Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations

The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.

The reason the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is logically self-contradictory is because everyone with an I.Q. high enough to tie their shoes is a believer in conspiracies. Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.

Thus, those making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" are also believers and/or promulgators of notions regarding conspiracies--often far more so than the person being accused as being a "conspiracy theorist."

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate a plan which involves doing something untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component of conspiracy).

It certainly says something regarding the intellectual blinders one making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is wearing that they don't even stop to realize the logically self-contradictory nature of this charge, as going by the literal meaning of the two words in the phrase "conspiracy theorist." For the one making this charge is himself a believer in conspiracies.

And so it is here where we come to the real meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" as it is used by those making the charge. What they mean by this charge is that the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which have not been offically sanctioned by the accuser's government--whereas the accuser making this charge believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which his government has deemed appropriate for the public to believe in. The difference between the two is that the accuser believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are statist in their implications, in that they merely reiterate the offical government line--whereas the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are anti-statist in their implications, in that they go against what the accuser's government would have the public believe.

Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so? 209.208.77.208 21:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC) by James Redford

Here, here, common sense, yet, or perhaps because, an excellent point.

New article structure

Please see the brief discussion concerning this restructure under the Let's be serious heading above. My guiding principle here has been - what if a 15-year old kid needed to find out what 'conspiracy theory' is about, and came to this article to find out? How do we set things up in the appropriate order such that s/he gets a clear grasp of the material, ie, moving logically from the simplest abstract definition ever-deeper into the details and complexities of the subject?

I have attempted to find a place for every item of content that has been re-jigged, but if a cherished detail has slipped through my fingers, please respect the new structure (at least, for a while!) and try to reinsert it where it fits best into the flow of the article. In particular, if it seems to you that the article's objectivity is questionable, please discuss here first, or consider placing your correctives within the Controversies section. Adhib 13:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your version of the page, it downplays the other definitions of "conspiracy theory" and the way the phrase is improperly and non neutrally used to discredit. zen master T 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m has rv'd the entire article, which is a tad more serious than simply disputing it. Still, we have some concrete points to proceed from:

• The second sentence of the article makes plain that the phrase can be used and understood as discrediting. There is then a section under controversies further discussing the issue of 'Legitimate usage'. I'm happy to expand on that somewhere else if you have any clear suggestions?
• What other definitions of conspiracy theory are excluded? If you want to tell me, I'll put them in, or you can do it yourself.

Adhib 13:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your intro seemingly plays up the whole dubious tainting "genre" angle. Also, the secondary discrediting definition should be mentioned in the intro. The phrase does indeed "connote that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" and that is a key to understanding it, please put back the last paragraph of the old intro. Additionally, the secondary definition needs to be more explicitly stated as that should make it obviously clear the phrase is not appropriate for use in descriptive contexts where neutrality is the goal. zen master T 15:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, I really want to understand and incorporate your POV, but I need you to respond to specific questions with specific answers, trying to avoid wider issues. I've beefed up the discussion in 'Legitimate usage', and note that the 'discrediting' aspect is already right up there in the intro. Adhib

Socio-political origins section

The following passage is not accurate: "The believer [in a conspiracy theory] is then excused any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance." This totally disregards the social justice movements that are often strongly linked with and based on conspiracy theories. It is totally inaccurate to accuse conspiracy theorists of excusing themselves from moral political action when, for example, the 9/11 Truth Movement actively seeks to identify, expose and bring to justice those who they believe perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. These are not lunatics huddling in a smoke-filled basement afraid of the outside world; they are actually doing everything in their power to reverse the perceived injustice of 9/11 as they see it. -- James

It's an accurate account of some academic work, which I will provide reference for as soon as I have time to go back to notes. The basic thesis is that, having explained a complex phenomenon as orchestrated by baddies, all one has to do is to convince people that those baddies are baddies, and bingo, the crisis is solved (whereas, of course, if those complex phenomena are due to complex causes, working out and applying the necessary complex solution requires a much more serious and committed engagement with politics in general). Adhib 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

(For the time being, I have incorporated James's point into that paragraph). Adhib 09:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean "baddies" such as al-Qaeda? It's good that you're taking this critical view of the U.S. government's promulgation of conspiracy theories. But to add to James' above point--and this is also from an academic--as Prof. Murray N. Rothbard wrote: "It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any 'conspiracy theory of history'; for a search for 'conspiracies' means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane 'social forces,' or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ('We Are All Murderers,' proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on 'conspiracy theories' means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the 'general welfare' reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A 'conspiracy theory' can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda." (From the article "The Anatomy of the State" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24.)209.208.77.74 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Murray sounds like just the kind of guy who should be quoted in the controversies section and referenced in the article's notes - care to put him there? Adhib 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems with recent changes

The concept of a "conspiracy theory genre" is tainted and tainting. We need evidence of "conspiracy theory" allegations being applied falsly, and evidence the "genre" was encouraged to reach dubious heights to make it even easier to discourage an objective analysis. Also, the old definition sentence "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" is a key point that should be retained. Also, the features list should be rewritten into paragraph format. We also need to make it explicitly clear that an allegation merely theorizing a conspiracy is woefully insufficient evidence that the tainting "genre" is applicable to it. Overall clarity and word choices also need to be improved. zen master T 17:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. This argument has been discussed on numerous pages, and those who share your views lost the only vote on the matter. The fact that you re-appear endlessly starting the same dispute over and over shows a lack of respect for a democratic editing process.--Cberlet 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh? The changes I have a problem with in the article were made in the last week, so I don't see how a months old vote is applicable on multiple levels? Regardless of where people stand on the "conspiracy theory" in titles issue I think we can all work together to have a Conspiracy theory article as NPOV as possible. Of my criticisms what do you specifically disagere with? Cberlet, you are an "conspiracy theory genre" author right? Is it possible you've been tainted by it? zen master T 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, people have bent over backwards to accommodate every reasonable point you have made. Adhib worked with you very patiently to address your concerns. Still you persistently revert and modify the page in ways you know very well are contrary to what most other editors want.

Your last edits are hardly even substantive, and are badly written to boot. You have taken a paragraph that was a model of clarity and balance and with each edit made it more sophomoric and inane. I am prepared to accept technically poor writing that is at least informative. I see no reason to work hard to create something that is neither.

Clearly you are an intelligent and well-informed person. I'm sure there are many areas where you could contribute constructively. I hope you will choose one and do so. Tom harrison 18:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to the points I raised in the first paragraph of this sub section. Should we go through the article line by line? zen master T 19:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Zen-master. Before I get onto these additional points, would you kindly respond to those which were left hanging in your enforced absence? - there are two specific queries in the section above for your attention - your precise responses there would enable me to incorporate your concerns more fully.

Now, on these additional points:

(a) I agree that the single feature 'alleges a conspiracy' is not in itself grounds for labelling - the label concerns a style of narrative construction, not its particular content.

(b) The genre concept is perfectly viable and well-understood, as I believe Zen-m pretty much conceded in the discussion over on Words To Avoid.

(c) Making the features list into paragraph form would make it less accessible, to my mind. What are other people's feelings on that? Adhib 08:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What does "...the label concerns a style of narrative construction, not its particular content" mean and how does that justify any of your changes? I don't think I conceded (nor understand) what you are claiming and I don't see how that can be justification for any of your changes here. The "genre" or "narrative" exists yes but it is tainted and tainting in the context trying to define the phrase in a neutral encyclopedia. As I pointed out below the features list is original research. What is wrong with defining the phrase with the succinct "irrational theory" or "self rationalizing theory"? zen master T 09:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, if you recall our discussion of Urban legend, you may remember that it is possible to consider a particular story according to its formal features, ignoring its specific plot details. That is roughly what genre identification always does. Conspiracy theory is no different. me

The second sentence of the article makes plain that the phrase can be used and understood as discrediting. There is then a section under controversies further discussing the issue of 'Legitimate usage'. I'm happy to expand on that somewhere else if you have any clear suggestions?

Basically, the old introduction and article was vastly better and more clear in my interpretation. The new one is less explicitly clear that the phrase can be used to bias or unscientifically present a subject and it does not note the specific mechanics of how it does that ("connotes that a subject is unworthy of series consideration"). Also, "body of arguments" and "eccentric individuals and faulty reasoning" sounds cliched and has more than a tiny hint of "genre" or "narrative" (Slim's argument) to me which is tainted and tainting (we should endeavor to describe the phrase and concept without using words from, or otherwise risking illegitimate guilt by association with, its "genre", at least initially). Also, the reference to "popular culture" seems too conclusive and perhaps unencyclopedic or at least out of place for the intro. Overall, the new intro and your other changes don't really seem to be saying anything, don't have a theme and are too bland, "making the term controversial in application" is an understatement. The phrase may be in our "popular culture" but the "narrative" is by definition "fringe", right? Here is another good clear sentence from the old article you deleted "The term 'conspiracy theory' is typically used disparagingly to undermine confidence in an interpretation of facts that is counter to the one being promoted.", what did you find wrong with it? Where is the explicit mention of the fact that the phrase is used disparingly (perhaps justifiably but never justifiable in scientific or emphiric contexts) in your version of the article?

I'll take bland as a compliment - the article as I found it was rather too 'spicy' to be encyclopaedic. I removed claims that the phrase necessarily is used 'disparagingly' because such claims are false. The phrase 'can be used' disparagingly, but it is also used in NPOV circumstances, just as Urban legend may be. me

What other definitions of conspiracy theory are excluded? If you want to tell me, I'll put them in, or you can do it yourself.

When the phrase was defined as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of series consideration" it was obviously clear to me that the phrase was woefully inappropriate in scientific and scientific method contexts, the new article is not obviously clear of anything at all (except it seems to be advancing the same ridiculous argument or emphasis on "narrative" that Slim made long ago in Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory minus the "prescriptive motivation"). What was your motivation for making all the changes?

'scientific method contexts?' Whatever are you referring to, here? me

Additionally, the features list has got to go, its list format is biasing and not as conducive to criticism and is of poor quality and way overly complex. I hate to quote wikipedia guidelines but that list strikes me as obviously original research now that I think about it. From what source did you get the list of conspiracy theory "features" from? zen master T 09:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wider pool of examples

There are too many examples that reference the 9/11 event.

This could easily promote individuals to suspect the rationalisation (as they would see it, dismissive rationalisation) of the phenomenon of "conspiracy theory" in this article to be itself a conspiracy, designed to undermine their claims of 9/11 conspiracy. The article then becomes a governmental propoganda exercise by government agents posing as ordinary Wikipedians to "explain away" their claims. The tone and rambling nature further re-inforces the very phenomenons that it warns of, where individuals fail to grasp such high-minded concepts and re-interpret them in a more simplified fashion (e.g. the article is delibrately unfocussed as a distraction tactic to disguise its methodical planning by governmental officials because a more chaotically written article throws off a more amateurish tone by which is to hide the systematic and methodical footprints of large governmental conspiracy, as one possible interpretation that could be taken).

On a different note of concern, the over-use of 9/11 conspiracy examples suggests possible personal subjectivity of the article's author towards this particular event, risking accusations of a failure of NPOV objectivity in its writing. A general article would and should carry generalised examples from across history and the globe. As per generic historical reporting conventions, comments on recent events should be avoided as far as possible because interpretations too close to an event are usually clouded from personal involvement on some level. The very choice of multiple 9/11 examples and references itself screams of an underlying personal involvement. Such involvement doesn't necesarily automatically confer a misinterpretation, I do recognise, but it risks such and could be seen that way irrespective of whether it is or it isn't clouded.

All of which suggests that it is only prudent and wise to distance the article from any recent events. I would also recommend that the range of examples is made wider to include no repeats and broadened internationally (e.g. JFK, 9/11, the Philadelphia Experiment, Roswell, etc. are all examples that usually place specifically the American government in the malevolent role and can thus be considered enumerations of the same example in one sense, as indeed the conspiracy theorists themselves often string these together in a complex narrative where one event feeds into the other events in a complex web of conspiracy).

Further in the interests of NPOV, the article should be more clear of distinctions between actual conspiracy and conspiracy theory. There is a tendency in mocking the more irrational conspiracy theories (which are often so perposterous that one cannot help but be unable to take them on a level of any seriousness) to dismiss the general concept of conspiracy as a valid possibility at all.

But actual instances of true conspiracy (not theories but factual conspiratorial events) include examples such as the Nazi Holocaust which includes the burning of the Reichstag as a trigger event, the 17th century Gunpowder Plot on the British Parliament (as well as historians considering whether the whole event might even have been a 17th century "sting" operation to organise the plot, merely to smoke out the traitors from hiding. Such "sting" operations - old and modern - are, on this level, entirely conspiratorial yet exactly real) and it is generally accepted by historical experts that Roosevelt most probably delibrately goaded the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor as the only means to get the American public to back entering the war (not responsible for the attack itself but behaving delibrately neglectfully in recognising the political expediancy that an attack could provide).

NPOV demands a fair hearing in both directions that, for example, when Churchill repeatedly warned the British Parliament of secret German re-militarisation that had him laughed at and shouted down in the Commons on numerous occasions, that would have been a "conspiracy theory" by Churchill at that time. The prevailing "Peace in Our Time" treaty secured by Chamberlain considered to be the non-conspiratorial consensus truth.

As history now records, Churchill may have been shouting theories of Nazi conspiracy to the British Parliament but he was absolutely and entirely right to do so. His conviction to never surrender in exposing and fighting the Nazi conspiracy (which, yes, was entirely a scheme of "world domination" and included what is generally regarded as the greatest acts of human evil thus far ever perpertrated), arguably saved the world from oppression and a majority of its citizens from systematic extermination or slavery.

Hence, we should not be so hard on the conspiracy theorists both for NPOV and because there have been rare examples where they turned out to be right - as conspiracy is a phenomenon that can exist - that we live in freedom and democracy today.

I enjoyed the article thoroughly but it might need a more neutral and objective revision - a small tweak or two - which obsesses less on the recent event of 9/11 and only conspiracy theories involving the American government. PetrochemicalPete 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a weakness of the article as I left it that 9/11 is used in illustrations on more than one occasion. This is an artefact of my trying to respect and preserve content from the article I edited, in which such examples featured prominently. We should certainly widen the pool of illustrations.

On the remainder of PetrochemicalPete's commentary, I think there's a serious problem with the restrospective claiming of certain narratives as conspiracy theories. Did Churchill's allegations of German rearmament, for example, really display any of the features we take as definitive of a conspiracy theory? Was the rearmament as secret as PetrochemicalPete presents it here? What precisely did people say at the time in response to Churchill's warnings? The article as it stands leaves it open for anyone to add referenced evidence of such a conspiracy being warned about as a conspiracy and dismissed as just a 'conspiracy theory'. It merely notes that such reference is not forthcoming from conspiracy theory boosters. Adhib 18:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Britannica 1(911!)

That antisemitism article from the 1911 Britannica seems interesting, but it's horribly garbled. Does anyone have a "clean" version of it? Bastie 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Other features

It seems to me that another feature of a CT is that it never gets any closer to being proven. They can go for decades and never amass any evidence in their favor. Bubba73 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

redundancy vs need to disassociate between allegation and "genre"

I think my intro sufficiently disassociates between allegations and the genre (though the entire article still needs work), what are Tom's "redundancy" reasons for reverting my changes? Do you acknowledge the need to disassociate between a specific allegation and the dubious genre? zen master T 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Zen-master, you really should stop reverting the page to your preferred version after everyone else's edits. You must know very well, from the extended and repetitive discussions here, that the viewpoint you are trying to inject is not widely supported. I am trying hard to maintain a presumption of good will on your part, but I am running out of generous explanations for your behavior. Your zeal for what you no doubt sincerely believe is becoming disruptive, and making progress on the page difficult. Please slow down give the edits time to at least be reviewed by others. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In your interpretation what "viewpoint" am I trying to "inject"? In my intrepretation the relatively recent changes to the article weren't "progress" at all, I am merely trying to salvage the introduction. zen master T 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As a gesture of good will, I am going to limit myself to no more than one edit per day. I invite you to join me. As far as substantive discussion, I don't quite know what to say that has not already been said. I see no point in each of us repeating ourselves. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting Bubba73 always shows up when you need reverting. Some points/questions:

1. Conspiracy theories (plural) should be bolded too to clearly disassociate between an argument type and association with a dubious narrative genre. (or we should disambig between the two concepts by creating two separate articles)
2. Adding "(and possibly paranoid)" seemingly taints the definition too far to exclusive association with the dubious narrative genre, this should be fixed somehow.
3. In your interpretation, what is wrong with explicitly stating "...especially in scientific contexts" and "The phrase is used primary by detractors rather than proponents of a theory"? zen master T 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

'Especially in scientific contexts' is a complexification that is unsuitable at this introductory paragraph level, where the objective must be to present a clear, simple description of the primary aspects of the topic. It is unsuitable because it suggests qualifications and differentiations within the genre which require further explanation and reference, but cannot (and should not) go into such refinements in the introductory sentences.

