. It has left the realms of logical deduction and become a matter of faith.

Would the article in Zero Hedge be considered to be from a reliable source? Teudaly (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teudaly (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 

I think wp:undue comes into this far more than wp:rs. No I do not think this is acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See our own article Zero Hedge, the second paragraph of the lead is especially informative. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I take it back, its not RS either.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if it was a reliable source, the article itself fails rs as an opinion piece by a non-expert, per WP:NEWSORG. TFD (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hence why I said its undue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference Zwierlein/de Graaf has a mistake

I created an account for the sole purpose of correcting a mistake I discovered, so I apologise for being unfamiliar with the process of editing articles. I would like to point out a minor issue. The following reference under 'Further Reading' is incorrect:

Zwierlein, Cornel / Beatrice de Graaf (eds.) Security and Conspiracy in History, 16th to 21st Century. Historical Social Research 38, Special Issue, 2013.

The first editor of this particular issue is Prof. Beatrice de Graaf, so the names of the two editors should be reversed. In order to verify this, it is possible to visit the journal website (see below). If you click under 'More about this Special Issue', you can see that de Graaf is first editor. Could you please let me know how this can be changed? Thank you.

Link to the journal website: https://www.gesis.org/en/hsr/full-text-archive/2013/381-security-and-conspiracy.

Espejo01 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we make Wikipedia:Conspiracy theories

I think we should make it since conspiracy theories are not allowed here. The reason I brought it up is because I think it's important to teach rookies about how to identify conspiracy theories here. Who else agrees? Emotioness Expression (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emotioness Expression: It's not as simple as "they're not allowed here." See WP:FRINGE. In short, fringe topics are only given the coverage found in mainstream sources. The Death of Jeffrey Epstein has plenty of conspiracy theories around it, but the coverage of them in mainstream sources isn't exactly negative {{small|(maybe because Epstein didn't kill himself but anyway), thus our article barely mentions that it's a conspiracy theory (but still does). Meanwhile, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, despite superficial parallels to the Epstein case, is so utterly insane that mainstream sources can only be dismissive and so I get away with blocking people for merely questioning if it's been debunked.

Going beyond conspiracy theories into fringe territory in general, claims of pre-Columbian contact between Polynesians and indigenous Americans are technically considered kinda fringe even though pretty much everyone is sure some form of it (however limited) happened and our article is not particularly dismissive (merely noting a couple of objections and never identifying anything as conclusive). It's not a black and white matter of something being true or forbidden.

Also, it's not up to individual editors to identify conspiracy theories for themselves (see WP:No original research), that's what reliable sources are for. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there should be a guideline about when Wikipedia identifies something as a conspiracy theory as opposed to rational speculation. But this this isn't the page to discuss it. TFD (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

I propose to add information under the projection section. Some research suggests that an element of psychological projection involved with conspiracy theorizing has to do with the internal morality of the person holding the belief. In particular, I would want to cite a 2011 research paper by authors Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton, titled, "Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire" published in the British Journal of Social Psychology. I would add the following statements under what currently exists in this category:

There is also more recent research indicating that an individual's internal morality and their own willingness to conspire influences the belief that others may act in a similar manner. In contrast to earlier theorists' concept of psychological projection, "contemporary models tend to view projection as a means of making sense of the social environment, informing judgements about others when more reliable or objective information is lacking ([ 2]). The crucial point of the proposed theoretical account is that when evaluating a conspiracy theory, people may use projection as a tool to understand what others might have done." (Douglas & Sutton, 2011) The authors of this research conclude with correlational as well as causal data, that for at least some sections of the populace and for some conspiracy theories, people who lack ethical qualms in this area may be more likely to accept conspiracy theories because they are, on average, more inclined to take part in them personally. (Douglas & Sutton, 2011) 2600:8800:4900:163B:94FA:E4EC:2997:3A40 (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your request requires discussion before asking for inclusion. You would also need to provide the specific wording. TFD (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The source is already cited in the article. Whether it deserves elaboration depends on due and undue weight. Articles must "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You need to show that the theory has received attention in the literature and explain its degree of acceptance first. TFD (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Rosenblum book

I'm not a regular here, but I was a bit surprised that Nancy Rosenblum's book "A Lot of People Are Saying" was not used as a source in this article. An author interview at Vox gives a pretty good introduction to it. This is a good source that could be used to improve the article. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Well it just came out this year. So too have a number of other books. What specific information do you think the article is missing that should be included? TFD (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably not the right person to ask; I'd have to look at the article (and do more than just glance at the book) to help with that. Mostly, I just wanted to publicize what appears to be a good source, so those more familiar with the topic could have a look, and perhaps use it. I didn't mean to imply there's any urgency about it, just that it's available. Did you have another book to recommend as well? Mathglot (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

"Unwarranted conspiracy theories]]

I'm listening to a webinar on pseudoarchaeology, and the speaker mentioned and Brian Keeley this term of his. Philosophy of conspiracy theories discusses him but badly. Bullet points here with some criticism.[4]

1. They are explanations that run counter to some received, official, or ‘obvious’ account.

2. The true intentions behind the conspiracy are invariably nefarious.

3. They typically seek to tie together seemingly unrelated events.

4. [T]he truths behind the events explained by conspiracy theories are typically well-guarded secrets, even if the ultimate perpetrators are sometimes well-known public figures.

5. The chief tool of the conspiracy theorist is errant data.

Doug Weller talk 16:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Why the discussion I opened was closed by PaleoNeonate?

I asked a question about the definition because it seemed unclear to me, and it seems to me the definition is not only unclear, but also contradictory, as I pointed out. Why shouldn't this be discussed? Someone said that was discussed before. If so, why wasn't this addressed? Given the current environment, this is an important article and effort should be made towards making it accurate and consistent. (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:19a:4785:55b5:2029:bbbf:f2f3 (talk • contribs)

This talk page is for discussing potential improvements to the associated article. If you have a concrete proposal for new wording you may make it, but this is not the place to spin endless questions about hypotheticals. - MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do start to discuss your personal views about conspiracy theories, this discussion will be rapidly closed as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the previous discussion, you will see that what got it bogged down were exactly comments like yours. I ask a question about the definition being unclear, and people start accusing me of promoting conspiracy theories and now you warn me about not discussing my personal views. This just like some people don't even read what was written and just accuse anyone asking a question of being a conspiracy theorist. Then after people make these ridiculous and baseless accusations, someone closes the discussion because of them. This is ridiculous. (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19A:4785:55B5:2029:BBBF:F2F3 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is either a logical contradiction at the base of this article, or I don't understand something here.