But there are larger problems with Zen-m's version of the intro; the phrase is used by people with no commitment either way to a particular story's veracity, eg, in academia, where it is used to identify a species of narrative in conversations about the species, not about individual members of the species. Use of the label, there, demonstrably lacks the intent Zen-m's intro alleges, to dismiss a specific conspiracy theory. It has a completely different intent, one which Zen-m's introduction naively denies, which makes Zen-m's 'improvements' to the intro unencyclopaedic. me

The intro already discusses usage appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" so how can "in scientific contexts" not be relevant? The "in scientific contexts" applies to the argument type, not the genre. Oh goodness, I just realized you are giving me the run around with this game since no action is taking place fixing articles mistitled with "conspiracy theory". The title of an encyclopedia article is a woefully inappropriate place to signify whether a dubious, tainting and unscientific genre applies to a subject. Feel free to write all the "narratives" you want in your own user space. zen master T 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at Paranoia, which says that there is a link between paranoia and conspiracy theories. I checked the last 100 edits of Paranoia, and I didn't see any edits by people who are editing here. Therefore, the independent set of editors on Paranoia agree that there is a connection between paranoia and belief in conspiracy theories. I moderated the tone by saying "possibly", and "possibly paranoid" was in parentheses. If you do a Google search on the exact phrase "Paranoid conspiracy theory" you get over 10,000 hits. If you look for "paranoid" plus "conspiracy theory", you get 192,000 hits. Bubba73 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of that link and how does it relate here? I agree that "paranoid" is related to the genre of "conspiracy theory" but not the argument type, but it doesn't belong in the intro of this article. zen master T 02:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought it should go there because the intro mentions "eccentric" people. It could go somewhere else. The purpose of the link to Paranoia is because there is a close link between it and the topic of this article. "is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories." - from Paranoia, independantly edited. Bubba73 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that paranoia usually includes a belief in conspiracies, but that most conspiracy theories have other origins. But, in popular perception they are associated. Someone could come here on the way to paranoia (no implication intended), and it might be helpful to have the link more prominently featured. Maybe something like "Popularly, conspiracy theories are associated with faulty reasoning, eccentricity, and paranoia. Labelling an argument..." I'm not sure I have a preference. It is included further down under clinical payshology.

Seperately, is it informative to say, "The term tends to used by detractors rather than proponents?" Should we dispense with that, or move it down to Controversies? Tom Harrison (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone who believes in a CT call it a "conspiracy theory". Bubba73 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"My impression is that paranoia usually includes a belief in conspiracies, but that most conspiracy theories have other origins" In recent years I've been wondering if perhaps many of these theories are made up by people just to have fun, knowing that a lot of people will believe them. Bubba73 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

please justify recent massive changes

After thinking about it I see no justification for all the recent changed which is why I added the equivalent of the {twoversion} template to this article which goes back to a version of the page before the recent whitewash (in my interpretation). zen master T 16:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the notice. You can refer to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Twoversions for many reasons why such a notice shouldn't exist. The fact that you're not using the specific template (although I'm not sure what's different about yours) isn't the point. Carbonite | Talk 16:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The TfD is on going, it should not be speedy. And anyway deleting a template sets no precedent for an individual article. zen master T 16:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There's overwhelming support for deletion and agreement that its not helpful in any way. Adding this notice (that's on the verge of deletion) is a demonstration of bad faith. Carbonite | Talk 17:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you are your buddies should propose a wikipedia policy that says "twoversion-esque" notices in an article aren't appropriate, a mere tfd isn't enough. zen master T 17:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? There's general agreement that such a template isn't appropriate. Is it your contention that users oppose the use of the template, but support the use of a notice that looks exactly like the template? You've been made aware that the notice is not appropriate. Continued reversions which re-add the template (whether subst'd or not) are a demonstration of bad faith. You need to make your case on this talk page, not by plastering a notice on the article itself. Carbonite | Talk 17:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The TfD is on going, I just voted keep, it most certainly should not be speedy, and there should be a lengthy transition period (assuming deletion passes), and some effort should be made to help resolve the disputes on all the articles that use it before it is deleted. But more fundamentally, to change what is approprite at the top of an article you need to change wikipedia policy through the normal proposal route, instead of sneakily speedy deleting a template. zen master T 17:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Inserting this tag is basically content forking, and it's a bad thing. Even if use of this template were not an intrinsically bad idea, it's factually wrong in this case. There are not two competing versions. There is just one version, and an editor who doesn't like it. I see no reason why the page should reflect anything but the consensus view of the editors. Zen-master finds himself on the wrong side of that consensus and can't seem to accept it.

I do not want to make this a bigger deal than it has to be, but isn't there some formal mechanism to deal with Zen-master's rapid-fire reverts? They are making it almost impossible to work on the page, or even to see what it says. Is there someone I should notify about this? I would rather not do that, and again I invite Zen-master to join me in agreeing to edit the page no more than once a day. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have reported ZM for a 3RR violation for making six reverts in less than 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zen-master. Carbonite | Talk 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The article was acceptible to many people for months until massive changes were made 1-2 weeks ago, I added twoversions as a courtesy instead of reverting back to the old version of the article (since you should justify massive changes on the talk page before you make them). Content forking can be a problem, but not signifying when an in good faith dispute exists is a bigger one. zen master T 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It was not acceptable to me, but I didn't want to do the major editing it needed. It improved greatly when there was a major revision on Oct 15. Bubba73 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It was acceptable to very few people. Most people gave up trying to salvage the article. Now at least it is beginning to reach an acceptable standard rather than an embarrassing one. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old version of the page specifically? The previous version made it obviously clear that the phrase "connotated" things which makes it inappropriate in scientific contexts, in my interpretation. Also, I think there is a mistake in the intro currently, please fix "The term tends to used by detractors rather than proponents" (missing "be" and "term" should probably be "phrase"). zen master T 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, I'm sorry you missed the discussion I initiated proposing the changes, and the earlier work I did on this article with the eminent User:Cberlet before the vandals got to both him and me. However, your suggestion here that the faults in the previous version were not discussed, or justified, is false. Nor is the existence of dispute 'not signified': there is an extensive section on 'controversies' in which such issues are clearly laid-out. Adhib 09:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation the massive changes made to the article around Oct 15th were not an improvement but a step backward. With the previous version of the article is was obviously clear the phrase is inappropriate in scientific contexts, it almost seems like you and others were trying to befuddle that point. The controversies section is woefully insufficient (as usual). zen master T 15:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

the phrase is inappropriate in scientific contexts is not a statement we should accept as neutrally true, as it denies scientific status to all social science that deploys the phrase. That is the opposite of encyclopaedic. I have asked Zen-m for an example of what he means, specifically, with this 'scientific contexts' exclusion of his. Perhaps I missed his answer? Adhib 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it the scientific method for a scientist/researcher to employ tricky language to connote that something is discredited because of an implied association with a dubious genre or would they use simple plain language and state facts directly? I am not saying "conspiracy" allegations can't be dubious, I am saying to follow various wikipedia policies you have to label subjects using simple plain neutral language, especially in titles. We are also required to note who is counter claiming a non mainstream allegations is dubious, we shouldn't just regurgitate in titles the mainstream's subtle POV that certain politically sensitive allegations are dubious. zen master T 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, the issue here is whether you are correct in stating that the phrase, conspiracy theory, is inappropriate in scientific contexts. I am conscious of scientific contexts in which it is perfectly appropriate. Adhib 19:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the "Real Life Imitates Conspiracy Theory" section? Does real life no longer imitate conspiracy theory, ever? Who decided that? -- James

A discussion of the merits of treating rigorous investigations into actual conspiracies, on the one hand, with Conspiracy Theory in the common usage sense on the other, is preserved in the controversies section. James, like anyone else, is free to expand on it if he feels he has some NPOV material to contribute. Adhib 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"Common usage" is precisely non neutral usage, hence within descriptive contexts the phrase should be inappropriate inside an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. We can certainly say "person X argues theory Y is a conspiracy theory" when cited as usual but we shouldn't use the phrase directly ourselves. zen master T 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This argument has been made by you, and the majority here at Wiki has rejected it repeatedly.--Cberlet 22:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't neutrality a more lofty goal than mere majority? Also, by what logical rationale do you and the majority reject it? zen master T 22:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think it is OK to continuously misrepresent the history and outcome of this debate, especially since you have repeatedly failed to convince more than a tiny handful of other editors that your position in the dispute has any merit whatsoever? Is that appropriate? I certainly do not think so, but am interested in your justifications.--Cberlet 22:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please point to instances of misrepresentation on my part with citations. I thought neutrality was more than a "position" on wikipedia? You seem to be arguing we should just ignore the problems with "conspiracy theory" and move on? Feel free to come up with a logical argument the refutes the charge that "conspiracy theory" is a biasing and unscientific method of presentation. Do you deny that labeling a cited allegation a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to associate it with the dubious "conspiracy" narrative genre? Would a (neutral) scientist resort to such techniques to "disprove" something? zen master T 03:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That there is a "problem" with the concept of the "conspiracy theory" is an idea that exists primarily in your head. This page bends way over backwrds to point out the issue of when it can be used to delegitimize a claim. That you refuse to accept the will of the majority, even as it agrees to include the POV of the minority, is evidence of your rejection of the democratic process, and your arrogation of your own views into an interminable series of confrontations that sap energy from editors who could be writing and improving text.--Cberlet 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I repeat my question from above, please point to instances of misreperesentation on my part with citations. All I am asking you to do is come up with an actual logical argument that defends "conspiracy theory" from a charge of lack of neutrality. It's rather tangential when you attack me or play the mischaracterization game. I dispute your characterization that the page "bends way over backwards", the issue here is lack of a logical justification for non neutral presentation. Please summarize exactly what the "will of the majority" here is besides some vote you keep referring to to do whatever you want to. And please stop resorting to disinformation tactics and simply come up with an argument in favor of "conspiracy theory" (as a starting point for future honest debating). When you don't debate honestly I interpret that as you seeking to hide something. zen master T 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless Zen-Master can explain how he reads the thoughts of hypothetical people who label things as conspiracy theories, he should not write that "Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory is as an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it". The non-opinionated version of that sentence is "Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory may be seen as an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it". Rhobite 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone is trying to imply a specific allegation is dubious because of association with an outlandish narrative genre what other accurate way of describing such a situation than it is "an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it" is there? The key point is no neutral or non-duplicitious person would seek to "ridicule" or "dismiss" someone else's allegation. And an [allegedly] neutral encyclopedia shouldn't regurgitate the ridicule or dismissal, I dare say that is POV. zen master T 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this "Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory is an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it, perhaps justifiably, leading many to consider the phrase controversial in application"? That is actually what you are trying to say but unfortunately you can't really come out and say it like that. Although "justifiably" is incomplete, "with political motive" or "with duplicitous motive" is kind of better. zen master T 17:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you a mind-reader? Rhobite is correct. Your version is not accurate nor is it NPOV. --Cberlet 17:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The key insight is not mind reading but trying to understand motivation behind word choices. Can we put back ", especially in scientific contexts"? I can't think of a situation where "ridicule" would be appropriate in scientific contexts. I agree "may be seen as" initially seems more NPOV, but the question remains what other valid ways of interpreting discrediting usage of "conspiracy theory" in descriptive contexts is there than interpreting it as "an attempt to ridicule or dismiss"? zen master T 17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No one responded to this point? Very interesting. So your position is that article titles should perpetuate ridicule? Also, "term" should be "phrase" as it's multi word, and "faulty reasoning" is a judgement call and I dispute that conclusion. Please fix. zen master T 16:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"So your position is that article titles should perpetuate ridicule?" My position is that accurate use of the term does not constitute ridicule. Further, the sentence "Generally conspiracy theories are associated with eccentric individuals and faulty reasoning" is entirely correct as written. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh, we've already established that use of "conspiracy theory" is an attempt at ridiculing a theory you claim is a part of a dubious genre. The question then becomes why don't you just use plain simple language like "this theory is dubious" or "this theory is non-mainstrea" rather than resorting to the suggestive phraseology like "conspiracy theory"? Why do you have to discourage readers from even undertaking their own investigation of the issue? Either conspiracy theory means just that some sort of conspiracy is alleged or it means a highly dubious narrative genre, what else is there? Shouldn't we avoid confusion of the two? Would a scientist trying to disprove something scientifically resort to the language of ridicule (or even the language of confusion)? zen master T 18:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We have certainly not established that "use of conspiracy theory is an attempt at ridiculing," but rather the contrary. We have established, to the satisfaction of most of us, that it is not. Conspiracy Theory is not in itself pejorative, or "biasing," or "an attempt at ridiculing."

But this has all been said before. Let me not try to argue by repeated assertion. You would find it no more persuasive than I do, and we would just be a wasting each other's time. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I think you are confused. What is "conspiracy theory" then, are critics of non mainstream theories saying a specific allegation is a particular type of theory or are they saying it is highly dubious because it has all the characteristics of the dubious narrative genre? Why else would someone point out a theory literally alleges a conspiracy than as an attempt to discredit it? You say "conspiracy theory" is actually to the contrary of ridicule, please explain your rhetoric. zen master T 22:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"What is "conspiracy theory" then...?" There seems to be a broad consensus that a consipracy theory is "a type of argument suggesting alternative explanation, hidden information, secret coordination and sinister motive behind what is commonly considered a straightforward historic or current event."

Furthermore, most of us think that "Generally conspiracy theories are associated with eccentric individuals and faulty reasoning. Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory may be seen as an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it, leading some to consider the term controversial in application. The term tends to be used by detractors rather than proponents." Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the phrase "conspiracy theory" is tainted beyond hope of repair. Too often it has been used to hide the truth or at least to discourage an objective analysis of politically sensitive subjects. Why would an allegedly neutral encyclopedia utilize language that discourages readers from performing their own objective analysis of certain subjects? Note this talk page sub section was created for disputing the circa oct 15th massive changes, the old definition of "conspiracy theory" made it obviously clear the phrase was inappropriate in scientific contexts, to quote from the past: "conspiracy theory connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which violates wikipedia plain direct language policy, not to mention it is the anti-thesis of the scientific method. An encyclopedia should not use language that connotes anything, it should state any facts directly and cite exactly who is claiming and counter claiming what. If you want to say you think a certain theory is dubious then you have to use the word "dubious", though that would be your POV. zen master T 23:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no doubting what your view is, Zen-m. The question for an encyclopaedia is whether your view has any validity. We're not much nearer settling that issue. For example, if I ask you to enumerate the cases where the phrase 'conspiracy theory' has specifically been used to 'hide the truth', would you do so? Adhib 22:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Any article that utilizes "conspiracy theory" in its title is a non neutral and unscientific presentation of a subject, for a list of articles see Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 22:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That'll be a 'no', then. Adhib 19:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want an example take a look at AIDS conspiracy theories, there are accusations from prominent nobel peace prize winning scientists that AIDS is part of some sort of biowarfare program, you don't get any more worthy of not being presented discreditingly than that (based on the quality of the scientists making the allegations). We need to disassociate description of a theory from (premature) conclusions about the validity of that theory. Just because someone alleges there is an exponentially evil conspiracy doesn't mean we should present their theory completely dismissively out of fear of causing panic in the streets. It's ok for an article to say "theory X is considered false by the majority of the scientific community" but it's not ok for an encyclopedia to discourage serious consideration of theory X, which is exactly what "conspiracy theory" does. Using dismissive language to present a subject is not a fact based approach and is unacceptable in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. zen master T 19:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, let us remember, alleges immediately above that too often it has been used to hide the truth. Invited to substantiate that 'too often', he presents just a single case: AIDS conspiracy theories. I'm puzzled: is it Zen-m's belief that AIDS is indeed part of some sort of biowarfare program, and that those treating such claims as just another conspiracy theory do so in order to suppress that fact? Adhib 23:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are you constantly misconstruing everything this guy says? He's saying very clearly indeed that the use of dismissive language to present a scientific debate such as the aids one, where nobel laureates -be it the minority- are taking part is unacceptable. And he's said it again, and he 's being very clear here, you dont seem dumb, then why do you so obviously pretend to be and miss the point? Diverting the discussion yet again to talk about the aids issue? Zen-m is making valid, logical points and is getting ad hominem attacks as far as i can tell here, of such intellectual calibre as "it's all in your head". The only decent level of discourse going around here, is actually courtesy of Zen-m, solely.

And to Tom Harrison who states: "We have certainly not established that "use of conspiracy theory is an attempt at ridiculing," but rather the contrary. We have established, to the satisfaction of most of us, that it is not. Conspiracy Theory is not in itself pejorative, or "biasing," or "an attempt at ridiculing."" Most of you? Who are you? Is there some self appointed datum on majority concensus or did i miss the ballot box? Because the talk page is full of people making the very same points Zen-m is, including myself, and i can't see how logical discussion -constantly being denying here or obfuscated-, is of lesser importance than some speculated shadowy majority vote. And "rather the contrary"? So conspiracy theory is actually an endorsing term, a favourable one, right Tom? Like another user pointed out here, the U.S. goverment's allegations of a conspiracy of terrorists against it during 9/11 would then be given a boost if we called it a "conspiracy theory" right? Oh, i guess you should be emailing the white house media stuff to inform them, that there is a great term out there that they have been missing. Because they claim there was a conspiracy against the United States of America, so how about calling them conspiracy theorists. You see it does sound ludicrous, and it always does so when you try to stand reality on it's head.