This talk page is not for the promotion of conspiracy theories or for general discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). And thanks for the insightful observation, TFD. —PaleoNeonate – 04:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a question. This article states multiple times that a conspiracy theory is always factually wrong. If so, then that happens in the following situation: There is an actual conspiracy. Most people are unaware of it, but some people suspect there is a conspiracy. They form a theory about there being conspiracy. Their theory is factually correct. How do you call this theory about a conspiracy? According to this article it is not a conspiracy theory. Then what is it? (TempUser1010) What RS call it. We do not engage in wp:or, nor do we use non wp:rs. If RS say it's true it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC) What if half of the sources say that it is an actual conspiracy and half say it is a false conspiracy theory? Then what is it? By the way, this happens by definition for every ongoing conspiracy, as the sources that are part of the conspiracy will always deny it. I am not talking here about ridiculous conspiracy theories, like flat Earth or the what the anti-vaccine groups say. I am asking here about the real conspiracies. For most people it is actually very hard to figure out what is true and what is not, and this separation between conspiracy and conspiracy theory can sometimes be much less obvious than this article makes you think(the difference is real, but most people will confuse them badly, including those, who rely on "reliable sources"). (TempUser1010) Also, I seriously asked the question. What if someone has a theory about a there being a conspiracy. Let's say it is a theory, as there is evidence supporting it, but no definite proof. How do you call it?(TempUser1010) Again we go with what RS say, if RS disagree then we discuss it to determine wp:weight. It is also hard to answer a hypothetical, as what you might consider wp:rs Wikipedia (see wp:rsp) might not. Essentially we do not give out blank cheques, we need to have specific questions about content raised.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC) 2A00:A040:19A:4785:253D:FE07:880A:5406, you’d really need to be specific about what conspiracy, what evidence, etc. for us to give you a definitive answer about what WP:RS say about it and how it may be treated here on Wikipedia. Also you may be confusing the term conspiracy theory (legal term) as used in law, with the topic of this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Ok, you want an example. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings Is it a conspiracy? A conspiracy theory? How do you call it? How do you call a theory that there is a conspiracy, which is contested, but is not clearly wrong? (TempUser1010) And there is your problem, no the fact there was a bombing it not a conspiracy theory, nor do we say the bombing was. So what are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Who perpetrated it?(TempUser1010) Then that is what you should have said, OK, so let's now see a source that proves who perpetrated it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Looks like the people editing that page couldn't come to a conclusion and listed two wildly different theories, one of them involving a conspiracy. So is it a conspiracy theory? Not according to this article. Is it a conspiracy? Not according to people, who dismiss it. So what is it? (TempUser1010) Are you discussing this incident or asking a general question?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC) I am asking a general question with this case as an example. (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19A:4785:253D:FE07:880A:5406 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC) And we do not list it here, so it is not a good example. Moreover (as has been said) we do not call it a conspiracy theory there either. As I said, its a case by case basis based upon what the predominance of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC) (ec) OK, well I’m not familiar with the sources on that page, but I see the article Talk page has extensive discussion about whether or not to use the term conspiracy theory. The best place to bring up your question is there at that article’s Talk page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC) That was just an example. The problem is not there. It is here, in how conspiracy theory is defined. That is what I am asking about. Sometimes there is a dispute about whether a theory about a conspiracy is true or not. How do you call it then? (TempUser1010) And again we can't answer hypotheticals, and I hope you can see why from the above. We go with how RS defines conspiracy theory. So we have to take any contested views on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Also, the question has nothing to do with improving the article Conspiracy theory and therefore does not belong on this Talk page. As you have been told repeatedly, we do not define the term ourselves, we repeat what the reliable sources say. If they get it wrong, we have to get it wrong too. If you find an inconsistency in the reliable sources, take it up with them. As soon as they have agreed with you, you can come back here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC) I searched Google for "conspiracy theory definition", and most results say nothing about the theory being wrong. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theory . Also a linked Wikipedia article contradicts this one. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories "In principle, conspiracy theories are not always false by default and their validity depends on evidence just as in any theory. " . I seriously think this article needs to be rethought and inconsistencies in it need to be resolved. (TempUser1010) As another example of how inconsistent this article is, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories . The article lists an example of a conspiracy theory that COVID19 escaped from a lab. This is actually a plausible theory. I don't know where the virus originated, and I don't want to go deep into a discussion of this here, but I think that both the theories that it crossed directly from some animal and that it escaped from the lab are quite plausible. If you think you know the answer for sure, I suggest you to look deeper into it and be more modest. Now this is a good example of what happens when the term "conspiracy theory" is abused to discredit certain valid theories. See the consequences here. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/18/1021030/coronavirus-leak-wuhan-lab-scientists-conspiracy/ (TempUser1010) Conspiracy theory is a term applied to claims of conspiracy which lack evidence and aren't likely to have evidence in the near future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Dictionaries are intended to define terms not explain them in detail. The dictionary definition of stars for example hasn't changed since were dictionaries invented, but there is a lot more known about them today. TFD (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC) There is no specific term for rational speculation that a conspiracy exists. In the case of the Russian apartment bombings, it could be that rational people may speculate that it was carried out by terrorists or that it was a false flag operation by Moscow. If so, neither view is a conspiracy theory, although one side is right, while the other is wrong. (I don't know enough about the case to determine whether one view is a conspiracy theory.) TFD (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Go back over the talk page achieve, we have discussed this many times.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC) All these discussions follow a similar trajectory: a seemingly straight-forward question, followed by argumentation and finally accusations that Wikipedia is a New World Order disinformation project. TFD (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Why the discussion I opened was closed?

NOTAFORUM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I asked a question about the definition because it seemed unclear to me, and it seems to me the definition is not only unclear, but also contradictory, as I pointed out. Why shouldn't this be discussed? Someone said that was discussed before. If so, why wasn't this addressed? Given the current environment, this is an important article and effort should be made towards making it accurate and consistent. (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:19a:4785:55b5:2029:bbbf:f2f3 (talk • contribs) This talk page is for discussing potential improvements to the associated article. If you have a concrete proposal for new wording you may make it, but this is not the place to spin endless questions about hypotheticals. - MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC) If you do start to discuss your personal views about conspiracy theories, this discussion will be rapidly closed as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC) If you look at the previous discussion, you will see that what got it bogged down were exactly comments like yours. I ask a question about the definition being unclear, and people start accusing me of promoting conspiracy theories and now you warn me about not discussing my personal views. This just like some people don't even read what was written and just accuse anyone asking a question of being a conspiracy theorist. Then after people make these ridiculous and baseless accusations, someone closes the discussion because of them. This is ridiculous. (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19A:4785:55B5:2029:BBBF:F2F3 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC) How about this: make a concrete proposal for new wording and give your reasons to justify it and sources to support it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC) And you were told this very issue has been discussed multiple times, and a general question like yours can't be answered.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC) I don't have at this point a concrete proposal for what the article should contain. I will try to explain what bothers me and maybe we can work from there. It seems to me there are several different and conflicting definitions of a conspiracy theory. People often get confused between them and this confusion can also be seen in the Wikipedia articles on the subject. The broad definition is(quote from the article): "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties". This theory can be correct or incorrect, plausible or implausible. There is also the narrow definition of a highly implausible theory, which is what most of the article talks about. The article covers many properties of such conspiracy theories, such as "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning", "belief in conspiracy theories—may be psychologically harmful or pathological" "Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatized mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account." and many more. This creates a very narrow definition. What I asked about in my questions was how the broad definition is called. The answer people gave: there is no name for it. Now think about what we defined here. There is a well known term for a very narrow and very specific phenomenon, and there is no term at all for a much wider space of phenomena. How do you think people will use this term? Quote from the article: "Belief in conspiracy theories is associated with biases in reasoning, such as the conjunction fallacy." This is ironic, because this is exactly what we have here. People don't really check that some statement meets all the criteria of a narrow definition of conspiracy theory to label it as such. They use mental shortcuts, and even if it meets just the broad criteria, will label it as a conspiracy theory and assume it is wrong. To see how even the Wikipedia editors got themselves confused, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories . "In principle, conspiracy theories are not always false by default and their validity depends on evidence just as in any theory." doesn't really agree with the narrow definition in this article. One of the listed examples of a "conspiracy theory" is that COVID19 escaped from a lab. This is not a conspiracy theory in the narrow sense(it does not resist falsification, is not reinforced by circular reasoning and doesn't have the other listed specifications). Moreover, it is not even a conspiracy theory in the broad sense, as it doesn't claim that the event was a result of conspiracy. See https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/18/1021030/coronavirus-leak-wuhan-lab-scientists-conspiracy/ for an example of how the term is being misused. This is not an isolated incident and it happens due to the problematic definition. I have seen even much more clear examples of this. Also note how even in this discussion, people started accusing me of spreading conspiracy theories, and others believed them, even though I never did anything like this. People think they know what they mean, when they use the term "conspiracy theory", but they often don't, and instead base their thinking on mental shortcuts and logical fallacies, reinforced by a problematic definition. It will be a good idea to try to clear this up in the article. (TempUser1010)