"did i miss the ballot box?" There is no ballot box; There has been extensive discussion: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2, Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive01. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

List of quotes

That's an enormous number of quotes. Should those go in Wikiquote, or should they be pruned back? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I cut the quotes - and "ameliorated" some text. Massive POV selection of quotes not appropriate for this page. Feel free to create a page Quotes selected by those favoring a conspiracy theory of history. --Cberlet 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The list of quotes is far too long, and many of them have nothing to do with conspiracy theory. It's possible that one or two that are illustrative of some point could be integrated into the article; Given the history of editing here, that should be worked out here on the talk page. Until then, I support reverting the page. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous poster, please join us on the discussion page. Most of the quotes you post do not appear to have anything to do with the topic of this page. Your editing appears to be highly POV. Please discuss here.--Cberlet 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have reported User:209.208.77.224 for violating the three-revert rule Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To anyone who might be following the discussion, let me say that things like the recent attack on the page accomplish nothing. They divert people's time away from actually working on articles, and they poison the atmosphere. Surely we would all rather spend our time in some other way. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Duggan

I've removed Jeremiah Duggan from the list of celebrity deaths, because I don't think the circumstances surrounding his death amount to a conspiracy theory. The German police believe he killed himself and have investigated no further. His mother, backed by the British government, wants the Germans to investigate further because she believes he was distraught when he died after the LaRouche movement tried to recruit him. It's not clear where the conspiracy theory lies in any of this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't the circumstances around his death that make it a conspiracy theory -- conspiracy theories are subjective, in the eye of the beholder. The simple fact is that, like the death of Vince Foster, there have not been and will never be criminal charges filed, but the allegations of foul play are made through the press and the internet, for political reasons. "A conspiracy theory is a type of argument suggesting alternative explanation, hidden information, secret coordination and sinister motive behind what is commonly considered a straightforward historic or current event."--HK 15:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory as a pejorative term

It has been asserted here in several places that the only people who use the term "conspiracy theory" are those who want to discredit the beliefs of others. This is just not the case. In looking through Google, I have found countless examples of self-styled "conspiracy theory" websites written by and for people who are fans of conspiracy theories.[1] People who think that conspiracy theories are stupid might use the term pejoratively but that doesn't make it a pejorative term. (By the way, a "term" can be either a single word or a group of words. See Wiktionary.) –Shoaler (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, well made, Shoaler. Hence my insistence on what might appear to be weasel words in the introduction, to dilute any claim that use of the term proves pejorative intent - it ain't so. You might equally raise the academic usage of the term, which has puposes completely divorced from settling the validity of particular stories, either way. Adhib 22:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Self styled "conspiracy theory" websites are most likely disinformation. Though regardless, whether someone is a claimed proponent or a subtle detractor of a particular theory that doesn't mean usage of "conspiracy theory" isn't 100% non neutral and unscientific. Why resort to tricky literal language confusion to present a subject? If you want to say "theory X is dubious because it has all the characterists of a certain eccentric narrative genre" why don't you say it exactly like that? In the best case "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous language and an encyclopedia should avoid ambiguous language. zen master T 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

But I don't want to say "theory X is dubious because it looks like a conspiracy theory." I don't want to classify theories at all. I just want to report how the term "conspiracy theory" is most commonly being used and give examples of theories which are being called conspiracy theories. I do not presume to decide, from the definition of "conspiracy theory", whether any particular theory is itself a conspiracy theory. That would be original research and prohibited on Wikipedia. –Shoaler (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Since "conspiracy theory" does classify things do you consider it inappropriate in article titles? See Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 15:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. A conspiracy theory does not classify things. Some people may try to classify explanations for events by saying that one or more are "conspiracy theories" but such categorization does not belong in an NPOV article. The article may report that certain explanations are widely considered conspiracy theories (if it can back it up with references) but not assert that itself. –Shoaler (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

So not appropriate in titles at all? In my interpretation the phrase "conspiracy theory" is tainted and non neutral beyond any hope of repair. In any descriptive context where it is used to present a subject (whether from purported proponents or subtle detractors) it is unscientific and biasing. zen master T 17:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant just the opposite. I consider "conspiracy theory" appropriate in titles. I do not view it as tainted and hopelessly POV. Only when it is used to present a subject would I agree with you. I would not say "x is a conspiracy theory" because whether something is considered a conspiracy theory or not is a matter of opinion. –Shoaler (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How is use in a title not presentation? If it's a matter of opinion how is opinion appropriate in titles? In the best case "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous language and an encyclopedia should avoid ambiguous language (worst case it is extremely tainting language). zen master T 18:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you really a Zen Master? –Shoaler (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

More of a zen journeyman actually. What does that have to do with "conspiracy theory" being unscientifically biasing in descriptive contexts? zen master T 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing, really. Just curious. Look, I don't think we're going to come to a meeting of the minds on this thing. We don't seem to use English in the same way. It's been interesting, though. –Shoaler (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please compare and contrast exactly how we are using english differently rather than just ending with rhetoric. "Conspiracy theory" is confusing language that discourages an objective analysis, descriptive use of it does not belong in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. This is basic NPOV policy here, we are required to cite exactly who is counter claiming a theory is dubious. zen master T 20:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Loony-tunes conspiracism 'discourages objective analysis' rather more frequently than any of Zen-m's (imaginary ?) thought-controlling opponents. Does Zen-m do battle against David Icke for 'discouraging objective analysis', or does he only hold one side of this debate to such standards? Adhib 20:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You actually need to come up with an argument in favor of "conspiracy theory" being neutral (good luck). zen master T 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but I think I'm done for now, thanks. Adhib 19:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Real life imitates ...

The wholesale reinstatement of this old section is not quite working, in my view. The discussion certainly could be expanded here, to enlarge on the issue touched on in the paragraph re:the Dreyfus Affair, but doing it this way requires the reader to forget almost the entire article preceding. The article establishes that Conspiracy theory is a genre that is not definable simplistically as 'theories which postulate a conspiracy'. This subsection proceeds as if it were definable in that way. It also imposes an immense catalogue of purported examples on the reader, where one or two examples would be ample to make the point. Any objections to my getting in there and working it over? Adhib 19:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I object. First, I object to your assertion that the Real Life section necessarily implies a definition of "conspiracy theory" contrary to the main thrust of the article. Actually, the real-life conspiracies listed simply show that, in some cases, narratives that were once discredited as conspiracy theories were subsequently validated, and that in some other cases, accepted real-life events might fit the stated criteria of conspiracy theory if they were not otherwise known to be true. Second, without the Real Life section, this article makes conspiracy theory look too much like evidence of mental illness. The section is important to highlight instances when the conspiracy theory has been or could have been applied, but did or would have negatively mischaracterized the event in question. For example, a general critic of most conspiracy theories, if honest, must concede that Operation Northwoods was laughed at and written off until government documents finally confirmed it as a real scenario planned by the government. -- James

I don't think the list does what James claims for it. Take Northwoods. As I understand the presentation of it on the 'pedia, Operation Northwoods was a proposed operation to conduct certain espionage activities - a proposal which crossed a definite moral line, and which was denied the go-ahead by the executive. Even assuming, for James's sake, that some of the actions imagined in the proposal went ahead, where are the citations showing that a conspiracy was either alleged, or in fact discredited as conspiracy theories? It seems to me James cannot simply assert that Northwoods 'was laughed at and written off' - who laughed at it, according to what record? As for James's second point, here he entirely confirms my assessment (above) that this subsection assumes the simplistic definition of conspiracy theory as 'theories which postulate a conspiracy', contrary to the main thrust of the article. Adhib 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're putting words in my keyboard. First, of all, I never claimed that Northwoods was put into operation, so when you assume so you're not doing it for my sake. However, its existence as a plan was vociferously denied for years. Secondly, I do not see how the section assumes conspiracy theory as "theories which postulate a conspiracy," as you say, unless you're just misinterpreting the commonality of the events listed. Actually, the events described in Real Life Imitates Conspiracy theory each meets several of the new criteria for conspiracy theory listed in the current definition, as subjective as those criteria are. -- James

It's central to the point that it takes more than a conspiracy to make a conspiracy theory. A list of real conspiracies may be informative, but it's tangential to the topic of this page. Those that are useful examples, or counter-examples, should be integrated with the rest of the page.

It's not just a list of real conspiracies that was deleted. It was a list of two kinds of real-life events: those that had once been labeled conspiracy theories, but were later proven true, and those events that resemble conspiracy theory as defined, although they are known to be true. -- James

Wikipedia already has several pages of lists related to conspiracy. I don't think we need another one. Those that can't be usefully integrated here should go in Conspiracy theories (a collection) or List of alleged conspiracy theories or 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

We're not talking about a list of conspiracy theories. We're talking about a list of events now agreed on as historical fact that were once considered conspiracy theories, or that could be labeled conspiracy theories under the definition, were they not otherwise known to be true. Their very relevance of these events is that they are anomalous to the current article. They are a necessary reminder, too, that sometimes conspiracy theories make good. -- James

And, keep in mind that the status quo ante version of this article, before the recent major re-write, included that list, so talk of whether we need "another" list relating to conspiracy theories masks the fact that the Real Life Imitates Conspiracy Theory section has some history to it, and real value as presented in previous versions of this very article. -- James

Again, those that are useful examples, or counter-examples, should be integrated with the rest of the page; Those that aren't should go elsewhere. Lists have their place, but I don't think that place is here. I don't object to having some of these things included, but I do object to a tedious enumeration that leaves the reader wondering what the point is.

Separately, I understand that James is replying point by point, but interpolating his comments into my own makes it difficult (for me) to tell who is saying what. Have people found a good way to do this, or do we have to choose between integration and provenance? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

radical and exciting

I like User:Shoaler's observation that "Others use the term for arguments they might not wholly believe in but consider radical and exciting." I think it should stay in the article somewhere. I don't think it goes well in the introduction. It would fit better in Legitimate usage, or maybe Sociopolitical origins. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the sentence is ever so slightly better than what was there immediately previous. However, the intro and article (massive changes made circa oct 15th) still do a horrible job of conveying the fact that the highly dubious narrative genre is often illegitimately applied to politically sensitive theories as an attempt to dismissively discredit them. zen master T 21:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"is often illegitimately applied to politically sensitive theories" - cites please? Adhib 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The key criteria is why use word choices that risk illegitimately dubious application when clear, neutral and unambiguous alternative phraseology exists? The only conclusion I see is someone wants to perpetuate language confusion. That is the essence of a neutral scientific presentation, it should have all the appearances of being fair which "conspiracy theory" does not. Even saying "this theory is dubious" would be an approvement over the tricky way in wich "conspiracy theory" works (though still far from neutral). zen master T 22:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two important things about "conspiracy theory" that need to be introduced in the header. One is the meaning(s) of the term and the other how it is being used. A lot of the heated discussion here has been confusing those two aspects. The first paragraph does well at defining the term, but the second paragraph was (is) pretty one-sided, slanted toward those people who use the term pejoratively. There are also people who use the term to describe something they think is "radical and exciting." You can find "conspiracy theory" websites by and for conspiracy theory buffs. Look at the popularity of The Da Vinci Code. It isn't generally called a conspiracy theory but it's in the same genre and the conspiracy theory buffs claim it. It's terrible science but it's pretty good entertainment. Anyway, I think that to be NPOV, the second paragraph should mention both uses of the term. –Shoaler (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a published source for this claim:

"Others use the term for arguments they might not wholly believe in but consider radical and exciting."

Thanks.--Cberlet 13:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I go back to the Top Conspiracy Site List which advertises the "best websites for Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theory, Cover-ups, Collusion and Hidden Secrets" and the dozens of conspiracy theory sites they list. They obviously do not think the term "conspiracy theory" pejorative in any way, and the mood of voting on the best conspiracy is light and playful while taking the possibility of there being real conspiracies seriously. –Shoaler (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. If I find a web site that uses the term "criminal" in a lighthearted way in reference to, say, the Bush administration -- does that mean that the term "criminal" does not function as a pejorative term in English? BrandonYusufToropov 14:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I did not say that "conspiracy theory" was not used in a pejorative manner. I just said it is not only used in a pejorative manner. The website I referenced uses "conspiracy theory" in a non-pejorative fashion and so the article needs to represent that point of view also. And this issue is important enough to be introduced in the header. –Shoaler (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point; sorry for missing it the first time around. BrandonYusufToropov 15:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Shoaler's point is true, which is (one part of) the reason for my initial formulation of the 15th Oct. The clarity of that point has been muddied somewhat as we have approached compromise with the Zen-m side of the issue. Such is life. Adhib 21:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of Conspiracy theory in Wikipedia article titles

Should wikipedia article titles take a chance at being pejorative? Why not use unambiguous language instead of taking a chance of being pejorative? zen-master [[User talk:Zen-master]] 16:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent question. I wonder if anyone here wants to address this. BrandonYusufToropov 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you asking if conspiracy theory is appropriate for use in article titles? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, various discussions on that migrated here, changes were made to the article that seemingly downplayed the obviousness of the phrases unscientific usage. So is anyone here interested in discussing this? zen master T 16:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the section heading from pejoratives to Conspiracy theory, so that if there is any discussion we don't start it by begging the question. "Is anyone interested in discussing this?" Well, I'm not. For some background, here is Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Title Neutrality for version 2.0 of the remove "conspiracy theory" from titles proposal. zen master T 18:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This policy was proposed and rejected; see Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory and Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence "Proposal 2.0". zen master T 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" have become a pejorative term. "Alternative theories" is neutral. "Allegations of conspiracies" is in between. --Striver 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Striver. zen master T 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a regular article talk page, not an appropriate location to formulate Wikipedia policy. Maybe somewhere like Wikipedia:Conspiracy theories version 2 would make sense. -Willmcw 21:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You may not have noticed Willmcw but discussion elsewhere on the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in titles moved here, this is actually one of the best centrally located places to discuss this issue. Read the talk page sections above too. zen master T 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

See [2] [3] and [4][5] for User:Cberlet's contributions to the genre of "conspiracy theories" (later moved to Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff [6]. nobs 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He's starting this up again?? This has been discussed, voted on, decided. The use of "conspiracy theory" is acceptable, and this page is for discussion of the article only. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Slim, numerous editors on other article talk pages disagree with you, the discussion was intentionally moved here, but we can move it to Wikipedia:Title Neutrality perhaps. I think we need more and new people involved in version 2.0 of the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in titles proposal, though if the pro "conspiracy theory" in title folks have nothing new to add there won't be much discussion there, so perhaps discussion here is good, or anywhere. zen master T 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed?

Are there any guidelines for using the Totally Disputed template? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There really aren't any formal guidelines for the tag, but I'd agree with letting it remain for a short period of time to give zen-master or others a chance to explain why the article is totally disputed. Specific phrases or sentences would be ideal. Carbonite | Talk 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing {npov} would be better in some way? I could support changing it to {npov}, though {totallydisputed} is a superset of {npov} and the factual accuracy is disputed template which I actually think is appropriate for this article. How can we work toward resolving this dispute? I think we may need to go through a diff between an early October version of this article and current line by line. zen master T 22:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

{totallydisputed} is just {npov} + "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed" (neutrality plus factual accuracy). In my interpretation, the early October version of this article was rewritten with a load of weasle words which downplay criticm of the phrase's usage, and subtly play up the dubious narrative genre. More mention of the possibility that the narrative genre is disinformation is needed. The article should be explicitly clear that labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt at dubiousness through association with the narrative genre. Also, "generally and "commonly considered" in the intro are incomplete and need to be fixed for NPOV. The new version of the article seems to be saying a lot less than the old version, we should go through the diff line by line. Did someone ever justify those massive changes? Though some of them were good. zen master T 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

{NPOV} might be justified had Zen-m been able to present his perspective as anything more substantial than his own perspective. NPOV policy specifies that NPOV must not be abused by cranks to claim undue weight for their barmy notions. The 'pedia's founder goes as far as to state: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Zen-m may kvetch against this settled principle till the cows come home, but needs to offer clear reasons if he seeks to overturn it. Adhib 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again Adhib you've gone misdirected way from the key criteria, seems like disinformation tactics in my interpretation. The issue is not notability of the alternative theories, the issue is whether the alternative theories are given a fair presentation or not. I agree these alternative theories are non-mainstream and should be presented as such, however, utilizing "conspiracy theory" taints even understanding the details of these alternative theories which is a no-no in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia and is at odds with the scientific method. We need to disassociate discrediting from description. zen master T 22:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you get to define the issue, here, Zen-m? On what authority? Where are the cites, the peer-reviewed studies, the statistics to back up your personal viewpoint? All I'm pointing out here is that your arguments are your arguments. Show us who else argues them and you've proved that you're not alone. Better yet, show us that some people with relevant analytical credentials agree with you, and you've gone some ways towards making your viewpoint credible enough to deserve inclusion in a 'pedia. Adhib 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

An allegedly neutral encyclopedia defines the issue as one of neutrality. You don't need citations to see that "conspiracy theory" obviously presents subjects unscientifically. zen master T 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you need citations if you want to keep the totally-disputed tag. To retain this there has to be more to it than 'Zen-master disagrees.' Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No one has justified the circa October 15th massive changes. No one has acknowledged the appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" in a title debate as it moved here from other talk page locations. I have listed numerous points of criticism against "conspiracy theory" that no one has responded to directly, you can be the first. zen master T 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

zen-master has done this before; any article he disagrees with he slaps a tag on and insists it stays forever, or until he gets his way. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you took the time to checkout the talk and article histories you will see I've been trying to salvage the mid October changes toward NPOV for a couple of weeks now, to little avail. The discussion and article have reached an impasse, a disputed header is perfectly appropriate. zen master T 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The only impasse I see here is in Zen-m's capacity or willingness to improve his case. Let him give us cites for the various points he upholds against the article, as a search on my sig will reveal I have requesting (above) for several days. Then a healthy debate can progress. Adhib 21:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The key criteria is why use biasing language when neutral and unambiguous alternatives exist? I agree that most alternative theories should be presented as a non-mainstream view, however, that does not justify ridicule or tainting the understanding of the alternative theories (nothing does in a scientific or an allegedly neutral encyclopedic context). zen master T 22:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If all you've got is this thoroughly explored (and, according to consensus, losing) argument, then by all means stick to it, for the edification of passers-by. But if you have cites and supporting evidence, let's see 'em. Adhib 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That was not consensus, that was a majority imposing its will for a duplicitous purpose. Why utilize what is at best an ambiguous method of presentation? zen master T 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