Editor refuses to discuss edits

An editor is removing material from the article on the grounds that it "looks like citation spam", [5] but has refused my multiple requests to come to the tal page and explain what, exactly, they mean by that. [6], [7]. I'm glad to agree with the suggestion that the materia is citation spam if the editor would only provide some evidence to support that contention, but they have been unwilling to do so. At this point, this is obviously no consensus to remove the material, since the editor has not even attempted to find a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Per wp:brd it's down to those who want to include to make a case. It should not have been restored without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

So why should we include this?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You've got it backwards, the question is why should it be delete without proper evidence that it's "citation spam". No such evidence has been presented, and Snowded's refusal to provide it is inexplicable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You can look at the inserting editors histor3y to see why I reverted it - not difficult. WP:BRD is very clear on this, if something is reverted for whatever reason the onus is on those wanting the change to justify it here. Aggressive templating of experienced editor talk pages is frowned on. If you think its a valuable edit and there is some proper sourcing I'm sure it can be included -----Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That is his reason, there may also be others (such as why do we need this, its wording one reports opinion in our voice, ect.Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you've both got policy ass-backwards. Per WP:V unsourced material can be removed on sight, but sourced material needs a consensus for removal. You don't have a consensus, and have refused to try to find one. You won't even give any evidence to support your removal It's you who are in violation of policy, since BRD is only an essay, not policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS, yes it is down to those who want to include information to make a case if it is challenged.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NOw I have given you my reason why this should not be included (well some), its now down to you to make a case as to why I am wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourced material requres a consensus for removal, but that is only the case if it is already established in the article. If it has just been inserted then it was bold, if reverted, discuss -----Snowded ^TALK 12:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is why I argued BRD, this is not long-standing content, it was added two days ago and challenged within 12 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Have you guys actually read ONUS? I do not think it says what you think it says:

While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented: instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

So Snowded's reason for deleting is that the material is "citation spam", but I do not know whether it is or isn't citation spam because no one has given me the evidence that shows it is, so the consensus discussion is missing the information it needs. So, let's follow WP:V, which is policy (as opposed to BRD, which is merely an essay) and have the evidence needed to have the required consensus discussion. I don't understand why Snowded is so resistant to providing that information. If it's "citation spam" then it must have been added to other articles somewhere -- just say which articles and we can put this silly thing to rest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", it does not say "The onus to achieve consensus for exclusion is on those seeking to exclude disputed content" And Onus is part of V, so yes WE are following it. "not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article", it clear, just because it is source does not mean it has to be included. Moreover, I have given you other reasons (still unaddressed) as to why we should not add this. Snowded has also said why he thinks its link spam (user history), you have not demonstrated this is invalid. So far the only reason given for inclusion is "its Verifiable", which wp:v is quite clear, about, "not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article", so "it's verifiable" is not a valid reason. The case needs to be made as to why we need this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Other Reasons for Conspiracy Theory Attraction

This is a page for discussing improvements to the article, not the subject itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was thinking about one reason is that people don't believe they are being told the truth. Conspiracy theories seem to follow a pattern similar to rumor formation 69.124.225.237 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)AVKent882 I wish this went without saying, but people actually are lied to by governments, institutions, schools, and so on. The spirit of conspiracy theory bashing (including the wiki article) leans on the silly assumption that propaganda does not exist. "Conspiracy theorist" has become a slur since it was first used by a 3-letter agency to target people questioning the facts surrounding the JFK assassination. The fact is that accusations of "conspiracy theorist" are incredibly convenient for powerful people who conspire to do bad things and lie about them, and if you think that such people don't exist, then try reading a history book. In a rational world, an encyclopedia article on "conspiracy theory" would have two halves: One on conspiracy theories that were true, and one on those that are yet unconfirmed. The blanket stigmatization and dismissal of anyone who questions official narrative (which seems to be the point of this article) is naive not to mention dangerous. 2603:6010:2103:EB70:B82C:EEC2:A1B9:DDB3 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia article talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for the discussion of the subject in general. If you have a specific proposal for how the article can be improved -- aside from having it reflect your personal ideology -- please make it clear what that change would be, and provide some citations from WP:reliable sources which support that change, without which nothing can or will be done. If that doesn't occur, this entire discussion will be deleted as irrelevant to this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC) This article does not stigmatize anyone who questions official narratives as a conspiracy theorist and in fact distinguishes between rational skepticism and conspiracism. TFD (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) We go with what RS say, not our opinions. As said above, we do make a distinction (because RS do) between genuine conspiracies and foolishness.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

The article needs to address the fact that people do on occasion conspire, and many are convicted for participation in conspiracies. The term "conspiracy theory" has become synonymous with "crazy conspiracy theory". A theory about a conspiracy isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory as it is described in this article. It's an important omission, because without that clarification, anyone who claims that two or more people have conspired can be unfairly discredited by a link to this article. 199.46.251.141 (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done The article already deals with the difference between actual conspiracies and conspiracy theories in the second section "Difference from conspiracy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dollarnote siegel hq.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory is the wrong term to use to discredit claims.

The word theory means it's backed by data. So there maybe truth in a "Conspiracy theory". It should be Conspiracy Hypothesis if it's not backed by data.

NO it does not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Canceling hypothesis

Should the term “canceling hypothesis” as another term? Found two sources both are unreliable - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Conspiracy-Theory and the possible origin of the term-https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Canceling%20Hypotheses.html as not published academically. Thoughts? Manabimasu (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If they are not RS it does not matter what they think.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

And even if they were RS, obscure terms used almost nowhere don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That as well, fails wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not another term, it's a description of a premise in support of an argument for a conspiracy theory that negates the logical conclusion of the other premises. TFD (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That source is a listing of fallacies; it's not a dictionary. There is a fallacy which is common to conspiratorial thinking, so for some reason, they decided to write the article for said fallacy under "conspiracy theory," despite making it quite clear in their writing that they know very well the difference between the two. It's like defining "Religion" by defining the god of the gaps argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Claim on the historical significance of conspiracies

In the spirit of WP:BRD, I’m going to ask about this specific chunk of the page: “Historically, when real conspiracies have occurred they have usually had little effect on history and have had unforeseen consequences for the conspirators.” Is this really something we can be putting in wikivoice? At the very least I think it needs a meatier explanation about why such a “little effect” is had and what the unforeseen consequences are. As is, it seems to mostly be leaning on the opinion of a single historian. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The spirit of BRD would have been better served had you come here first, but you're here now, so let's do this. To answer your question: Yes.

Can you cite any conspiracies, in the genre of popular conspiracy theories, which have had a measurable impact on history? You mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin incident in your edit summary, but are you familiar with that actual incident? If you go to that article, you'll find that the word "conspiratorial" appears exactly one time (with no other appearances of any form of the word), and that one appearance is in a source quote which states:

This mishandling of the SIGINT was not done in a manner that can be construed as conspiratorial, that is, with manufactured evidence and collusion at all levels. Rather, the objective of these individuals was to support the Navy's claim that the Desoto patrol had been deliberately attacked by the North Vietnamese [on Aug 4]...