By using the word duplicitous, do you mean to suggest that I have some kind of malign ulterior motive? That I and others are conspiring to do something wicked? Am I misunderstanding you? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's all about language and word choices giving away true motivation, why use what is at best ambiguous language (and is at worst pscyhologically tricky POV pushing) when clear unambiguous alternatives exist? A neutral person or true scientist would not use such language. There has to be a reason why you and your highly coordinated gang so feverently defend the exact phrase "conspiracy theory", the answer is it has to be exactly the to be effective (to discourage an objective analysis, if you said "dubioud theory" that would obviously be POV but "conspiracy theory" is subtle at operates at the level of literal language confusion). The phrase's neutrality violation goes against basic NPOV policy, other editors have even pointed that out (but then they moved on apparently). Maybe it's time to start posting on numerous people's talk pages and see what happens. zen master T 03:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Adhib, keep in mind that Zen-master will repeat himself endlessly on this subject, with no variation. If you're interested in hearing the same assertions repeated 100 times, then by all means continue in this dialogue. Otherwise, if he comes up with nothing new (and he never has so far), the tag is simply removed after a few days. He usually tries to edit war it back in, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, J - if we reach 100, I may review my tactics! Adhib 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not become highly coordinated POV pushers. zen master T 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The totally disputed tag has been up for a week now, and I've seen nothing new. Does anyone other than Zen-master object to removing the tag? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If the proponents of "conspiracy theory" refuse to debate then remain the tag shall. zen master T 07:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Shall we vote on it? -Willmcw 07:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, where in the NPOV policy is a mere POV gang majority sufficient criteria for removing a neutrality dispute header placed there in good faith? zen master T 07:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is funny that the NPOV policy makes no reference to "POV gangs". But if consensus is difficult to gauge then a survey or straw poll is called for.Wikipedia:Resolving disputes The consensus seems to be to remove the POV tag. If you doubt that then we should have a straw poll. -Willmcw 10:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The criteria for the NPOV policy is not majority, it is whether an in good faith dispute exists. zen master T 16:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's clear to me that an in-good-faith dispute does not exist. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If you ignore the other side in the debate I can see how it might be easy and soothing for you to think that. zen master T 16:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The only active dispute I see on this page is whether to remove the tag. -Willmcw 17:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The debate is inactive apparently because the POV bot gang has the status quo they like. Whenever you want to start debating the issue let me know. zen master T 17:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV tag is for active disputes only. Since there is no active dispute, the tag should come down. The supposition that there would be a dispute if you could find somebody to argue with you is not sufficient. -Willmcw 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, if there is a dispute over whether the dispute is active then clearly there is a dispute. Also note proponents of "conspiracy theory" (aka propagandists) have so far refused to debate. zen master T 01:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Refused to debate"? How many debates have you gotten into already, across how many pages, regarding the term "conspiracy theory"? It seems like every time the editors of one page form a consensus you move to a new page and start it up all over again. It is hard to regard your efforts as being in good faith when you appear more concerned with debating than with editing. -Willmcw 04:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Proponents of "conspiracy theory" have yet to come up with an argument that successfully defends the phrase from a charge of non neutral presentation, all we have going on here is a popularity contest (mis)framed by a highly coordinated group of editors (disinformation artists perhaps?). It is ok that you choose not to debate, however, such a situation is insufficient evidence that a dispute doesn't exist. zen master T 07:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You have debated many times before with other editors and in each case your position, and your interpretation of NPOV, has failed to draw a consensus. Though you've changed forums several times you have not raised any new issues. -Willmcw 09:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Right. That's why the tag will have to go soon. We've been through this "holding articles hostage with a NPOV tag" before, it's not acceptable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I support Zen-master's contention that "conspiracy theory" is a needlessly divisive phrase. -- James

Multiple definitions of the term "conspiracy"

Here's one possible source of the ongoing controversy: belief in "grand conspiracies" as opposed to belief in common conspiracies. Grand conspiracies are extremely rare because they must involve large numbers of people and astronomical security measures in order to preserve secrecy (both of which must be driven by powerful organizers with major interest in the success of the conspiracy, and both of which take significant resources to accomplish.)

For example, if the government is out to get you, and your neighbors and the local police are in on the plot, and the CIA is reading your mind with satellite technology, :) that is a grand conspiracy. Obviously the belief in grand conspiracies is one symptom of paranoid delusion. Yet even though rare, grand conspiracies are possible. The Manhattan project (secret US atomic bomb org.) is one example of a genuine grand conspiracy.

"Conspiracy theorist" is used as a perjorative because it's referring to belief in Grand Conspiracies rather than to conspiracies. When used in this way, conspiracy theorist does not mean "believes in conspiracies." Instead we take it to mean "suffers paranoid delusions."--Wjbeaty 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but that ignores the last ten years of scholarly work on conspiracy theory as a sociological worldview by academics such as Barkun, Fenster, and Goldberg. Nice try.--Cberlet 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So, Wjbeaty, please provide some recent published cites to your claims about clinical paranoia? Some cites exist for isolated individuals, but when it becomes a sociological trope, it is not the aggregate of mentally ill persons.--Cberlet 04:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

John George and Laird Wilcox look at extremists as persons psychologically prone to extremism, regardless of political affiliation (American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1996: supra note 30, at 66.32. Id. at 54). The Public Eye maintains for sale a document purporting to show that the Reagan Administration was infiltrated by Nazis. The publication, Old Nazis, the New Right and the Reagan Administration is listed for sale on their website [7]. As George & Wilcox demonstrate, this extreme anti-governement conspiracism is strangely reminiscent of Timothy McVeigh. nobs 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

German sister article

Anyone here read German? The German Conspiracy Theory page (which had featured article status) looks like it has some useful academic references (Hofstadter? Zizek?). I ran Google's translator over the page, but it only handles the first few pars, and the translation is, um, unsympathetic. I'd like to salvage the best references from that article, at least. Adhib 23:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Just so this isn't lost by the two suspiciously tangential talk page sections added just above this one, here is a minor sample of the current NPOV dispute over this article. In my interpretation, the early October version of this article was rewritten with a load of weasle words which downplay criticm of the phrase's usage, and subtly play up the dubious narrative genre. More mention of the possibility that the narrative genre is disinformation is needed. The article should be explicitly clear that labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt at dubiousness through association with the narrative genre. Also, "generally and "commonly considered" in the intro are incomplete and need to be fixed for NPOV. The new version of the article seems to be saying a lot less than the old version, we should go through the diff line by line. Did someone ever justify those massive changes? Though some of them were good. zen master T 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but since you haven't come up with new arguments, and since no-one else agrees with you, the tag will have to go pretty soon. Also, just at the intro is reaching consensus, please don't completely re-write it to fill it with original research which essentially mirrors your POV that the term is "controversial", used "inappropriately", etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can remove the tag as long as the article contains phrases like "dubious narrative genre." Whether something is dubious or not is strictly POV. –Shoaler (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does it mean to say that something is a "dubious narrative genre?" What's dubious about it? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's actually something Zen-master keeps adding. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It comes from Slim's argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, if you consider it unclear perhaps you should rethink the way you voted there or ask Slim to make sense out of apparent disinformation. The way "conspiracy theory" discredits is it implies dubiousness through implied association (or through literal language recursive definition confusion) with the highly dubious "conspiracy theory" narrative genre. If you are now claiming the narrative genre isn't dubious I will laugh. zen master T 06:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Belief and Portrayal

Restricting myself just to this one element of the introduction, and saying nothing about anything else, I don't think it's enough that a story be "portrayed" by someone; It has to be believed. Wide-spread belief has to be there to allow the conspiracy theory to stand out in opposition to the dominant explanation. Otherwise, we might just as well append "or that's what they want you to think" to every statement. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What we should be saying is something along the lines of "the alleged mainstream view" since most of the time people don't necessarily believe anything having to do with a "conspiracy theory" either way. Also, I don't see how we can boldly claim what the masses believe, it needs the balance of "portrayed" to show readers that someone (the man?) is setting up a false/misleading dichotomy by unjustifiably claiming what the masses believe to automatically make the politically sensitive alternative/minority theory seem less plausible to ease discrediting by "conspiracy theory". Given the errant conclusiveness of "believed" we need the balance that "portrayed" offers. zen master T 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed this to "ostensibly", what do people think? zen master T 18:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Before I re-add {npov} to the article I will give those that disagree an opportunity to respond to this section and/or the section below. Also, first changing {npov} to {povcheck} then removing it after a big dispute shows bad faith in my interpretation, but I digress for now. zen master T 19:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate Zen-master's proposing his change here before making it.

Right now this is not a dispute, it is just an editor who disagrees with the present version, and can reasonably be expected to disagree with any version that is acceptable to most of the rest of the editors. All I have seen is variations on the repeated assertion that conspiracy theory is inherently "biasing" and "unscientific", and that everyone who disagrees is part of a coordinated scheme to supress the truth, to the extent that they're not mindless automatons.

Lately it looked like a few others might join the discussion. I welcome wider participation and fresh approaches.

Zen-master suggested above that previous editors' actions showed bad faith. I caution everyone to avoid personnal attacks. They poison the atmosphere and make reasonable discussion harder. If any editors, having established a pattern of personnal attacks, and having been warned about it, continue making attacks, then I will seek some remedy. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if/when proponents of "conspiracy theory" discontinue the use of non-consensus building tactics. You fail to note it was another editor that actually put the {npov} template in this article before (was that Carbonite?) who changed it to {povcheck}. (Was it also Carbonite that removed {povcheck} a few days later? iterestingly inconsistent). I admit my criticisms of the intro are somehwat minor (we've made some progress) but since your side has apparently stopped debating the only recourse I have is to make readers/third parties aware of the existence of dispute by placing the disputed header at the top. This should be basic NPOV policy.

Please respond to my concern that "commonly believed" needs some sort of balance/caveat. zen master T 21:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

A long time ago, the POV-check template was more of a NPOV-lite tag, that signified that there may be a dispute. The way the tag reads nows, it's probably not appropriate for this article. I probably shouldn't have added it and thus I removed it. At this point, I don't believe that any tag is warranted, unless it's shown that there are some new arguments, instead of rehashing the same tired ones ad nauseum. I also caution zen-master to stop framing this as "your side" vs "my side". This is simply unpproductive, as is calling other editors "POV bots". This is similar to the behavior that led to the "Race and Intelligence" ArbCom case and I doubt anyone wants a repeat of that. Carbonite | Talk

Carbonite, you have commited edits in bad faith in my interpretation, you changed an {npov} template to a {povcheck} template and then later removed any dispute notice, what you should have done was change it back to {npov}. Your story about how {povcheck} is deprecated seems designed to cover up your removal of any disputed notice. And you, like Tom, failed to note it was another editor that added {npov} to this article most recently, not me. I will additionally appreciate it when proponents of "conspiracy theory" cease the use of disinformation tactics.

I am still waiting for someone to respond to my criticisms of the intro/article directly, thx. zen master T 21:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

When did I say the tag was deprecated? I said the tag wasn't what I intended it to be. That was my mistake and I fixed it. I'm not going to get drawn into another extended debate with you. Carbonite | Talk 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If you decide the tag you change something to isn't appropriate it makes sense (and would be good faith) to go back to the tag that was there before, but whatever. zen master T 18:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Zen-master says the we must not say what the mainstream view is, but only what it is or what it may be portrayed to be. Leaving aside the risk of this recursion never bottoming out, it seems to me that this is a form of begging the question -- assuming the existence of conspirators who are mischaracterising the mainstream view, for the purpose of mainpulating people's opinions, to deflect their attention from that very conspiracy. But I may be missing Zen-master's point.

I think we can say what the mainstream view is in the same way that we can say what day of the week it is; I mean, unless we're all just brains in vats; then all bets are off. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't know ahead of time nor conclusively what the mainstream view is, we can basically only say that mainstream sources are claiming something is the mainstream view. I think the word "ostensibly" is perfect in that it basically says "the allegedly mainstream view" and it also signifies the issue is all about appearances, not necessarily about facts (unfortunately). zen master T 21:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If we can't know what the mainstream view is, how can we know what mainstream sources are claiming? Or even which are the mainstream sources? The issue is not about appearances; Rewriting the introduction to suggest that it is would have the affect of promoting a solipsist point of view, if there is such a thing. It's about objective facts. Something is a conspiracy theory if it meets the criteria for a conspiracy theory. It seems to me that one of those criteria is that it stand in opposition to a background of common belief. Ostensibly is poor because it's inaccurate. The choice of "commonly considered to be" is entirely correct. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't know ahead of time what people believe to be the mainstream/straightforward view, and in fact people may not believe it either way, they just accept what they have been told (but we should not simply regurgitate that). I am not advocating rewriting the intro, I am advocating caveatting or balancing. How is "ostensibly" inaccurate? Given that we agree to disagree on this (and likely many other points) I will add {npov} to the article soon unless you come up with something new. zen master T 23:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ostensibly is inaccutate because it suggests a conspiracy theory can exist in the absence of a mainstream theory that most people believe. A conspiracy theory is by definition an alternative explanation.

I don't think the disputed tag is appropriate, for the reasons I've mentioned before. There is essentially no dispute. Adding it when there is not even a significant minority of editors who want it seems unlikely to be useful. I don't see how it's presence will improve the article. I don't think it's reasonable that the tag should stay on the article as long as there is any editor who wants it to. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If one person is disputing something there is a dispute, if you think I am disputing in bad faith then your recourse is to file an RFC or seek arbitration (or similar). The problem with the words "mainstream" or "commonly" is that they may actually not reflect the majority view in each and every instance. The most straightforward explanation for an event is not necessarily the most common. And there are numerous "conspiracy theories" that have been proven to be true, in which case "portrayed" or "ostensibly" would have been appropriate as a caveat to balance the subsequently determined to be incorrect "commonly believed" view. zen master T 01:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To observe that something is a conspiracy theory is not to say that it's false. It's to say that it is "an argument alleging alternative explanation...behind what is commonly considered to be a straightforward historic or current event." If something is not "commonly considered to be a straightforward historic or current event" it's hard for me to see how an argument can allege an alternative explanation.

I don't think Zen-master is acting in bad faith, but if what he is suggesting were the policy, anyone could demand that a tag be placed on any article until his demands were met. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As neutral editors we have to leave open the possibility that in any specific case the "commonly believed" or "mainstream view" may be incorrect which is exactly the balance that "portrayed" or "ostensibly" offer. If someone is making "demands" without putting forth a lack of neutrality complaint on the talk page that would be evidence they are operating in bad faith which would be grounds for removing the tag, however, the burden of proof should be on those that would remove the tag. zen master T 01:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What's commonly believed may turn out to be wrong; That doesn't matter for the purposes of this definition. What matters is that it is the common view.

In the circumstances Zen-master describes, who would judge whether that burden had been met? Someone could well maintain incorrectly that an article lacked neutrality because it didn't address his pet peeve. He could insist that the article be tagged neutrality disputed until his peeve was addressed. He could well be sincere. If the burden were on everyone else to prove that the article was neutral, who would be the judge? The one man? Or would there be a majority vote? Would there be just one vote, or would there be vote after vote until the result came out "right?" Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Our interpretations differ as to what matters. The phrase "commonly believed" is too suggestive and does not specifically indicate the possibility this "mainstream" or "straightforward" view could be incorrect. The point of having NPOV and {npov} is that signifying a neutrality dispute is more important than any possible article quality damage by having {npov} inside it for extended periods, by orders of magnitude in fact. That brings up the question, what is wrong with having {npov} in an article for "too long"? That potential wrongness pales in comparison to the potential wrongness of censorsing a factual or presentation neutrality dispute, readers should be made aware. If even one editor is actively disputing something on the talk page and is at least appearing to work towards compromise or consensus then the {npov} template should remain in the article. This really is basic NPOV policy and the entire point of true consensus. zen master T 03:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the mainstream view is incorrect; what matters is that it is the mainstream view, against which the alternative explanation stands.

Zen-master says above, "if even one editor... is at least appearing to work towards compromise or consensus then the {npov} template should remain..." Who judges whether this is the case or not? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be encouraging the use of language that apparently wants people to just accept the "mainstream view" unquestioningly? The alternative explanation is directly questioning and challenging the mainstream view so to be neutral we have to indicate the mainstream view could be inaccurate. We should also discontinue the notion or hint that the "mainstream view" is always the majority view, this is not necessarily the case. zen master T 05:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom (or something new) can be the final judge of disputed template inclusion disagreements, it should be very easy and much quicker to determine if an in good faith dispute exists (compared to regular arbcom disputes).