(emphasis added)

As to why there's little effect, that should be so incredibly obvious that WP:SKY applies: Conspiracies simply do not occur on the scales that conspiracy theorists believe. Look through List of political conspiracies and try to find any which were even capable of changing world history through any means other than the butterfly effect.

What you are, in effect asking for is proof that no conspiracy has ever had a measurable impact on world history, and that's not a reasonable request. Instead, you should find proof that numerous conspiracies have done so (because just one or two examples wouldn't do), and then go from there.

And for the record, Bruce Cumings is an extremely well-respected historian whose works on the Korean War are seminal to the subject, and whose methods and expertise is extremely germane to this question. He's about the best possible source for such a statement as there could be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t think self-referencing back to how Wikipedia treats Tonkin as conspiratorial or not is inherently good form. Second, that list of conspiracies includes such events as the Iranian coup, the contra affair, 9/11, and the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. Those all seem like drastically significant historical events (and please don’t open the can of worms that is the Casus belli of WWI because I’m aware Franz being shot was, to paraphrase another historian, the heart attack on a terminally ill cancer patient). You also seem to be misconstruing my concerns about putting the claim in wikivoice, as it stands it just appears to be the opinion of some Wikipedia editor rather than something attributable to the consensus of historians. Perhaps I was hasty to delete the entire chunk, but it should at least be reworded and include more information on the topic. Obviously plenty of conspiracies are small potatoes in the scheme of world history, but I don’t think it can be said that the shift in Iranian government in the 50s and a terrorist attack that led to several wars and a complete reshaping of American domestic and foreign policy were not significant events. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd object to tying most of those examples into this article. The results may have been major, but they were not the goal of the actions taken. WW1 was not a planned result of the plot to assassinate Ferdinand, for instance. Trying to conflate that with the conspiracy theories here just doesn't wash. Your other examples follow the same pattern: these were small conspiracies to enact specific results. The global ramifications came completely by accident or were due to the fallout of other people's actions (ie. 9/11).

Again, the key to this article is that conspiracy theories are massive, carried out by large blocs of mysterious individuals in the shadows, and intended to manipulate society into global changes. The examples you gave either were conducted & intended to be local-scale, or don't even fit the bill at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your explanation is helping me understand now, because it seems the article works within a framework I wasn’t approaching it with. That being said, I think it should be reworded to include those examples since it provides a better explanation of what is meant by unintended consequences. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We could probably work in something like that, but I'd be concerned about the wording. We already have enough "true believers" trying to twist the article to support their favorite conspiracy theory; adding in actual conspiracies that led to unintended consequences gives them new targets. Still, we might be able to find a way to make it work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand, as I’ve now combed the archives and the page history and realized that the article was built in part to try to disparage this line of thinking and keep editors from inserting their fringe pet theory. That being said, to the average person not well invested into QANON or what have you, I think parts might need to be reworded to be more clear. Lots of snippets here and there are written from a position of seeming defensiveness (not inherently a bad thing given what I’ve seen tried to be pushed into the article), but I do think it makes for a weaker prose. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, that quote is an authoritative source directly stating there was no conspiracy there. If all you can do is waffle about citing a WP article, then we both know you've got no argument, so it's best to stop pretending.

Second, most of those events you cited only reinforce the claims in this section. I'm not sure what effect you think the Iran Contra affair had on world history, but "egg on Reagan's face and some US political fallout" is about what serious historians credit it with. The rest of the world already viewed us as either half-competent interventionists or the Grand Saviors of Democracy by that point.

9/11, sure, but again: you can't point to a single instance and then extrapolate from that the claim that conspiracies regularly reshape world politics, which is essentially what you're arguing here. I mean, that exact same group conspired to commit numerous attacks, but most folk can only name one of them. Hell, they've even gone after the same damn buildings and even most folks who are old enough to remember it, don't. Not to mention the vast world of difference between the nature of an actual conspiracy like the planning of the 9/11 attacks and the claims of conspiracy theorists, which is the context in which that passage appears.

In any case, I've said my bit already. You can keep posting examples that kinda sort support your view if one squints and pretends not to know any more history than what one got from a History Channel special, but I'm not going to respond to such things in any detail any more.

For the record, I was thanked for reverting your edit, so I'm not the only one opposed, here. Check the public log. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you’re assuming a lot about my motives and intentions here and trying to flaunt support rather than actually work out what my concerns are, so I guess I don’t really have a response to this. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear: I don't think you're trying to whitewash conspiracy theories, attempting any POV pushing or engaged in any other kind of bad faith editing. You seem very sincere, and I can understand your concerns, I just don't agree with them. This is just a situation where something which is very obvious to people interested in the subject seems startling to someone with less interest, and that doesn't reflect negatively on anyone*.

I'm not really assuming anything about your motives and intentions. I'm very specifically (and deliberately) discussing your arguments. If there's some disconnect between your motives and your arguments which makes it seem as if I'm assuming you believe different things than you do, then altering your arguments is the way to go.

If you're interested in what little I do think about what's going on in your head (which is not to suggest that I think there's little going on there, just that I haven't spared a lot of thought to it), it's this: you seem to me to be conflating the respective characteristics of real-life conspiracies and conspiracy theories a bit more than is warranted. If you're not deeply interested in conspiracy theories (which I don't think you are, as I don't recall seeing you editing in the topic), then it's completely understandable for you to do so.

Conspiracy theories form a coherent genre of their own, with conventions, tropes and cliches. But real-life conspiracies don't follow those patterns, which means any comparison between them and conspiracy theories needs to be done on a limited basis; choosing real life conspiracies that better mirror the tropes and conventions of conspiracy theories. Hence my caveat above about real conspiracies "in the genre of popular conspiracy theories" and my reference to the difference between the planning of the 9/11 attacks and the claims of conspiracy theorists (who, it might be noted, found the actual conspiracy entirely unsatisfactory and had to invent their own narrative).

The assassination of Franz Ferdidand is one that can be compared rather easily: There was a young idealistic group (Young Bosnia) who were being secretly manipulated by a sinister cabal of powerful people (the Black Hand) in order to shape the future of a large group of people. But as The Hand that Feeds pointed out, that's a case where the unintended consequences are huge, and the efforts backfired spectacularly (the founders and many members of the Black Hand were killed in the war they helped start). Although it bears noting that their ultimate goal of establishing a united South Slavic state was sort-of achieved, though, much like the assassination itself, as much through an accident of fate as through any efforts of them or their supporters.

^*

unless you consider a deep interest in conspiracy theories to be a character flaw. As much as I might like to, I can't really argue with that.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with Paragon Deku here. The diff/claim was is about real conspiracies, not conspiracy theories. We have a List of political conspiracies; there are many others. Among them are Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Watergate scandal, etc. Can one say that "when [such] real conspiracies have occurred they have usually had little effect on history"? Well, as far as I know, the historians generally agree that Assassination of Alexander II of Russia, for example, had a huge effect on Russian history, just as 911 on US history. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

sigh Please see my comments above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, see my first two comments higher up here, which directly address your points. For one thing, none of the events you cite had anywhere near the impact that conspiracy theories about, say, the Bilderberg group claim.