Why I reverted

Zm, I reverted your edits because they made the intro POV; for example, by adding "controversially." Also, the sentence "Additionally, within popular culture 'conspiracy theory' is separately a dubious narrative genre" is odd writing, and it's not clear what a "dubious narrative genre" is. The intro is better as it is, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"Controversially" is a perfectly acceptable word when describing the usage of "conspiracy theory". To put things simply, anyone using "conspiracy theory" in a scientific or encyclopedic context is trying to trick people, not trying to advance science neutrally. Funny you should say it's "not clear what a dubious narrative genre is" since that was your argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Another thing I find funny is this unclear dubious narrative genre can somehow be used to defend a phrase from a charge of non neutral presentation. In my opinion we should completely rewrite "narrative genre" but since your argument passed (for now) over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory we are stuck with it, sorry. zen master T 16:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

problem with first sentence

"A conspiracy theory is an argument alleging alternative explanation, hidden information, secret coordination and nefarious motive behind what is commonly considered to be a straightforward historic or current event." According to that definition, a popular theory of an historian about a past conspiracy can't be called a conspiracy theory. For example, the theory that Rasputin died due to one or another conspiracy, is certainly commonly believed so that those different conspiracy theories can't be called conspiracy theories with the above definition. That doesn't seem logical. Harald88 16:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, what sort of changes might you suggest to fix this incomplete definition? zen master T 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Very simple and straightforward: replace "commonly considered to be" by "apparently". Harald88 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I could support "apparently", "ostensibly" is slightly better but perhaps it's too uncommon of a word. zen master T 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If a man says Rasputin was poisoned by a conspiracy of aristocrats who feared his influence on the Czar's family, that is not a conspiracy theory; it is just a theory about a conspiracy. If a man says instead

Rasputin was poisoned by a cabal of rabbis because they knew he had found the plans to King Solomon's temple. He was raising funds from the Czar and an alliance of secret organizations including the remnants of the Bavarian Illuminati to build the temple, but in Tibet rather than Jerusalem.

The Czar's involvement was necessary because he had secret agreements singed by Pope Urban and Constantine himself (saved after the fall of Constantinople) granting to the Knights of Saint John a castle in Greece containing an "object of great power", and showing the location of that castle, otherwise unknown.

The supposed rabbis (really Bavarian Illuminati who had infiltrated selected rabbinical schools after the Napoleonic wars) were then planning the Russian revolution. They expected the revolution to spread, eventually encompassing Greece, giving them access to the castle containing the "object of great power." The "rabbis" had been content to let the matter wait until they had power. Rasputin, really just a stooge of the Dali Lama, under whose influence he had fallen while studying in Tibet, forced their hand.

But that is just the cover story. Really, Rasputin faked his own death to escape from the agents of Prester John, who had uncovered his real identity as...

That is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether something is dubious/outlandish to the point of being a "conspiracy theory" is a separate consideration compared to whether an ostensibly neutral encyclopedia can utilize what is at best ambiguous language. Wikipedia should have higher neutral language standards. If you want to say something is dubious/outlandish you have to use direct language, you can't go the tricky route. zen master T 19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories don't have to be dubious and outlandish, my fake example just happens to be so because it was easier. "Conspiracy theory" is not ambigous at all, and it isn't a code-word for "false." It's a perfectly well-defined term that is routinely used in an entirely neutral sense. Do you understand my point that a conspiracy theory is more than just a theory about a conspiracy? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Labelling something a "conspiracy theory" connotes that the subject is unworthy of serious consideration which is not how an allegedly neutral encyclopedia should go about discrediting the subject. zen master T 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand nor do I find any evidence for the claim that a conspiracy theory is not just a general label for a theory about a conspiracy. That it is often used to ridicule people isn't for me a sufficent argument. According to what literature is a conspiracy theory not just a theory (hypothesis) about a conspiracy? And in the case of Rasputin, there happen to be two competing theories, whereby the theory of the biggest conspiracy even seems to be best sustained by hard evidence. Thus, is the theory that Rasputin was killed by the British secret service a conspiracy theory or not? Harald88 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The entire "conspiracy theory narrative genre" is full of outlandish theories and eccentric characters, labelling a specific theory a "conspiracy theory" connotes dubiousness by improperly and perhaps illegitimately implying the specific theory is a member of that genre too. Why is it so important that titles must note that a particular theory alleges a conspiracy? It should simply be mentioned inside the article along with all the other cited claims and counter claims. zen master T 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I had not heard that Rasputin might have been killed with help from the British secret service; I can't say whether that in particular is a conspiracy theory. A quick read of Rasputin suggests that the British might have killed him to prevent the Czar making peace with the Kaiser and so upsetting the balance of power. I don't find that wildly implausible, but neither does it seem to have quite the broad historical impact that is often associated with a conspiracy theory. While I know more about it than I did before you pointed it out, I still don't know a lot. Rather than repeat them here, may I refer you to the section on features? There is also an interesting article on narratology that just went up. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Observing that something meets the objective definition of "conspiracy theory" does not suggest it is false, or unworthy of serious consideration. Observing that a beetle has six legs, and so is an insect, is not an attempt to dismiss it as a bug. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not the job of a wikipedia article title to observe whether something meets the objective definition of a "conspiracy theory" (if we dubiously assume for the sake of argument that such a definition exists). But how can a phrase have an "objective definition" if it has more than one definition? You can make all the case you want that something is dubious, outlandish, or whatever inside the article with citations just like all other cases are made. zen master T 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that conspiracy theory is inappropriate for article titles? Haven't we been there and done that? Is there another proposal? (By the way, if there is another proposal, could you include a link to it? Thanks.) Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean inappropriate from the standpoint of being non neutral, though apparently it's not from the standpoint of what the majority thinks. The new proposal is Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, I didn't realize you were familiar with version 1 of the proposal Tom? zen master T 23:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion and vote were before my involvement here, but I've felt like I should inform myself. Thanks for the link. There was some related discussion at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories where it came up. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is important, I think, for the reasons I've gone into above, that there be what is commonly considered a straightforward explanation. 'Apparently,' 'ostensibly,' 'controversially,' et cetera all mislead the reader. It is central to the definition that there is a mainstream view against which the alternative explanation stands. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Then propose something better. As it stands it's No Good, for it imposes a too restrictive and degrading meaning for a Wikipedia article. See my comparison with Creationism below, where the editors took care not to do so. Harald88 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree. The definition is as restrictive as it should be, and I see nothing degrading in it. As the article stands now it is quite correct. I'm not sure I see the parallel you draw with Creationism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are suggesting. Excuse me if my replies are less than prompt today. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 13:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

About the degrading notion for the meaning of the expression as indicating a genre of unscientific reasoning for which psychological causes are suggested, isn't that made clear in the article itself? And the parallel with Creationism is straightforward: for most people it means not the theory of creation, but the cult of believing that the universe was created as written in the bible, and all that 6000 years ago in 7 days of 24 hours and all scientific evidence is interpreted in any possible way to agree with that. However, that restrictive meaning isn't implied in the term and therefore also not always meant when it's used. Now look again at how it is defined in the intro. With your reasoning, you would disagree with the editors, while according to me it's the only correct way for a Wikipedia article. Harald88 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly "conspiracy theory" has come to be associated with dubious narratives. It may be used as a pejorative. So may "creationist." I think the article on creationism is fine; It looks similar in approach to what we have here. I notice creationism has more extensive coverage of some topics in main articles like History of creationism. That might be something we could usefully consider.

I take your point that neither term is always used only in its most restrictive, neutral sense. That fact is presented prominently in the intro, and in more detail in the section on legitimate usage, where the article is careful to acknowledge the term's potential use as a dismissive label. It's entirely appropriate that we inform the reader about all the ways the term is used, and I think the article does so. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

sequence change to give it NPOV?

Ok, as a newcomer on this page, it looks particularly POV to have a long story about the popular negative "genre" interpretation (almost a conspiracy itself) of "conspiracy theory". However, further on there seems to be a rather general, balanced view, in paragraph 4. Have you discussed changing the sequence to elaborate on the more general, face-value meaning and only thereafter the "genre" meaning (with "genre" added in the title)? Morover, there can be little doubt that in a discussion where the label is used in a degrading way, "those using the term are manipulating their audience to disregard the topic under discussion". To label such an obviously correct conclusion also "conspiracy theory" looks like a strawman tactic to me, and I therefore think that it should be reformulated. - Harald88

At one point in the past I suggested we have two articles to sufficiently disambig the concepts, say Conspiracy theory (allegation) and Conspiracy theory (genre) or some such, but I suppose we can try to just make that distinction clear within one article. I think the current definition of the argument type is more than a little too evocative of the dubious genre (using words like "secret" and "sinister" which I changed to "nefarious" etc). And we also should explicitly note the usage of the phrase is controversial. Basically, in my interpretation the intro, like the rest of the article as new guy points out, still doesn't sufficiently disambig/disassociate between the two concepts (perhaps because they are hopelessly intertwined [that means the phrase is even less neutral/more tainting]). The problem is at a literal language definition level any theory that alleges a conspiracy is technically a "conspiracy theory". zen master T 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

to see an example of my proposal to put paragraph 4 up-front: Creationism. First they give the technical, non-restrictive definition, and only next they give the special meaning that it has for many. Harald88 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The present version of the page is the result of extensive discussion and careful development, which is documented on this talk page and in its archives. I would oppose any large-scale rewrites at this time. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As here I proposed no large scale rewrite at all, I must suppose that you don't disagree. Harald88 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, Tom reverted your "apparently" idea, I guess it's back to the drawing board. Tom, if large scale rewrites are being opposed then to make sense/be consistent we should go back to the early October version of this article, right? (a rhetorical question though please respond).

And anyone care to comment on my point that the current definition of the argument type utilizes words that are more than a little too evocative of the ostensibly dubious genre, does anyone agree we need to do a much better job of disassociation there? zen master T 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure -- that was implied with my suggestion to follow the Creationism article's example. Harald88 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition word choices too evocative of the genre?

Harold88, do you have any suggestions for how we should go about fixing the "alternative theory" definition's word choices? What are some good ways to try to convince our fellow wikipedia editors on this point? Tom and others have not yet commented on/responded to my point that the argument type's definition seems to use words that are too evocative of the ostensibly dubious genre. I think we should disassociate to a much greater degree and make it super clear that even if a theory alleges a conspiracy pointing that out is insufficient and inapplicable evidence that the theory should be associated with the ostensibly dubious genre, to even a small degree. As a side note, isn't it very ambiguous and confusing at a language level that any theory that alleges a conspiracy can be labeled the same as the ostensibly dubious narrative genre (Aliens, UFOs, etc)? zen master T 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ostensible adj. Represented or appearing as such; "His ostensible purpose was charity, but his real goal was popularity."

Zen-master, I have to think about this, I'm not an expert in language, so my opinion is only based on Wikipedia policy and obviously good examples - I stumbled on this by chance, and simply noted that this is obviously unacceptable for Wikipedia. Currently I have too little time. OTOH, the arguments against improvement were so little (only by Tom, and without substantial counter arguments) that it may be better to just "be bold and edit", as Wikipedia encourages. But the main problem until now is that nobody here now could explain to me on what their opnion is based! For example, do you think that http://www.alternet.org/story/14873/ is a good example of what falls under the label "conspiracy theory"? It looks rather sound to me. Harald88 07:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean where do opinions in favor of or definition evidence for "conspiracy theory" come from? Good question and I have no idea, I have just been trying to apply the scientific method to encyclopedia articles. Given that the phrase is at best ambiguous and at worst confusing and biasing I don't think anything should be labeled with it. The article you cite does mention some very notable and relevant "alternative theories" but I am not sure what you are asking. zen master T 08:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, http://www.alternet.org/story/14873/ provides an unbiased discussion of conspiracy theories, and it means with that term what I also understood it to mean. As such that article would provide the contents for a good Wikipedia article called "conspiracy theories". However, I don't find that meaning at all in the summary definition at the start. Thus, if the article I here above refer to is not shown to be a "bad" source or if a similar "good" source is found, then we must adapt the first definition of the article to be sufficiently neutral and general, similar to "creationism" in the "Creationism" article. And if next there is opposition or revert to what then must be considered a bad, POV definition, we must mark it "NPOV". - To stress my point about the Creationism article example (see also, for example, "Sect"), it may be useful to contrast it with a bad example: the editors happily didn't start that article with: - "Creationism alleges that creation occurred literally as described in the book of Genesis (which is contrary to the generally accepted theory of evolution), and it seeks to harmonize science with that dogma by all means" Harald88 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"At best ambiguous"? According to whom? "At best" it is an accurate description of a theory of people working together in secret towards an illegal or nefarious end. -Willmcw 09:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with your definition of the argument type is the words "secret" and "nefarious" or "sinister" confusingly hint at the ostensibly dubious genre, in my interpretation. We should be trying harder to increase clarity and disassociate between the argument type (the literal definition) and the ostensibly dubious genre. As far as encyclopedia article titles or labeling another subject is concerned why use a phrase that has even the potential for confusion? Do you acknowledge the potential for confusion between the literal definition/argument type and the ostensibly dubious genre (they coincidentally have the same name)? Why is it so important to note, to the exclusion of all other details, that a specific theory alleges "people working in secret towards an illegal or nefarious end"? All "alternative" theories that I believe are improperly categorized as "conspiracy theories" allege many things in addition to a conspiracy. How can a detailed scientific analysis or encyclopedic presentation of a subject ever be considered untainted if an ostensibly dubious genre is indirectly or prematurely used to present, describe, or categorize it? All possible conclusions about the validity of a theory should come from facts and logic, not from language. It seems to me that someone is purposely using confusing language to get people to unconsciously and unquestioningly accept a counter critic's subtle categorization of a theory within the ostensibly dubious genre for the purpose of discrediting it. Shouldn't we describe/label a specific theory by some unique distinguishing feature from the theory itself rather than generally and improperly categorizing it in an ostensibly dubious genre? Why group/label a specific theory so generally and so exclusively? Given the ambiguity surrounding the meanings of "conspiracy theory" the only explanation I can think of for why someone would want to note/emphasize the fact that a particular theory alleges a conspiracy is to indirectly and improperly imply dubiousness in that allegation. If a counter critic labels a specific allegation a "conspiracy theory" that should not be thought of as an act of categorization, but is actually an act of attempted discrediting/ridicule, in my interpretation. zen master T 10:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's possible that somewhere on the page we could say, "A conspiracy theory is more than a theory involving a conspiracy." I would not want to see this tacked on somewhere it doesn't belong; maybe it could go at the beginning of 'Features.' Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 12:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously one can (as demonstrated by http://www.alternet.org/story/14873/ ) use that term to mean what it says at face value, and which happens to be the way I always understood it. If you disagree, please show that my reference is a "bad" source and that only I and those two authors understand "conspiracy theory" as such. Zen-master and I do agree that this article doesn't sufficiently separate the neutral categorization use from the psychiatric "genre" use; instead its definition is oriented towards the last. Harald88 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like AlterNet (by the way, what's the 'Alter' in 'AlterNet?' Alternative? Alternative to what?) is somewhere between usenet and the Washington Post in terms of reliability. That Geogre Monbiot is prominently featured makes me question their objectivity.

I don't necessarily object to having Alternet's list of top-ten conspiracy theories included in the links as representative of one viewpoint; I don't accept that it represents the authoratative definition of 'conspiracy theory.' If I am in your view obliged to show that your preferred source is "bad," would you not be obliged to show that the sources listed in 'notes' and 'further reading' are "bad?" Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternet is a well-known and reliable progressive news site. I do not think we should be questioning the reliabilty of websites based on their being progressive or conservative. That's a really bad idea. The issue is whether or not they are edited, have standards for providing verifiable information, and have a track record for reliability. I do like the idea of adding the phrase "A conspiracy theory is more than a theory involving a conspiracy." That is a very useful way to explain matters.--Cberlet 15:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this -- apparently the view of that article (as well as mine) is that a conspiracy theory can be just a theory involving a conspiracy, and certainly doesn't have to be what the definition in the intro in Wikipedia states. How could then a phrase that is in disagreement with it "explain matters"?! But perhaps you want to say that usually an extraordinary complot is meant, or one of extraordinary dimensions?

BTW, I now scanned a little up this discussion page and apparently this isn't the first time that this comes up, did some people just tire out from being frustrated in their efforts to improve? Harald88 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think even if all or most alleged "conspiracy theories" were someday determined to be true the phrase still should not be used in an encyclopedia to describe another subject (without a citation of who it is coming from or maybe ok if the article is written from a hisotical perspective) just because the phrase is ambiguous and confusing (in addition to implying dubiousness). The sentence "A conspiacy theory is more than a theory involving a conspiracy" is still insufficient as it could easily be misread to be "more" within the genre, which is exactly what we should be trying harder to disassociate between. I think we should specifically point out to readers the coincidence (and source of confusion) that any specific theory that literally alleges a conspiracy can be labeled the same as an ostensibly highly dubious genre. zen master T 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That swallows can be mistaken for bats does not mean that we must not call anything a bat. By Zen-master's reasoning we would have to enumerate the characteristics of the creature and let the reader decide.

It seemed to me earlier that Zen-master was keen to have the page mention this distinction between a 'theory about a conspiracy' and a 'conspiracy theory.' Having misunderstood him, I hope I haven't been wasting my time discussing this.

But the words "bat" and "swallow" are unambiguous within the context of things that fly, unlike "conspiracy theory" which is completely ambiguous, confusing and tainted. We should enumerate facts and logic by neutrally presenting a subject, not confusing the issue by using ambiguous language. Also, we should point out the strange language coincidence that any theory that alleges a conspiracy can be labeled the same as the ostensibly dubious genre. What did/do you misunderstand exactly? zen master T 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

solution to debate: advice of Wikipedia to follow good examples

I already handed the good example of the Creationism article (with almost no reaction!); but now I see that we received a more direct suggestion at the top of this page from the Wikipedia project Echo:"You may be able to improve this article with information from de:Verschwörungstheorie."; "You may be able to improve this article with information from it:Teoria del complotto." Those have received peer review.

The German text: "Als Verschwörungstheorie bezeichnet man den Versuch, Ereignisse, Zustände oder Entwicklungen durch eine geheime Verschwörung zu erklären, also durch das zielgerichtete, konspirative Wirken von zwei oder mehr Personen zu einem verborgenen, illegalen oder illegitimen Zweck."; quick translation with help of Babel Fish: "as conspiracy theory one designates the attempt to explain events, conditions or developments by a secret conspiracy thus by purposeful, conspiratorial working of two or more persons for a hidden, illegal or illegitimen purpose." I agree, that's quite OK. Harald88 20:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure where you are going with your Creationism example Harold88. The way I look at "conspiracy theory" is simple, once we prove the phrase is unencyclopedically tainting its use in descriptive contexts will hopefully start to cease. Also, to sufficienty define the phrase I think we must point out the coincidence (or otherwise disassociate) that any theory that literally alleges a conspiracy can be labeled or given the same name as an ostensibly dubious genre. zen master T 20:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm not sure anymore to understand you. Do you agree or disagree with me and the editors and reviewers that the German introductory definition is a good (correct, neutral and sufficiently general) descriptor -- just like the Creationism descriptor -- so that it (no surprise) includes the meaning of the web article that I referred to? Note that here I didn't choose any wording and thus didn't push my opinion; instead I agree that the wording summarises well the whole spectrum of opinions -- which it must do.

The matter of its special degrading use is an important but separate issue, exactly like special use of Creationism which is also very clearly distinguished in Wikipedia. Apart of that -- and the German version emphasizes this! -- the term is problematic as the two different meanings can't always be clearly distinguished when reading a comment. The German version: "Frequently the borderline between realistic fear and an illusionful conspiracy myth is fluid". Similar problems occur with for example the word "sect". It's the task of Wikipedia to explain such issues well. Harald88 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

At best the definition is incomplete. See the discussion in the section below, basically we need a definition that makes it crystal clear that a theory labeled a "conspiracy theory" may not be a member of the ostensibly dubious genre (it's confusing because they have the same name). zen master T 23:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's specified furtheron, and the same is done already in the English version if I remember well. I disagree with the biased limitation in the intro of the English article (a limitation in the general definition can't be logically undone furtheron), and the discussion of the problem too far down into the English article - with which you obviously agree. Harald88 23:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Any definition greater than the literal one evokes/creates the genre

Why does a phrase that has a literal individual word definition need anyting greater? It seems to me the act of defining the phrase "conspiracy theory" as being anything other that a theory that alleges a conspiracy (the literal individual word definition) evokes and may even create the genre. So the literal definition/argument type should be defined simply as "an argument that alleges a conspiracy" and all words evocative of the ostensibly dubious genre, such as "secret", "sinister" or "nefarious", should be moved to the definition of the genre. Or, we should simply stop creating the genre and describe alternative theories a completely new and different way, hopefully neutrally and directly. zen master T 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

zen master, you have been at this for months. At some point it becomes a total waste of time for every Wiki editor who has to deal with your opinion, and explain why it is not the opinion of the majority. You have carried this debate from page to page. It is tiresome and counterproductive. Nothing new gets said, just the same arguments over and over and over and over. --Cberlet 21:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I disagree, this section is in no way repetitive with past arguments. If you believe this is a waste of time then you need not respond, if instead you want to debate specific new or old arguments I would be interested. zen master T 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

<---- Evidence that your opinion is not considered valid in academia:

• Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California. ISBN 0520238052
• Fenster, Mark. 1999. Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Gerald Posner. 1993. Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK, New York, The Random House. ISBN 0385474466
• Goldberg, Robert Alan. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 030009000
• Hofstadter, Richard. 1965. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0674654617
• Melley, Timothy. 1999. Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801486068
• Mintz, Frank P. 1985. The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood. ISBN 031324393X
• Pipes, Daniel. 1997. Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes from. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0684871114
• ---. 1998. The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. New York, St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312176880
• Popper, Karl. 1945. The Open Society & Its Enemies. London: Routledge & Sons.
• Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Random House. ISBN 039453512X

Please cite the published material that supports your opinions. Thanks.--Cberlet 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain how these sources are at odds with my argument? I am not denying the existence of the ostensibly dubious genre, I am just arguing that including words evocative of the genre inside what should be the simple and literal argument type definition (a theory alleging a conspiracy) does not sufficiently disassociate the concepts. Perhaps the genre should get a new name to avoid confusion with a theory that merely alleges a conspiracy? zen master T 22:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, now it crystallizes: Cberlet claims that such is only the opinion of Zen-master, but apparently it's me and Zen-master and the German editors and the German reviewers who agree on this point. Apart of that, obviously an encyclopdia can't correct an ambiguity, it can only (and must!) describe it, as the German version indeed does. Harald88 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The definition in this article is entirely unambigous, and consistent with widespread use by journalists and academics, as cited. This article is about 'conspiry theory.' It is not about 'any theory involving a conspiracy.' Not just any theory alleging a conspiracy can be correctly labeled a conspiracy theory. People are open to making that yet more plain, by adding the sentence we discussed.

I pointed out that it disagrees with, effectively the very first journalistic overview page that I stumbled on, so that the claim just here above simply can't be right. I also pointed out that it disagrees with the approved German definition that does agree with it. Is there anything left to discuss? Harald88 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone would produce a good literate translation of the German and Italian pages, I'd like to read them as references and see if anything can be usefully incorporated here. I would actually like to see more coverage of non-U.S. conspiracy theory, particularly in India and China, but Europe would be interesting as well.

I gave a near perfect translation of the introductory definition of the German page, with which I agree. I'm still waiting for comments... Harald88 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"apparently this isn't the first time that this comes up, did some people just tire out from being frustrated in their efforts to improve?" I do not know how to begin to answer that. When we started this most recent discussion a few days ago, I was unsure how much good it would do.

"once we prove the phrase is unencyclopedically tainting its use in descriptive contexts will hopefully start to cease." See, this makes me wonder what we are working toward. If Zen-master wants to make this page on 'conspiracy theory' better, then maybe I can work with him. If he wants to eliminate from Wikipedia the use of conspiracy theory in article titles, then I don't care to aid him in that project.

The suitability of conspiracy theory for article titles has been voted on; Maybe it will be voted on again. The proposal about title neutrality is active, I assume. Discussion on Wikipedia:words to avoid lead to a consensus that it was not appropriate to list conspiracy theory as a word to avoid. If this discussion is just the latest battle in Zen-master's war on conspiracy theory, he'll have to fight it without my help. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In my interpretation we need a definition of "conspiracy theory" that makes it clear that a specific theory's categorization as being within the ostensibly dubious genre is or could be disputed. It is ok if inside an article we cite exactly who is counter claiming that a particular theory fits the definition of "conspiracy theory" in the ostensibly dubious genre sense, however, that is something that should not be done in an encyclopedia article's title that describes another subject. To categorize via the article's title is biasing and is an unscientific presentation of the subject. My main "conspiracy theory" complaint/question all along has been are wikipedia article titles even allowed to conclude or categorize a subject via the title? To repeat, labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is ok inside an article as long as we cite exactly who is counter claiming that about a theory, but wikipedia can't state that directly, especially not in a title. So, as far as this article is concerned we need a definition that makes that distinction clear.

If you are saying the majority continues to believe that "conspiracy theory" is neutral and there is nothing I can do to convince you/them otherwise then we are at an impasse since I fundamentally disagree. zen master T 23:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I'm saying exactly what I said. If your aim is to improve this page, fine. If you're using it as the latest way to attack conspiracy theory, then you'll have to do without my help.

I am only "attacking" conspiracy theory in an attempt to prove to you/the majority it is non neutral and showing you how its biasing method of presentation works (in my interpretation). If you should become convinced of my argument I hope you will work with me on a definition here that sufficiently disassociates the concepts and issues. Likewise, if you can convince me of your argument then I will admit I was wrong and move forward. Until then I presume the majority, as I am compliantly calling them now, will revert any improvements I attempt to this article given their apparently fervent love of "conspiracy theory". zen master T 01:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, the definition is entirely consistent with Cberlet's published citations. I notice his request for published material that supports a different opinion is unsatisfied, except perhaps for the German Wikipedia page. The Top Ten Conspiracy Theories listed on Alternet, as well as for example Aljazeera's conspiracy theories, are good deal more than simple theories about conspiracies. Those I've looked at satisfy many of the features listed. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, nobody did so much as suggest that the too restricting definition was inconsistent with the selective list of Cberlet! And I already explained that I agree with the designation "secret" as in the German, as well as with an additional comment that usually it implies a plot of extraordinary dimensions. What else do you suggest with "more than simple theories", in agreement with the definition of that article and as applicable to all examples? I'm really curious to know! Harald88 07:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I regret that big room commitments make it impossible for me to respond to every new (and not so new) turn in Zen-m's argument. But his comment about impasse above is interesting, and, for my money, true. Overwhelming consensus here is that a given narrative may be categorized with or without unanimous consent. A tiny handful of individuals will always object when this or that theory is judged to exhibit enough of the genre's features to be confidently categorized in the genre. Wikipedia not only has no duty of care for these people's opinions - it may actively have a duty to ignore them entirely, to avoid the problem of undue weight. If we fail to exercise this basic principle of critical judgement in defence of the pedia's integrity, it will lose what small credibility it has painstakingly earned in the last period. For that motive and that one alone, I intend to stick around and ensure that Zen-m doesn't solve his impasse by badgering the rest of us into silence. Adhib 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Adhib, quick question, where was "overwhelming" consensus established for what you claim was established? Doesn't the NPOV policy trump your "overwhelming consensus" argument if presentation neutrality is being violated? I am ok with things being categorized, but it should take place inside an article with citations of who is alleging that categorization, not in the title. I have no plans to badger or silence anyone, I was just noting reality and that I believe there may be an impasse and we should precisely clarify everyone's position before we assume we can move forward. My entire argument surrounding the changes to this article were related to how "conspiracy theory" is a non neutral method of presentation and working towards having a definition that sufficiently explains that. Perhaps the majority is confused as to exactly who I am really trying to convince the phrase is wrong? The criteria as I see it is how to neutrally present all subjects consistently, my argument is basically: ambiguous and potentially biasing phrases or potentially disputed categorizations should not be used without citations, to do so is original research, especially in an article title. Feel free to disagree with me but it is repeatedly inaccurate of you to claim there is not a disagreement here. zen master T 01:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That's some quick question. To your first sentence: In every place you have flogged this dead horse over the last six months. To your second sentence: Categorically not - you appear to entirely overlook both the letter and intent of the NPOV policy on undue weight. As to the rest - I think most of your interlocutors have earned as coherent a sense of your argument as it is capable of supporting over the last few weeks. You note that the label 'conspiracy theory' is judgemental as it is used in everyday life, and propose that we invent a definition which transcends this usage. I believe the article comes as close to your aims as it can without sinking irretrieveably into relativism and like nonsense. Here's why: as it stands, we explicitly state that confidence in applying the label to a given case increases, the more typological features it exhibits. We don't claim that any one feature or combination of features is decisive - that is left beyond the article's authoritative claims, ie, to the reader's own judgement, and rightly so. I fail to see how this constitutes a POV error. Finally, I would never deny that you personally find the status quo disagreable - that's rather why I invited you to comment on this article in the first place. But I had hoped to see some substantiation from you, beyond your own (uncompelling) arguments from first principles. Adhib 23:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Only the first question was a quick question, do I interpret correctly that you chose not to respond to it? Feel free to consider this issue a dead horse but I disagree. NPOV trumps undue weight too (if the majority is violating presentation neutrality). In my interpretation the phrase should never be used as a label as it is ambiguously tricky language, any categorizationing should come from facts and logic, not from language. My complaint isn't related to "confidence in applying the label" it's about whether its method of applying a label is ever apppropriate or at least ever non confusing (and a definition that does a better job of making that clear). zen master T 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You interpret incorrectly: your question was "where was 'overwhelming' consensus established?" My direct answer is, and was, in every single one of the very many places you have 'argued' your case. That you think NPOV trumps undue weight suggests that you fail to understand that undue weight is integral to NPOV policy - it is a vital component of NPOV policy, not an opposed and rival ideal. The link is NPOV#Undue_weight, in case you decline to check my cites. Adhib 20:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I worked for a while on this article, but found that I was spending most of my time debating Zen-m. I don't think I was badgered into silence, but it was a lot easier to move on to other articles where I wasn't constantly in edit wars. But I have a lot of problems with this article:

1. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" is sometimes used to silence opposition, but it is also used to express sincere doubt and skepticism.
2. Some people use the term pejoratively but others rejoice in the excitement thinking about something in those terms brings.
3. It's often a narrative genre, but conspiracy theories are frequently just ideas ("the Mafia had Kennedy killed") without any real narrative content.

Rather than always attempting to paint "conspiracy theory" as pejorative because it is sometimes used that way, I think we need to find a way to describe "conspiracy theory" in a non-pejorative manner. (I would agree that the flat earth article is a good example.) –Shoaler (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of "conspiracy theory" may be sincere doubt and skepticism in some cases, however, the way "conspiracy theory" discredits is still akin to ridicule as the phrase is implying dubiousness by implied association (and it structures language to get people to accept someone else's categorization unquestioningly). The article could expand on people's interest/excitement in the genre but that doesn't seem definition/intro appropriate to me. I recently changed the genre to be "eccentric stories and allegations of ostensibly dubious validity", what do you think? zen master T 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

From Harald88 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC) : Zen master, I found the following on your page but i think it belongs somewhere here on this page: "The way 'conspiracy theory' discredits is it implies dubiousness through implied association (or through literal language recursive definition confusion) with the highly dubious 'conspiracy theory' narrative genre." This needs to be included and expanded upon in the article. --Peter McConaughey 03:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Literal definition unsupported by sources???

Tom, can you explain how the literal definition is unsupported by sources? "Conspiracy theory" literally means a theory that alleges a conspiracy, right? If your complaint is that the popular culture definition/genre definition is incomplete or whatever we can fix it. Please work with me here. zen master T 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No; it's not the literal definition any more than the literal definition of an urban legend is any story about a city. I don't mind continued discussion if it's likely to be useful, but a wholesale re-write of the introduction that was so carefully assembled makes me wonder what we would be working toward. That said, I won't be able to respond promptly for the rest of the afternoon. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, please be consistent! Is an urban legend not also a legend of the city ("talk of the town")? And to make perfectly clear what I think about this, whoever "carefully assembled" such a biased and overly restrictive introduction, is IMHO not fit to be an editor in Wikipedia. Harald88 19:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There are countless examples from within wikipedia talk pages were the literal definition and the genre meaning were needlessly confused. Are you arguing we should completely mingle the argument type definition and the popular culture meaning? Why? If so I disagree, I believe we need to do a much better job at disassociating the literal definition and the genre to avoid confusion. And regardless, why use words in the argument type definition that are evocative of the genre so needlessly? zen master T 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone let me know what specifically was wrong with the intro I came up with yesterday? (besides "no sources" for a literal definition) zen master T 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea. Here is a German variant of the German Wikipedia definition that the English article now points to:

(in http://verschwoerungen.info/wiki/Verschw%F6rungstheorie): "Die mehr oder weniger fundierte Theorie, dass hinter bestimmten Ereignissen eine Verschwörung steckt, bezeichnet man als Verschwörungs-Theorie." - One calls the more or less founded theory that behind certain events a conspiracy is hiding, conspiracy theory. I agree again. Harald88 20:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, the stuff you added to the intro can't really be considered a definition. Also, it does not seem to be using plain, simple language and is not pointing towards the essence of the issue/understanding. Your paragraph decreases the disassociation between the literal definition/argument type and the genre, why? Also, why did you phrase it like "As conspiracy theory...", that seems to be a usage note? zen master T 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, the criteria for fitness to edit Wikipedia are quite low, but they do include refraining from personnal attacks. Please don't suggest other editors are unfit to be here. "Is an urban legend not also a legend of the city?" No, it isn't. It has no more connection to urban life than to rural life. Trying to understand the words in their literal senses deprives the phrase of its meaning and explanatory power, and eliminates its utility as a catagory. That's not my goal. On the other hand, I think some of the points you added to the intro may be useful. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, sorry if you took my honest and frank opinion as a personal attack; but is the Wikipedia policy to stop some people from editing because they are considered to badly follow the rules not even more "personal attack"? If nobody in Wikipedia would be suggrested to be unfit for editing according to anyone, that could never happen!