Conspiracy theories posit grand, overarching secret societies that rule the world, brilliantly orchestrated plots or sinister satanic cabals which erase all evidence of their existence, excepting the "subtle" clues they leave scattered in famous placemarks, national/international media to brag about their accomplishment.

And in any case, the count of that handful of conspiracies that did produce a historically notable success pales in comparison to the uncounted billions of conspiracies that fell apart before anything could be done, got leaked, or, as has been mentioned already, inadvertently started a war that got most of the conspirators killed. Which, perhaps surprisingly, happened more than once. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything about conspiracy theories here is fine. I am just not sure why include discussion or examples of any real conspiracies to this page (this is not the subject). The results may have been major, but they were not the goal of the actions taken. WW1 was not a planned result of the plot to assassinate Ferdinand, for instance.. Well, no, one can reasonably argue that conspirators of Assassination of Alexander II of Russia have achieved exactly their goals. Same is probably with 911, provoking the Iraq invasion was enormous win by the terrorists, it did not matter if any of them were killed or executed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything about conspiracy theories here is fine. I am just not sure why include discussion or examples of any real conspiracies to this page (this is not the subject). Because conspiracy theorists claim that their conspiracy theories are real conspiracies. The point of this bit is to illustrate the vast gulf between real life conspiracies and the theories put forth by Uncle Greg when he's 11 beers in and has an audience.

And, actually, provoking the US to interfere in the Middle East was one of the goals of 9/11, at least according to the last expert I saw pontificating about it, it's just they didn't expect us to interfere quite so effectively. I think there's some room for debate, their, but one would have to assume that AQ's leadership was remarkably stupid if they didn't expect us to come after them balls out and with a raging hate boner after 9/11. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering the purpose of the section, it might be more beneficial to the average reader to perhaps word it more offensively as opposed to defensively (ie, conspiracy theories vastly overstate the effectiveness and historical significance of most conspiracies rather than that conspiracies are largely impotent and historically irrelevant). I might need to check out the source cited in more depth. The answer is probably not deletion as I initially thought, but rather expansion and elaboration. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That would probably be a better tack to take, yes. Clearly delineate between the two: real conspiracies tend to be very small & have specific goals, while CTs posit vast underground groups trying to "take over the world." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Paragon Deku and HandThatFeeds, I just took a quick poke at such a change. I'm doing some link farming right now (I know these aren't all useable, I'm just gathering what I can find so as to go through looking them for sourcing tomorrow).

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pops.12568
• https://theconversation.com/an-ai-tool-can-distinguish-between-a-conspiracy-theory-and-a-true-conspiracy-it-comes-down-to-how-easily-the-story-falls-apart-146282
• https://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/how-spot-conspiracy-theory-when-you-see-one
• https://www.propublica.org/article/immune-to-evidence-how-dangerous-coronavirus-conspiracies-spread
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director/
• https://checkology.org/demo/lesson/conspiratorial-thinking/148/elements/2255
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2019/01/04/a-new-tool-can-help-us-determine-which-conspiracy-theories-are-false-and-which-might-be-true/
• https://michaelshermer.com/articles/conspiracies-conspiracy-theories-what-we-should-and-shouldnt-believe-and-why/
• https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-theories
• https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en
• https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137363169_3
• https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/five-real-conspiracies-you-need-know-about/ ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this sort of claim needs intext attribution and greater explanation. It seems like a philosophical question: is history influenced by accidental events or is it determined? 9/11 for example could be seen as a pretext for rather than cause of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some admirers of Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy believe that they would not have governed in the same way as their unpopular successors, but we don't know that. TFD (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going through the list of links above (it may take me a while to finish), and I'll be adding cites as I find sources which are germane and reliable.

I've no doubt I'll find something, as I've read the exact same sentiment expressed in multiple RSes in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This is all fine and possibly can be included, but I am afraid we stray off topic. The difference is obviously that real conspiracies are real, while conspiracy theories (usually or always?) are someone's imagination. My very best wishes (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course that's the primary difference. But it's not the only difference, which is what the text in question points out, and we're discussing how to source statements about those other differences, which is very germane to the topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"Canceling hypothesis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Canceling hypothesis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 20#Canceling hypothesis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought this had been deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

In the article "Conspiracy theory", under the section "Examples", the table of examples (from December 2020) has as top listing: "COVID-19 lab leak theory". This item in the table needs to be deleted, given the summer 2021 revisiting of the issue, and the current lack of definitive conclusion as to the issue. Particularly, the substance of the article "COVID-19 lab leak theory" does not support the theory being considered a "Conspiracy theory" as the latter term is set forth in the subject article. That is, the two articles are inconsistent with each other, unless the requested edit is made. Thank you. Nil Jon (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Well then source says it is, and some of it is still a conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like NPR has done enough self-correcting on the story that it would be fair to remove that entry from the table. There's no rule saying we have to include every bit of data from a source we're citing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is almost certain to be "a whole thing." Lets see what other editors say and see if there's a consensus about it being an example. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The source says, "A significant number of Americans believe misinformation about the origins of the coronavirus and the recent presidential election, as well as conspiracy theories like QAnon, according to a new NPR/Ipsos poll."[8] Notice the careful wording that stops short of calling the lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Obviously it is irrational to believe something without evidence, which is what the poll is measuring. The lead of this article says that conspiracists attribute actors who are "sinister and powerful." Most sources add that they are seen as absolutely evil, omnipotent and omniscient IOW superhuman or supernatural. Not every unfounded or false belief fits into that category.

If we keep the chart, at least we should accurately represent what it was measuring.

TFD (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are are variations of the lab leak theory that cross the line into conspiracist thinking, e.g. the lab deliberately leaked Covid-19...the lab accidentally leaked Covid-19 and there is/was a conspiracy to hide the truth, etc. In any case, given the evolution of discussion in RS over the past year, the topic probably isn't a good fit for inclusion in the article - unless the conspiracist variations are clearly specified. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I removed the covid19 lab leak entry on the table for now. Seems to be a reasonable consensus that it's not fitting for that table at this time. Feel free to revert if there's a strong objection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

JFK Espoused Conspiracy Theories

We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

--- JFK

JFK, "The President and the Press: Address Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association", April 27, 1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF10:0:D044:2E29:F00:CAC2 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

JFK is describing the Soviet Union and its allies, in the sort of language that was commonplace in the US at the time. Nothing in that quote amounts to a 'conspiracy theory' in the sense that the term is generally understood, as far as I can see. Not that it matters anyway, since we don't decide for ourselves that a few words in a speech constitute evidence for JFK being a conspiracy theorist. That would constitute original research. Instead, to include such a conclusion, we would need to cite an appropriate reliable source, qualified to make such an assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that you would need a source that made this interpretation. The claim as stated in any case does not meet the criteria to be a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a difference between a theory about a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, the latter ascribes actions and intents with no evidence beyond "they are powerful".Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

'On January 27, in an appearance on NBC's Today she said, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Denial_and_subsequent_admission, citing https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/return-hillary-clintons-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-excuse/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF10:0:D044:2E29:F00:CAC2 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Same response as to your earlier suggestion regarding JFK. For inclusion in this article, you'll need good secondary sources stating that Hillary Clinton is a conspiracy theorist. Better ones than a single opinion piece in the highly-partisan National Review. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

National Review isn't as highly partisan as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF10:0:D044:2E29:F00:CAC2 (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If I am reading between the lines correctly, you are arguing against the concept of conspiracy theories by saying that relatively respected people also talk about conspiracies. A conspiracy theory is not just a theory that a conspiracy exists. Compare for example what JFK said with the claims of Jewish Bolshevism, or that the Communists control the U.S. government, mainline churches and your local PTA, or are behind water fluoridation, or cultural Marxism. One is rational speculation while the other is irrational fantasy. TFD (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

They won't be responding for 60 hours, I've blocked them after a rapid descent into puerile abuse. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Even if there were sources for JFK or HC being conspiracy theorists, that could be used in the articles about them only. To use it in this one, those people would need to be used as typical examples by sources talking about conspiracy theories. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Misuse to discredit legitimate enquiry

The article as a whole conveys the sense in which the term "conspiracy theory" was used in the past.