BTW, if what you write about urban legend (and I couldn't find the answer in Wikipedia!) is correct, then I can't explain how the term ever came into existence. Please explain, you made me curious. Harald88 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

PS Tom, I'm glad to see that we sometimes can agree about something. :)) The phrase I added to the start of the introduction avoids biased POV; and isn't even mine as I simply copied it from below on the same page. But I notice that someone deleted it without comment on this page nor valid motivation; thus I'll revert it back. Harald88 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't personally offended; little of the article is my work. One can be blocked for making personal attacks, for violating the three-revert rule, for vandalism(often this is school children), and maybe for a few other things, but not for being a poor editor. Blocking is pretty rare for most people. As far as the origin of the term urban legend, it sounds like it was intended to distinguish old-time legends people told when they lived in the forest, from narratives that serve a similar purpose today when society is largely urban. There's more to it than that; the page goes into some detail. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master's latest intro re-write

"Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage that are often confused. Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy. In popular culture, "conspiracy theory" is the name given to a narrative genre involving eccentric stories that are associated with or include allegations of ostensibly dubious validity.

The phrase is sometimes used by critics to ridicule or dismiss a specific theory by labeling it a "conspiracy theory" which implies that the theory is a example from the ostensibly dubious genre and unworthy of serious consideration. If a specific theory meets the literal definition, by alleging a conspiracy, that is insufficient evidence that the theory should be categorized in the ostensibly dubious genre. The phrase is often used by detractors of a theory."

I've restored yesterday's intro instead; Zen-master's re-write used convoluted language (e.g. "ostenibly dubious validity", "ostensibly dubious genre" [twice!]) and was filled with unsourced POV claims (e.g. "that are often confused", "If a specific theory meets the literal definition, by alleging a conspiracy, that is insufficient evidence that the theory should be categorized in the ostensibly dubious genre." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No Jayjg you didn't! Instead you wiped away my improvements that gave it an undisputed start and less biased introduction, as discussed here above. I revert accordingly. Harald88 22:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, I don't believe my edits were perfect but I believe they were a step in the right direction towards improving the clarity and necessary disassociation. If the same phrase has a literal definition and a popular culture usage how can that ever be considered non confusing? Are you arguing that a theory need only literally allege a conspiracy to be appropriately associated or categorized within the ostensibly dubious genre? Is that neutral or even accurate?

Harold88, I don't think your changes are a good starting point but I think we can work together to improve the article. zen master T 22:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I formally dispute the Neutrality of this article

In my interpretation this article can not be considered neutral until it properly disassociates between the literal definition or argument type and the ostensibly dubious genre (plus all disputed points above from myself and others). Also, when such NPOV disputes exist the {npov} template is generally added to the disputed article but I guess I will just have to accept the majority's unwavering insistence on not signifying a dispute here. zen master T 22:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Now some motion has come into it; regretfully the only way to strongly involve people into the editing process is to just "be bold" in the article space, discussions on the Talk page are evidenly mostly ineffective. Let's wait and see if, after the dust settles, you or someone else still considers the article POV in one way or another. Harald88 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please check the dictionary!

Adhib wrote: "conspiration isn't even a word". However, it came out of Altavista's translator and I even checked it with dictionary.com : yes it's a word alright! Please check the dictionary before making such claims. Harald88 23:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. Conspiration is indeed a word - what I should have said was "Guys, conspiration is an extremely obscure word to use in this likewise obscure grammatical construct - let's keep it simple". Thanks for explaining that a computer wrote it. As it turns out, the new intro possesses much of the simplicity and openness I sought to defend, so we can both relax. Adhib 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart of that, I like Adhib's suggestion to "keep the intro simple, and get into the finer points at the appropriate moment below". But that's a matter of taste, and I know that at least one editor here disagrees... Harald88 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Being bold is one thing--misrepresenting the overwhelming majority view on this subject is POV pushing.--Cberlet 03:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are that no view must be pushed; thus yesterday I replaced the majority-pushed view by a peer reviewed neutral description. Regretfully Adhib found the wording too difficult to understand. Harald88 12:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not too difficult (but thanks for your concern) - just too clumsy for an encyclopedia article intro. As I set out on launching this re-vamp of the article, a 15 year old kid should be able to come here to find out what conspiracy theory is, and get a clear, concise, abstract statement before being sucked into the labyrinth beneath. It's a basic structural nicety, to ensure usability. Adhib 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think analyzing this issue by trying to determine the "majority view" could lead us astray here. In my interpretation NPOV is more important than trying to discern an ever changing majority view. But anyway, I don't think Cberlet and I disagree all that much, we are making progress, and I think we can work out any remaining issues. zen master T 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well seen: majority view is indeed not Wikipedia view, see here above. Harald88 13:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Majority view becomes wikipedia view when the alternatives have zero credibility beyond a lunatic fringe. As I believe we have established elsewhere, wikipedia should not and must not shrink from calling the Earth a planet, or stating that it is roughly spherical, simply because a handful of oddballs say otherwise. BTW, Harald, what's that 88 for? Adhib 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, about dictionary: I found one web definition in dictionary.com: "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act" I think it's not bad, but less good than what the one of the German web page that the English article refers to and I can't see from what dictionary it stems. And I now notice that no dictionary is referred to in the sources, while a dictionary is most likely to refer to its basic meaning, as opposed to a book on psychology subject. Any other dictionary description that someone has? Peter, did you imply to have one or several? If so, please give the definition(s) here. Harald88 13:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I sampled small bits of information from several sources:

• Old versions of the preamble in the article's history
• Proposals on this talk page
• Merriam-WebsterCollegiate.com (a subscription service)
• OED.com (a subscription service)
• Dictionary.com (where I presume you got the above definition)
• Google Definitions --Peter McConaughey 15:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, not only you processed great input, I am optimistic that also your output will be acceptable to most people here. In any case, the concerns that I had with this article are not present anymore. Harald88 22:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I came upon the dictionary.com definition a few days ago and it struck me as being slightly evocative of the genre, but if I am the only one with this interpretation then I digress. Also, I think any unnecessary wikilinking gives undue weight and dramatically changes the way a sentence is read, what are the requirements for the current introduction's massive wikitionary wikilinking? How about instead of "explanation" in the last sentence we go with "allegation" or "argument" or similar? (though I do like that sentence a lot regardless) I don't think pejorative usage of "conspiracy theory" is saying the following about the theory "...and that it presents only the facts and factoids that support its case" but again maybe I am the only one with this interpretation. I don't mind so much but I just noticed the current introduction doesn't mention the "narrative genre" or implied dubiousness directly at all, though it is in the "Introduction" sub section, hmmm. I think we should directly mention something to the effect of "implied association with the genre implies dubiousness" or similar to increase mechanical clarity of how it discredits and to disassociate. zen master T 18:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

For those of us that surf for a living and haven't had to spend much of our lives thinking, could you explain more about what you mean by "narrative genre" and "implied association with the genre implies dubiousness?" I thought I knew what that meant, and I also thought that I had covered that twice in these two sentences:

The term is often used pejoratively to suggest that the argument contains more zeal than logic, and that it presents only the facts and factoids that support its case. Criticizing an explanation as a "conspiracy theory" can be used to ridicule or dismiss it without considering the evidence.

--Peter McConaughey 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may be somewhat tangential to this article but a good place to get an overall summary of the core issue as I see it is at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. Though, the first version of that proposal was rejected by the wikipedia community. To answer your question directly, the suggestion that the argument contains "more zeal than logic" actually happens on a somewhat subconscious language confusion level but I could be wrong. zen master T 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Subconscious or not, the very fact that the term is used pejoratively negates the possibility that it could be used as part of an NPOV title. --Peter McConaughey 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

True, very good point, though wikipedia titles are still using the phrase currently so I thought it important to note exactly how it discredits. zen master T 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me qualify that. If the title is a term in common use, it should be reported exactly how it is used. The article, in that case, should reflect which specific groups refer to it as a "conspiracy theory" and never claim that it is as "conspiracy theory."

The term "conspiracy theory" should never be tacked onto another term to create a title that shows bias. --Peter McConaughey 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see a case where "conspiracy theory" would be an accurate reporting of a subject, though if I understand what you are saying I agree something like Alien conspiracy theories (genre) maybe could work (though I think there are likely better titles). And on the other hand, if someone implies that a theory/allegation, no matter how outlandish, is actually a story/narrative they've separately subtly discredited it. zen master T 20:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing subtle about it. Tacking "conspiracy theory" onto the end of any term is a blatant attempt to discredit the evidence contained within the article. --Peter McConaughey 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, Peter, and think perhaps this raises a question worth pursuing - please humour it: Conspiracy theory can certainly be used pejoratively, to discredit a story, but that is not the intention behind its use when a sociologist or narratologist uses the term to categorise what is clearly a species of legend or rumour. Would you argue that titles including the words 'legend' or 'rumour' are likewise ruled-out by NPOV? If not, why not? Adhib 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Our job, as editors, is to report the meanings of terms, not to bias them. If a pejorative connotation is already in use, we report that it exists and who uses it pejoratively. We do not state that the pejorative use is fact unless there is unanimous consent to do so. Unanimous consent does not mean that everyone votes for it, but that it is within the tolerance level of everyone involved.

In your example, creatures like unicorns and lower-Greenville virgins are considered 'legend' or 'rumor' by nearly everyone. As someone who has actually seen one of these "mythical creatures," it is still within my tolerance level for the rest of the world to label them 'rumor.' --Peter McConaughey 21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this engages with my point, exactly. May I try to illustrate? If a sociologist wants to discuss the dynamics of a rumour (how it spreads, for example) that he labels the Roswell UFO Conspiracy Theory, his intent is not to 'invalidate' the rumour, but to communicate that the narrative he is tracking has the features of a conspiracy theory. His usage of conspiracy theory in the label seems to me to be perfectly legitimate and neutral. It is in no way an 'attempt to discredit the evidence' the narrative cites. Such is not his concern. The POV issue is only an issue for any sorry souls who actually believe the Government captured ET in the 1950s. Adhib 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone is classifying an allegation as being inside an ostensibly fictional narrative genre readers will approach the subject from the point of view of expecting to read fiction, not from the point of view of performing a detailed step by step factual analysis of the allegation. Wikipedia can't blindly accept your sociologist's categorization, this sort of counter claim/categorization has to be cited and we have to state exactly who has that opinion/is proposing that categorization, which are things that are impossible to do in a title. zen master T 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wake up Call

Folks, this matter has been discussed endlessly. The overwhelming consensus here is that the term "conspiracy theory" is an appropriate entry title and concept. Please stop wasting all of our time with a debate that only goes in circles and has less than a dozen supporters in a community of thousands. zen master has so worn out many of us that there is currently a serious discussion about banning him from editing any article having to do with conspiracy. We understand that your beliefs are sincere. Please understand that you are a tiny minority, and your views are ALREADY over-represented on this page out of fairness and a desire to achieve NPOV.--Cberlet 20:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So long as Zen-m cannot be persuaded to desist from his nibbling away at the integrity of articles like this, the integrity of the pedia as a whole is brought into doubt. Take a look at critics such as TCS [8] to get a flavour of the professional view of our project here. Curtailing his access might be an answer, but censorship is generally a remedy worse than the disease. The work of engaging with him is work that we will have to accept must always be done, if articles like this are to remain open. Adhib 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with the title of this article, if that's what you're getting at. Tacking "conspiracy theory" onto another term to create a title, however, is obviously POV. Anyone with scruples, of course, would never give up the fight for NPOV articles. I don't mean to drop names, but I've seen Jimbo fight for NPOV even when he is the only one doing so. --Peter McConaughey 21:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct, the Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal is not applicable to generically titled articles that don't use the phrase to describe another subject. I think for those that are confused about "conspiracy theory" the discrediting is subtle/unconscious, to those that are aware of the effect language itself can have the discrediting is obvious. In my interpretation, "conspiracy theory" as a label is biasing and non neutral on many different levels. zen master T 21:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If it were obvious, I think more people would have found it obvious. Instead: Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory/archive2, Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive01. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Either I did a poor job of explaining version 1.0 of the proposal, or editors were persuaded by Slim's argument (but that doesn't mean the discrediting is non-existant). I am open to suggestions on how to more directly indicate the phrase's discrediting is obvious. zen master T 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a third alternative: your case is wrong. It's worth considering. Adhib 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but there seems to be some agreement that the phrase is, at least partially, pejorative, so the question then becomes why use a phrase in a title that has a (strong) possibility of bias? This question is especially pertinent given the additional fact that many simple and direct possible alternative titles already exists (why does the title have to be exactly "conspiracy theory", couldn't we say exactly what you want to say in the title but use other words to do it?). Though, this all doesn't matter until I can convince enough wikipedia editors of my interpretation. zen master T 23:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Any theory that involves collusion between two or more people could accurately be described as a conspiracy theory. By the same logic, we should rename the "Creator God" article to be "Creator God conspiracy theory" and the "Evolution" article to be "Evolution conspiracy theory." --Peter McConaughey 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Often or Sometimes?

Is "Conspiracy theory" most often used to mean something pejorative? --Peter McConaughey 01:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The term is often used pejoratively to suggest that the argument contains more zeal than logic, and that it presents only the facts and factoids that support its case.

Can we find sources to support "often" instead of the milder "sometimes"? -Willmcw 01:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll just throw this in "it is not easy to distinguish a disparaging gesture from a dismissive or merely skeptical one, however.", from [9]. Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't quite seem like calling it "pea-brained" to me. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What was (and still is) missing: that it's often used to indicate a narrative genre, which may (or necessarily?!) lead to pejorative use. Anyone disagrees with that it's often used to indicate a narrative genre, making the logical link to pejorative use? IMO that's more basic than other additions of the last day (plan was to keep it short, right?). Harald88 07:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I would agree indicating the "narrative genre" necessarily leads to/is pejorative use. zen master T 07:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does any theory have to be called that though? zen master T 02:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't iunderstand your question. You seem to be asking "why does a theory have to be called a theory?" Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does a theory/allegation have to be labeled a conspiracy theory? Why don't you just say exactly what you want to say but don't use "conspiracy theory"? zen master T 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not every theory involves a supposed conspiracy. "Conspiracy theory" is only used where it applies. Bubba73 (talk), 17:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That application/categorization (and improper method of doing so) is disputed. Again, why don't you just say exactly what you want to say but don't use "conspiracy theory"? Could it be that "conspiracy theory's" discrediting only works if the phrase is literally true yet the implied categorization is often not? Isn't it very coincidental that an ostensibly dubious or fictional narrative genre has the same name as any theory that merely alleges a conspiracy? Side note: "Often" vs "Sometimes" sure is a dramatic discussion page dichotomy, it sure does point people right to the core of the major dispute over the article, doesn't it? (sarcasm) Pointing people away from the essence of understanding is a bad habit for the majority to get into. zen master T 18:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Waht's your point - that real conspiracies could also be called a "conspiracy theory"? I've never heard a real conspiracy called a CT. Bubba73 (talk), 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bubba that happens now and then: plausible examples are JFK and Olof Palme. (Or do you claim to know that they did not involve real conspiracies, contrary to the conclusions of official investigators?!) Harald88 21:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The point or question is: why does anything have to be labeled with the exact phrase "conspiracy theory"? zen master T 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

narrative genre

It starts to look like the editors here are devided in two POV groups, for the first description either pretends that the subject at hand is only a narrative genre, or it's completely forgotten. So at this moment we're in the forgotten stage, with some people trying to downplay the frequent prejogative use that is caused by the frequent (is that not disputed?!) narrative genre use. Thus, presuming that the claim that frequent use is not possible to determine was simply someone's bias talking, what about re-using an old suggestion from Jayjg instead of the sentence "The term has been used pejoratively [..] " (keeping the rest unchanged):

"The term is often used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of a grand conspiracy." Harald88 21:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much an "indication" as it is an "implied" or "attempted categorization" by a counter critic of the theory. I can think of no reason for labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" other than for the purpose of discrediting it. zen master T 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I don't know what language you regularly speak... for that's not at all what is written there. You know (you should, for it is well referenced on the article page), people DO write books on "conspiracy theories", with which they indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies in general. I dare think that when people write books about such psychological matters, they generally do not intend to discredit any particular theory; they likely don't really care, as their thoughts are on narratives, not facts. Harald88 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, people do write books on "conspiracy theories", however, that is not evidence that anything should ever be (mis) labeled that way inside an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. The way to "debunk" an allegation is present counter facts, logic, and a scientific argument, not prematurely classify it as a story. And the article should mention the possibility this narrative genre was created for the purpose of disinformation. Are there any sources on that? At the very least we should point out the very interesting language coincidence that an ostensibly dubious narrative genre has the same name as any theory that alleges a conspiracy. zen master T 22:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, after I wrote that "when people write books about such psychological matters, they generally do not intend to discredit any particular theory", and you reply "the article should mention the possibility this narrative genre was created for the purpose of disinformation", I become "zen" myself. I would be enormously surprised if there are any credible sources on that, and apparently we don't speak the same language. Sincerely, Harald88 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether they intend or not to discredit any particular theory is separate from whether the phrase "conspiracy theory" is appropriate in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia in descriptive contexts (also as far as determining a clear definition). How does my allegation that the "conspiracy theory" genre may be disinformation get interpreted as "we don't speak the same language"? It is coincidental and often confusing the fact that "conspiracy theory" is both the name of an ostensibly dubious narrative genre and any theory that alleges a conspiracy, facts speak for themselves and require no citation. zen master T 23:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, your English is excellent. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are implying my english is poor or I otherwise misunderstand something please explain with details and precision. Has anyone else considered the possibility and plausibility the conspiracy theory genre (confusing language coincidence) was engineered for the purpose of disinformation? zen master T 00:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Speaking of communication failure, if we use the term "Narrative genre" in the article, we'd better create a definition for it so people can figure out what we're talking about. --Peter McConaughey 00:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We may need a Conspiracy theory (genre) article or some such but as far as a definition here is concerned I think "story" or "group of outlandish allegedly proven false theories" or similar would be better. My proposed definition from a few days ago tried to address that, instead of "genre" I think I said something to the effect of "eccentric stories that are associated with and include ostensibly dubious allegations". Though, we have to be wary of the premature "story" categorization confusion too. zen master T 01:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, Zen-Master, you do know that there is actually a scholarly 2-volume "Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia," [10]. Your continued attempt to carve out an alternate universe for your views on Wikipedia is not very constructive. Have you considered that the study of conspiracy theories is not "engineered for the purpose of disinformation," but designed to explain why people like you act like you?--Cberlet 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A source can be used as long as we cite it, a neutral encyclopedia can't simply repeat their implied categorization of a specific theory as a "conspiracy theory". If there is a genuine effort to explain or describe how and why people are eccentric/paranoid etc they need to give the phenomenon a name other than what is also the name of any allegation that alleges a conspiracy, to avoid literal language confusion since most, if not all, theories that allege a conspiracy do not deserve to be categorized as eccentric or paranoid. zen master T 02:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, your vocabulary is impressive. If you want detailed and precise advice, I would begin by suggesting you use hyphens when they're needed, and continue by suggesting you avoid constructions that need hyphens. Still, my praise of Harald88 could easily be understood as a snarky little shot, and I regret that. I'll try to confine myself to critiques of arguments rather than their expression.