The key element of a "conspiracy theory" is that it assumes a high degree of secret collaboration among several groups of people; for example, the belief (held by some) that the US Government arranged the 9/11 attacks is a "conspiracy theory", because it assumes secret cooperation among many government officials in more than one department of government. In reality, we know that when a "secret" is known to so many people, it is bound to leak out; that is why "conspiracy theories" are unlikely to have merit.

Now, however, it is often used as a term of abuse, or a way of dismissing some hypothesis that may or may not be true. A hypothesized cover-up that can be arranged by a handful of people known to each other should not be described as a "conspiracy theory". People really do try to cover up illegal actions, and the people involved are sometimes prominent politicians or wealthy businesspeople; but when this is suggested in a particular case, the response is often to end all rational discussion by labeling it a "conspiracy theory". Longitude2 (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but this is about the "high degree of secret collaboration among several groups of people" types. Which are still doing the rounds (pizzagate, Covid, Quanon) and those are the ones that this article is about.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The article does not make that clear at all. In the intro, "an opposition to the mainstream consensus" is cited as justification for calling something a conspiracy theory. Of course in some fields (medicine, for example) there really are experts, who generally are ethical, independent, etc and whose consensus has weight. But in other areas (crime, politics) the "mainstream consensus" is just what influential news media publish or what conforms to popular prejudice, and should be accorded little or no weight. "Consensus" in and of itself does not make a narrative more likely; the pizzagate conspiracy theory, for example, seems to have been believed by a majority in Turkey for a while. "High degree of secret collaboration among several groups of people", on the other hand, is a fairly objective criterion. I suggest that the wording about "mainstream consensus" be removed, and a statement added somewhere to the effect that the term "conspiracy theory" is sometimes wrongly used to smear an opinion, or a source, or an explanation that the speaker/writer does not like. Longitude2 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand that the word is abused, used to dismiss people who ask tough questions, but I'm mainly concerned with sourcing this statement from a reliable source. Wikipedia, by principle, is based on the viewpoint of mainstream experts, who tend to be pretty uncharitable towards conspiracy theory. If you can find a source, we can add a section called "Misuse" or something. MarshallKe (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe in the section about "Difference from conspiracy"?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Longitude2: If you have a source for this that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia, we can talk MarshallKe (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus in social sciences is what social scientists, not journalists or the general public, believe. If there is consensus, it is just as valid as consensus in medicine. So we treat the Holocaust as a fact, and people who deny it happened are conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Longitude, I may have found a source for you, but I have not vetted it thoroughly yet: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pops.12285 MarshallKe (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ukohli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2020, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jnelso4. Peer reviewers: Jkebreau.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Powerlessness description

Under Psychology -> Attractions, linking the word powerless to the Wikipedia article for empowerment would help describe what exactly is meant by the term "powerlessness". — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Yeah probably.  Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 06:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

'Justification' of conspiracy theories

I admit I haven't read every word of the article, but para 2 of the lead, which discusses theories' resistance to falsification, doesn't seem to mention the common argument of theorists that any debunking of the theory is ipso facto proof that the debunker is part of the 'conspiracy'. This seems to be to be a powerful pseudo-argument in support of any theory, and deserves a mention. Chrismorey (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's encompassed in the first sentence of the paragraph:

Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.

This idea is more explicitly touched upon in the Rhetoric section. Specifically:

Similarly, the continued lack of evidence directly supporting conspiracist claims is portrayed as confirming the existence of a conspiracy of silence; the fact that other people have not found or exposed any conspiracy is taken as evidence that those people are part of the plot, rather than considering that it may be because no conspiracy exists. Happy (Slap me) 14:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Disinformation"

@Altanner1991: I removed your unexplained addition of the "Disinformation" category, as I don't understand how it's relevant to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: The template is at the same time the disinformation template as well as the misinformation template, meaning topics such as Deception, Denialism, and conspiracies of various nations are organized under this navbox. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't quite parse what you're saying here. But it sounds like you're conflating this article with real, proven conspiracies, which is off-base. Misinformation is not the same as disinformation. That's why I removed the category template, it's inappropriate for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The page discusses conspiracy theories so the navbox goes on that page. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

That... still doesn't make sense. This page doesn't get added to the navbox until you add the category template. And you've yet to justify why this category template should be added to this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but now I'm the one who doesn't understand. Could you please point me to the meaning of category template? Altanner1991 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You're adding the {{Disinformation}} template to the page, which places it in Category:Disinformation.

I'm trying to understand why you believe this should be added to the Disinformation Category. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Very strange. You thought I added the category Disinformation and then you said that navboxes are only added after categories, and yet you are a highly experienced Wikipedia editor from 2006. How do you explain your odd behavior? Altanner1991 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one with odd behavior? You're the one going around in circles and refusing to explain your reasoning. I try to explain why your addition makes no sense, and you come back being obtuse and insulting me.

Fuck it, I'm not going to bash my head against the wall trying to get a sensible answer out of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a navbox, not a category. Categories are added with the [[Category:]] template whereas navboxes are added with curved brackets {{}}. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I misread the edit and thought you had added both. My apologies.

That said, you just hit WP:3RR, so you really need to quit forcing this into the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this closer... Category:Disinformation is not tagged on this page. That's why I was confused before. Perhaps someone manually added it to that navbox? regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and Misinformation mention each other and overlap in premise, and furthermore the related concepts are plentiful, for example cognitive bias. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a definite difference between disinformation and misinformation, and I feel the former does not apply. Cognitive bias is a completely different subject. That said I'm already frustrated by this debate, so I'm just going to back out. Do whatever you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I for one think that until the Misinformation and Disinformation templates are separated, that it would be a good navbox, although I will wait to see if others have comments. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The navbox started from scratch on January 17th, 2017 and has had conspiracy theories since June 2nd, 2017 (link).

Still, comments from other editors would be welcome. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't do categories anymore, but categories need to be sourced. You cannot add category:X unless the article says that the article subject is X, and for the article saying that, there must be a source saying that the article subject is X. See WP:CATV: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. The justification mention each other and overlap in premise is not good enough, even if it were disinformation that is mentioned and not misinformation. If the article about cats mentions that cats eat birds, you cannot use that as justification to add the cat article to Category:Birds.

I don't know about navboxes, but it would be very weird if one could add those without verification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The Interventions portion of the article currently talks about misinformation (and I have added the link) so it would make sense that the misinformation navbox be included on the page. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The article currently talks about a lot of things, including Psychology, Sociology, Politics, etc. We use WP:CONSENSUS to decide what categories and navboxes are appropriate rather than edit-warring or tendentious argumentation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, consensus is the only way. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence, but lean towards inclusion of this category. Conspiracy theories are often one of the primary outputs of disinformation campaigns. Examples include Creationism (that scientists conspire to suppress info on it), the big lie (claiming that the election was stolen by a conspiracy against Trump) and the antivaxx movement (claiming that there's microchips in vaccines to track people, etc).

The other side of the coin is the fact that including it in that category seems to suggest that this article is disinformation, when it clearly is not. But that's not a powerful argument, because this is an encyclopedia, quite the opposite of disinformation. Happy (Slap me) 14:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

because this is an encyclopedia, quite the opposite of disinformation

Well, Conservapedia exists. I'm just sayin', encyclopedias can be disinformation.

That said, I don't think this article fits the category, because while conspiracy theories can be disinfo, they're often just misinformation repeated by people who either don't know better, or don't want to know better. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The navbox is for articles that are either disinformation or misinformation, and not necessarily both at the same time. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the category. And frankly, that navbox is overly broad.

This is why I always !voted to get rid of categories & navboxes when the topics come up, they're just more trouble than they're worth. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I never changed the categories and would like the article in the navbox. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe conservapedia is an encyclopedia in the same sense that I don't believe creation science is science.

It may pretend to be, but at the end of the day, it's just so much bullshit made up by people who can't handle reality. Happy (Slap me) 20:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Misinformation"

The article relates with the article on Misinformation and I think the Mininformation navbox should be at the bottom of the page. Please voice your opinion on that connection for the articles (the above section discussed category templates and disinformation). Altanner1991 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"When other explanations are more probable"

What kind of citation ascertains the probability of reality? Can we ask that oracle about the most probable future for us? I'm sure all of us would like to know. However if this oracle is unable to provide an answer, how can it know the probability of any reality?

I request a deletion or modification of this passage on above grounds. It's obvious WP:POV LordParsifal (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of probability is indeed not very useful when it comes to such things. The probability of an idea being true, given a set of facts, is always subjective, even when the Bayes formula is used. Only the probability of a set of facts being like that, given that a certain idea is true, can be computed without further assumptions. Plausibility is better, although it is subjective too.

But it is in the source like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No, but we can say that no one who has any credibility believes this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Believes what? Are you implying that all conspiracy theories are doomed to be less probable than all official lines of all events? There would be no conspiracy theories if conspiracies didn't happen from time to time. LordParsifal (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No I am saying we go by what credible sources (i.e. wp:rs) say. So if RS (for example) say "When other explanations are more probable" so do we. Nor are we talking about reality, we are talking about explanations as to how likely a given idea is. FOr that we go to credible sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Are there any credible sources which are unaligned with the powers-that-be, or more broadly (in the Marxian/Foucaultian sense), which are unaligned with Power? Wikipedia should self-reflect critically what is credible when Power might have ulterior motives, and that is doubly important in an article about the concept of "conspiracy theory." The bourgeoisie would naturally try to make the proletariat think that it's not scheming in any way against the proletariat. Or am I spouting some sort of weird conspiracy theory here? Is Plato's Republic and Marx's life's work one big conspiracy theory, and therefore "less probable than another Explanation(TM)?"

What I'm saying is important with regards to Wikipedia's founding programmatic goal. Which is what? A free encyclopedia, edited by users.

Or are we doomed to toe the corporate line? Is that a free encyclopedia?

I will now go over the "sources" and check how they try to discredit the very concept of a conspiracy theory itself. Such an assertion is audacious and tenuous and does not deserve to be in an article on a Free encyclopedia. Cheers. LordParsifal (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If your position is that the news media and academia are in the pocket of the government (or some other shadowly elites, it is hard to tell) then yes, you are spouting some sort of weird conspiracy theory here - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at a straw man argument, I never said what I personally believe because I merely believe in WP:NPOV. But from what is clearly intelligible in your post, the logical conclusion is that damned should be Plato, Marx, Chomsky, Debord and Baudrillard, for they all spouted such "weird" concepts that were just weird "conspiracy theories." Guess all of academia is into what amounts to just some weird conspiracy theories. Nuts! Quick question: is CRT a conspiracy theory? LordParsifal (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it, I personally have owned several CRTs over the years. MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_20, which includes relevant citations. The sentence originally had a pipelink to Occam's razor which helped better clarify it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC).

I'm sure there are many ways a long argument about a falsity could be had. Doesn't change the fact that not all official versions of events are a priori more probable than unofficial versions of events which is the crux of the debate. LordParsifal (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

U.S.-originating conspiracy theories targeting other countries

This source was rejected by Venerable Editors(TM).

I am asking for an explanation how what is depicted in the article is not a U.S.-originating conspiracy theory (by the very definition of the word). How does that work?

If this primary source isn't allowed, then is there any non-corporate source that I could use (one that's listed as credible)? Or are all permitted sources merely Credible(TM)? Let me open this discussion. LordParsifal (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

References

The objection is not to the source, the objection is that the source does not actually contain the claims you are attempting to add to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

What you're doing here is tantamount to citing a photo of a plane you can't identify as proof that aliens are visiting Earth.

"I don't believe this story, therefore this story must be false, therefore this story is a conspiracy theory because it involves spies," is no more logically valid than "I can't identify this airplane, therefore it's a UFO, therefore aliens must be here because they are related to UFOs." Happy (Slap me) 19:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I figured perhaps there was some misunderstanding and that sourcing on Wikipedia perhaps doesn't work like that (can't use primary sources?) but the whole concept of a primary source is so tricky in the modern age, with paper being a nearly outdated medium and so on. Regardless, under the definition provided by Wikipedia (which was formed using the only possible credible sources), the theory put forth by American intelligence in the article linked, is a conspiracy theory, which targets a foreign country, and is therefore an example of a U.S.-originating conspiracy theory. Is there any further misunderstanding or did I get something wrong? Thank you for your patience and your attempt at elucidation. LordParsifal (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH WP:NOR is a good place to start to explain why and where you've gone wrong. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Would Zizek, or Chomsky, be considered credible sources when it comes to this topic? How do you think? I can see you are a proud member of the LGBTQ+ community, and I am too (as an ally, and intersectional). So I mean, I hope we're in editorial agreement here that, yes, the United States Government is actively participating in information warfare with the so-called National Security Enemies, and that necessarily implies creating and spreading conspiracy theories targeting National Security Enemies. If we're in such agreement, can we now work this conundrum out? I appreciate any help. LordParsifal (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That is...not how Wikipedia works. You need sources for statements. Period. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That is...not quite what I had asked. LordParsifal (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No you asked a ridiculous question about finding common ground with me based on something that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

There is certainly a misunderstanding here, and it is your misunderstanding about how sources work. You may not grab random news articles, make up your meta-narrative around them and then use them to support your own beliefs as facts in the article.

I strongly suggest you stop trying to win an argument here, as you are so clearly trying to do, and start listening to what these experienced editors are telling you. Happy (Slap me) 20:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Greenbrier Hotel Bunker

Question - the Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia has a government bunker that was kept secret for nearly 30 years. During the time it was a secret there were a number of newspaper articles referring to the bunker as a conspiracy theory. Ultimately, it turned out the bunker did in fact exist. Would this be an example of a conspiracy theory, or does it not qualify because it turned out to be true? My interest in the topic is purely academic - my grandfather worked for Mosler during the construction of the bunker. He wasn't aware as to the purpose of the bunker (they said it was an exhibit hall or something), but years later we found out his boss was sworn to secrecy or some such nonsense by the US Government when the bunker was built. Apparently the bunker has a big door on it and Mosler manufactured the deadbolt. Obviously the whole thing turned out to be nonsense in the end, so Im not sure how this would be categorized. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:4C2A:72:E5C1:95CD (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that specify the existence of the bunker itself was a notable conspiracy theory? According to sources I could find, the only conspiracy theories about the Greenbriar bunker arose after it was acknowledged - claiming it was intended to house a Shadow Government/New World Order/Police State. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have an old (1976) copy of the Meagher County News. Not sure if it can be uploaded somehow, but it mentions "rumors" and "a conspiracy" regarding the existence of the bunker. As far as New World Order stuff, I hadnt heard anything about that nor was I referring to such. I was simply referring to the existence of the bunker itself being a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:4C2A:72:E5C1:95CD (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper reporters are not experts on conspiracism and therefore their use of the term doesn't mean it actually was a conspiracy theory. However, if they called it an alleged conspiracy, that is, government officials allegedly conspired to keep it secret, then it would be just that until it was proved.

It may be however that there were conspiracy theories surrounding the story. That would require that government officials were not just selfish and secretive, but that they were evil, all-knowing and all powerful working in conjunction with an international cabal.

Conspiracy theories can neither be proved or disproved because they contain assumptions about the world that there are people with the ability to silence anyone and falsify evidence without detection.

TFD (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Not really as it was shown to be true. Also being a "rumor" or "conspiracy" does not make it a "conspiracy theory" we need RS saying it was one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Project Greek Island aka the Greenbrier Hotel Bunker was a more permanent version of the secure but secret locations US Senators are taken to when the Capitol is threatened, and there are no conspiracy theories about those that I know of. But yeah, we'd need multiple reliable sources identifying Greenbrier as the object of a conspiracy theory, what that theory claimed, and who were its proponents. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at newspaper archives from the 70s and 80s and didn't see anything calling out a conspiracy or discussing conspiracy theories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, not sure what you mean. There are literally dozens of articles (the most famous being the Ted Gulp article in 1992) about the bunker, some of them mentioning in the headline that it is "stranger than any conspiracy theory". Prior to 1992, any mention of the bunker was likely to be met with ridicule, because for all intents and purposes, the bunker didn't exist. At least not officially. So for example, in 1980, if you were to have written an article about the bunker below the Greenbrier, you would be dismissed as a kook or conspiracy theorist. Remember, the bunker itself was a national secret - those with knowledge of it were sworn to secrecy under penalty of treason. I would highly recommend reading the Gulp article for more information. It's fascinating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:4CE2:9256:BD36:E160 (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Secret projects aren't conspiracy theories, even if they're odd and camouflaged. They're not conspiracies, they're just secrets. The headline is a bit sensationalist. I read the Gup (not "Gulp") article when it came out. Gup was never charged with "treason," nor anybody else. Acroterion (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This strikes me as just another one of those supposed examples of "conspiracy theories that turned out to be true" (it's not) that people on Reddit use to try to convince you to believe in the conspiracy theory they're pushing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Saying it is "stranger than any conspiracy theory" is like saying truth is stranger than fiction. That doesn't mean that truth is fiction. TFD (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

The European commission does not believe in it, therefore I suggest this example be removed, as a serious political body is not the same as a conspiracy theory believer. 82.66.130.187 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Cite your source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No one "believes in" fluoridation. It's an issue of public health, not religion. TFD (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/1.htm, seems to contradict your claim. Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Revisions

Praxidicae, why have you undone the most recent changes? The latest one, not the first one. Gwynhaas (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

From my talk page

@Slatersteven: Hey, I hear you. This is getting more confused so let's slow down on the reverts. There are two issues developing. First, Praxidicae jumped in after Sunrise reverted because he did not agree with splitting believers/promoters and outcomes into two different paragraphs. I organized it differently after Sunrise's edit, in a way I thought was better, and based it on Sunrise's helpful input, and Praxidicae reverted that without giving an explanation other than "makes no sense to do this". We're still waiting on that explanation on the talk page. The edit you reverted is not about the splitting of the paragraph on outcomes. As was explained in the edit summaries (which I'm assuming you didn't read) the content in the lede is not in the article, and splitting a run on sentence. Your revert is the least helpful and justifiable of all. You should explain why you are reverting in an edit summary or on the article talk page, or even just use an edit summary before demanding someone else "make a case" on talk to fix a run on sentence. Please refrain from continuing the discussion here. we may not need two sepaarate discussions but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I would request that the discussion take place at the article talk page and not here, so if the replies here continue I'm going to remove this section. Gwynhaas (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Per wp:brd and WP:ONUS, once you are reverted it is you who need to go to talk and justify your preferred version. If YOU do not get wp:consensus for your edits you cannot reinsert them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that applies here because you have not said what you think the problem with the edit is. I am of course interested in that. We can achieve better outcomes together, so why would I edit war with you? How would that help the article? I only want what is best for the article, as do you, even though you are using all caps to yell at me, and I feel your anger, I hope to convince you that I am always open to consensus building and productive discussion, and am not interested in any threats or intimidation that are not serving our purposes here. Gwynhaas (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it does. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", now I have not objected beyond "get consensus", which you do not have. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

So what is your case for these edits? convince me they are an improvement. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not seeking to include disputed content. It's not worth the squabble if it were addressed by a lighter touch. My reorgnization was heavy handed and I am not insisting it be adopted. When I reviewed the article content more carefully after Praxidicae's revert I did not find that heavy handed reorganization would be necessary as I thought, at first, because it had been altered from what is in the article. I can't know why Praxidicae reverted but this may be the reason because it made sense when it was compared against the article version, and so my changes did not make sense (per Praxidicae's edit summary). I would be satisfied with minimalist changes. A sentence should not be two separate sentences, one for "believed" (as in the propaganda is believed by those who justify violence (terrorists and states alike)), and then the act of "spreading" post-Truth narratives to delegitimize or sabotage existing ones. One option is to improve the article content on the latter matter, but others have told me that lede content should be already in the article, and so to revise based on article developments. Have you checked the RS in the article yet? Gwynhaas (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the original version

I would like to go back to the version before the dispute started and take it from there. When Sunrise reverted my edit but partially kept my changes about "spreading" disinformation, it created the run on sentence. My original edit split the sentences about governments to emphasize the act of spreading conspiracy theories as disinformation to justify repressive politics rather than subjective states of belief that terrorists may have. This was based on the RS which says elite articulations of conspiracy constitute systemic disinformation I do still believe this can be improved, and I prefer to improve the existing article content rather than remove anything from the lede, but until a new consensus is reached, I would prefer the version before I started editing. The new version is a disaster I did not intend. Gwynhaas (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have restored to that version. Please make your case here and get a consensus before you make similar edits again.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I was only trying to remove content that I myself added because it made the sentence bad when Sunrise partially reverted and conjoined the two sentences in a way I had not intended. I wasn't even trying to split the outcomes and actors into separate paragraphs, which is the only part of the edit that was disputed, but to fix the newly constructed sentence, which it turns out it was just my own additions that I was trying to remove. So, by splitting the sentence again I did make a similar edit but I did not realize it until after the fact because this part of my edit to split the sentences was not disputed, and it had been partially preserved by Sunrise's edit. Then other editors kept re-reverting back, but to the wrong version, which is fixed now by your latest edit. Gwynhaas (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy??

How can this be considered a Conspiracy or ‘Fake news’ when it is blatantly spoken about by Governments all over the World and especially Klaus Schwabb and the NWO. They have a BOOK about it if there is any other proof needed to assist in fact checking 97.124.58.169 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What is? Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying the governments never say false things? No government, ever? I'd say rather that every government that ever existed has lied, sometimes with good reason, but still lying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

And no BOOK ever published has been false? What about The Hitler Diaries? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)