"A source can be used as long as we cite it..." Not only that, but a source must be used, and must be cited. That's a problem with some of your claims. When what you say about conspiracy theory is contradicted by what cited sources say, you're going to need to back up your assertions with sources of your own. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not advocating the exclusion of any source here. What do you believe I am proposing that requires a source or citation? If a title uses "conspiracy theory" and I ask "where is the citation of who is counter alleging that about the theory?" or I more importantly ask "why is any attempted categorization being done in the title?" why would I need a source or citation for that, isn't that an obviously basic NPOV policy violation? Additionally, I dare say a logical argument that proves the phrase "conspiracy theory" is at least ambiguous and/or confusing should be more than enough to prove it shouldn't be used in wikipedia article titles, right? zen master T 04:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong... op. cit. Barkun; Goldberg.--Cberlet 04:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean? zen master T 04:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the books.--Cberlet 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please summarize the book's argument as it relates to this discussion. zen master T 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly it's not obviously NPOV, as I said above, if you'll excuse the redundancy - again; Nor is your argument persuasive, relying as it does primarily on repeated assertion, which I find no more compelling than you do. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone is aware that a labeling of "conspiracy theory" is actually an act of categorization then it is obviously non neutral, however, if someone is confused into thinking that because theory X alleges a conspiracy, and because conspiracy theories are (allegedly) generally false and discredited and/or are nothing but eccentric stories they are errantly induced into assuming theory X must also be false/dubious/discredited/nothing but a story too (this is the literal language confusion). Also, the burden of proof is on those that would use "conspiracy theory" in a title to justify it, wikipedia's simply stated policy would chose "X theory" or similar as the title, not "X conspiracy theory". Here is another question I repeat because no one has even attempted an answer: Why is it so important to note, to the exclusion of all other details, that a particular theory alleges a conspiracy? And: Why does the collection of ostensibly false eccentric stories and allegations have the same name as any theory that literally alleges a conspiracy? zen master T 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter and Zen-master, I didn't know that expression myself, but after clicking on the word genre it was crystal clear. Anyway what do you think of (now in context to make it esier to judge, with "criticizing" deleted as it's faulty grammar):

A conspiracy theory alleges the cause of a specific event or series of events to be a plot by a small and usually powerful covert alliance, rather than activity by a lone perpetrator, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence. The term is often used to indicate a type of story telling (narrative genre) that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of a grand conspiracy. Labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is sometimes interpreted as an attempt to dismissively ridicule the allegation and to discourage a careful analysis of the allegation's evidence.

Harald88 11:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a caveat with story, someone is trying to (subtly) indicate an allegation is a story but it may not be so. We could reuse "label" in the story sentence too and use "allegedly" or some such? zen master T 18:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think not at all. But I may get what you mean now. The whole point is that that term is also used to describe the existence of wild, popular fantasies - like gossip. If you write a story about the phenomenon called gossip, there is no need to allege anything about any particular story or to allege that all stories are gossip; and there's also no need to point that obvious fact out, IMO. Harald88 19:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

PS it now hits me that "story" has a similar problem: my dictionary says "story: history or narrative of facts or events - storyteller"! :)) Harald88 19:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure we agree yet. If someone alleges something we should treat it as an allegation for the purpose of presenting it neutrally, there is no need to label it a story in an encyclopedic context, we can judge with citations the accuracy and/or general acceptance of the theory, but we need not classify it (which has the effect of discrediting it) as an eccentric story (any classification requires a citation of who is counter arguing that). We need to decouple a specific theory that alleges a conspiracy from the genre of eccentric stories (they have the same name). If an allegation is false or factually debunked or generally not accepted we should state exactly that, it would be improper and unecessary to categorize it inside the genre of eccentric stories as that detracts from factually determining the accuracy or inaccuracy of the allegation. Perhaps the intro could just mention the Conspiracy theory (fiction) article? Though we have to be wary of insufficient disassociation. The only thing we can objectively state as being stories are works the author agrees are stories. zen master T 19:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Roman à clef? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything that presents itself as being Roman à clef should be presented as a story (with perhaps a real world point too). However, the subject of every article that currently uses "conspiracy theory" in the title on wikipedia is actually directly alleging something and should not be classified as a story. zen master T 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In the hypothetical case that a specific 'allegation' has been thoroughly investigated and shown to be entirely without merit in each of its particulars, and to exhibit all or most of the features detailed in the article, is it then legitimate for an encyclopedia to consider the matter settled, or must it continue to respect the views of the few hold-outs who ignore, misunderstand, and otherwise fail to accept the disproof of their pet allegation? (NB: this is an either/or question). Adhib 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We have to present and describe a subject neutrally before we can categorize it if there is even the slightest chance that categorization is or may be disputed. It is ok to say inside an article "theory X is generally regarded as false by the scientific community" (with citations) but you mostly certainly can't classify it a certain way in the title. More importantly, "conspiracy theory" shouldn't even be utilized to present subjects that are disproven in my interpretation, it's an improper way to go about discrediting something, you have to "debunk" a theory with facts and a logical argument, and not use presumption inducing language. The Flat Earth article is not titled Flat Earth (false theory). zen master T 22:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zenmaster, all that has nothing to do with the existence of a narative genre and to me you still seem to interpret a lot of things on another level than intended. The label "conspiracy theory" itself can not be considered a story or whatever, instead it's a label with a range of associations and attached feelings, and it's the purpose of this article to point them out and IMO the distinctions are made very clear now. Only, a particular, important association is now not mentioned in the first paragraph, while very recently only that one was mentioned(!) - and the problem that is next mentioned is explained by it. But who knows, I might be pushing the suggestion that the term conspiracy theory isn't the result of a super conspiracy itself... ;-) Harald88 22:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying we shouldn't mention the "narrative genre" in the intro but we have to be very careful in doing so. zen master T 22:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: Is there an academic source that uses the phrase "narrative genre"?--Sean|Black 01:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. zen master T 03:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I love the phrase narrative genre. I don't think it exists much outside of this talk page, but if other editors can coin phrases by tacking "conspiracy theory" to the end of any term they don't like, why can't we make up phrases too? --Peter McConaughey 03:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The first I heard of it was Slimvirgin's argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, I still dunno what it means really. zen master T 03:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't insist on that exact jargon; I only thought that for some time it was the concensus of the editors of this page. To me "The phrase has been used pejoratively to suggest that an allegation contains more zeal than logic" is also acceptable, as I indicated, but the fact that it hasn't been reversed to that suggests to me that, as I expected, the story aspect has some support among editors here. Any reasonable substitue for narrative genre or story telling is also good to me (folklore perhaps?). I have not read the psychological books about such stories in the references, thus: how do those authors call their field of interest in which they place "conspiracy theory", if not "narrative genre"? Perhaps sociology or psychology? I still think that it's good to hint at what much of the article is about! Harald88 13:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea where people are trying to go with narrative genre and other links/citations but we should include a very brief definition of that concept in this intro too, instead of just wikilinking. What was wrong/incomplete with "an eccentric type of story or collection of stories that include allegations of grand conspiracies"? zen master T 22:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to narrative structure, which does have an article, and is used on acedmic sources. Any good?--Sean|Black 22:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't really clarify it; and now I notice that all this time a good suggestion is staring at us in the references and links of the article, wihtout need to go to the library! I'll change it immediately; if yoú think it's not better, just revert. Harald88 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

PS for Wikipedia it may be a good idea to label it instead of paranoid style, "paranoid style" ... Harald88 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I checked (through Wikipedia!) that this descriptor is not only used by Hofstadter: Conspiracy : "How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (Paperback) by Daniel Pipes " Harald88 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you mean you saw it in Further reading. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I regret but no, except if you interpret someone's criticism on the incomplete treatment of that "paranoid type" when it was first introduced as evidence that the meaning would be too limited to mention as an important use Was that it? In that case, I hope you understand that I disagree. Harald88 08:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is....sentence edit.

"Labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is sometimes interpreted as an attempt to dismissively ridicule the allegation and to discourage a careful analysis."

I am changing this to this.

Labeling an allegation a "conspiracy theory" is freguently used as an attempt to dismissively ridicule the allegation and to discourage a careful analysis.

For the following reasons.

a. labelling always caries with it, not sometimes, a derogatory sense meant to weaken a position, negate, or constrict it in some way.

b. Conspiracy theory does for a fact carry a negative connotation, and is almost always used in a dismissive way, besides it's literal sense, just do a google search to see how it is used.

c. It's a long established fact that whenever someone tries to implicate a party of more than one persons actively pursuing their aims in a private manner the prime tactic, at least verbally, to refute that is by labelling it a conspiracy theory, and thus ridiculing it. And this is is not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of fact. To put it bluntly, if i go up to you and say hey joe, bob, nick i think you ve been planning something against my back, and they say you are positing a conspiracy theory, they won't do this to clarify what i am doing, they ll do it for the sole reason mentioned above. Even the coupling of the words is ludicrous because it presupposes that conspiracies are just theories, not actualities, but that's for fine print for most.

I disagree with your point a, but I largely agree with your points b. and c. Thus I think this is better. Thanks 62.38.140.176! Harald88 13:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine, perhaps could be "used in an attempt..." but I will think about that and other tiny tweaks a bit more. zen master T 14:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous editor seems to be saying, "This is what conspiracy theory means, because I say so." In spite of the editor's masterful use of sarcasm above, I don't think "It's a matter of fact" and "It's a long established fact that..." constitute cited sources that can stand against the extensive literature documenting use of the term. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The source and evidence for that sentence is all examples of the phrase's use. Proponents of "conspiracy theory" might/would likely argue dismissively ridiculing an allegation is justified, but make no mistake that is what it is. Tom, if you have a problem with the sentence then perhaps we can go back to "can be interpreted as..."? zen master T 15:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom, your comments are criticism on and your impression of the way he phrased his motivation for his rephrasing. Do you also have a motivated comment on the change that he made? BTW I don't see any sarcasm. Harald88 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, a few days ago Tony Blair dismissed the allegation that Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera as "conspiracy theory" -- or do we really have to find a news report in which a journalist claims that Blair's use of that term was "dismissive", until which we could pretend that he possibly just wanted to give a neutral description of that claim? That it's just a hobby of his to put neutral labels on things? ;-) Harald88 16:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Harald88, the anonymous editor above doesn't appear to have any sources for his definition of conspiracy theory beyond his understanding of what it means, and his assertion that that should be obvious to all honest, right-thinking people. But maybe I misunderstood.

Zen-master, at this point I'd kind of like to see at what level the intro is going to stabalize. After reading, "The term is often used as attempt to indicate an eccentric type of story or collection of stories that includes a broad selection of arguments in favour of the existence of grand conspiracies," I've begun to view the page as an example of the second law of thermodynamics as applied to information theory. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean and what do you suggest we should change? zen master T 20:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

See my remark above (under the correct header): I found a good descriptor, straight from an authorative reference. Apparently none of us now active editors had read the references... Harald88 22:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Google book search is handy:[11] Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Definition dispute & discussion

Okay folks, I think we need an easy place to discuss this. Basically, we're in disagreement over what constitutes a "conspiracy theory", and what the best way to define "conspiracy theory" is. So, in this section, without resorting to personal attacks, and always remaining civil, let's come to a consensus about how this article can be best presented and how it can be improved.--Sean|Black 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my most recent intro change? What would you add or change? zen master T 04:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It's simple enough to be understood, and it doesn't center around a phrase like "narrative genre" that doesn't really make sense. The intro (and the article as a whole) need a little work, and we need to form a consensus, but things are otherwise okay.--Sean|Black 04:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "In popular culture" or similar instead of "Popular conceptions frequently sees..."? zen master T 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We might want to merge that sentence and the one that links to conspiracy theories (fictional), but otherwise that's fine with me.--Sean|Black 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it was again becoming instable, and I agree with zenmaster's revert as "Things which the mainstream regards as happenstance, accidental, or coincidence (and thus not in need of explanation) are deemed intentional or designed" made the planned short description unnecessary long and it was even planted at the wrong place, giving the wrong suggestion. But I did not hear any arguments against "paranoid type". As long as people demand for phrasing that is backed up by the references upon which such is rejected without argument and replaced by editors' own inventions, I'm afraid that this will never end! Harald88 08:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and his first sentence had a seemingly incomplete definition of the literal definition/argument type too. I am also not so sure about conspiracy theory arguing something "non-mainstream" most of the time and it seems to be inappropriate to label an abstract collection of allegations as non-mainstream anyway.

Harold88, do you mean the paranoid in "allegedly false, eccentric and paranoid arguments or narratives"? I think "paranoid" is ok as long as it's clear that the "allegedly" caveat applies to eccentric and paranoid too, is it? zen master T 08:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Zenmaster, I also think paranoid is OK, as I explained above. But now the second sentence is again not good: "Popular culture and entertainment often features them" seems to suggests that popular culture makes fun of conspiracy theories, instead of describing the paranoid narrative style called "conspiracy theory"... Harald88 09:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: "plot by two or more individuals": I did not know that a plot could be by less than two individuals, what's the use of that? Harald88 08:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is perhaps a tad redundant though "plot your next move" seems like a singular usage case to me. Plot also slightly connotes the "genre" but I didn't see a better word or way of rearanging the first sentence. Though that is additionally redundant by "rather than activity by a group acting publically". What change might you suggest? zen master T 08:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

the first line was fine so I reverted that line to the way it was; hopefully that helps to stabilize! Harald88 09:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the case that conspiracy theory means whatever we want it to mean. The definition has to be supported by cited references. As it stands, what are those references? Who exactly says, "The term is also used pejoratively to dismissively ridicule an allegation and discourage a careful analysis of its claims?" Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Above I already gave an example of such use, and here's an easily found reference of that example which also formulates the general understanding of that use: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/njaz27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/27/ixportal.html

Harold88, I cleaned up your changes for NPOV, let me know either way. I could cite pejorative use of "conspiracy theory" from wikipedia talk pages if need be. zen master T 17:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Zenmaster, Wikipedia Talk pages can't be source for Wikipedia, I hope you mean more substantial sources. And does it matter? IMO, your addition of pejorative is perhaps superfluous to a sentence that already contains "dismissively ridicule", and the same for some other additions; in particular "allegedly" is out of place, it misses the point (would you also state that a fairy tale is about alleged fantasy?!). For clarity, it would be nice to have a short, easy to understand sketch of "conspiracy theory" instead of an attempt to imitate a book of law -- and we almost had that. As reference, dictionary.com: A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act. Harald88 18:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thus my suggestions, based on what we have now:

A conspiracy theory alleges the cause of a specific event or series of events to be a plot by a covert alliance rather than activity by a single perpetrator, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence. Conspiracy theory is used in popular culture to indicate a type of fiction that includes a wide variety of eccentric or paranoid arguments and narratives in favour of the existence of vast conspiracies [12]. The term is also used pejoratively to dismissively ridicule an allegation, which may discourage careful analysis.

Or even:

A conspiracy theory alleges that an event is due to a plot by a covert alliance rather than activity by an individual, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence. In popular culture, conspiracy theory indicates a type of fiction that includes a wide variety of eccentric or paranoid arguments in favour of the existence of vast conspiracies [13]. The term is also used in order to dismissively ridicule an allegation.

Harald88 18:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If the issue is common usage of a phrase or definition then wikipedia talk pages are just as valid as anywhere else that uses the english language, if it is a citation for a claim or argument then I agree wikipedia makes a poor citation. The "pejorative" is necessary to convey that such usage may be inappropriate in some contexts and to add clarity, we could go with or add "Controversially" if you want. The "allegedly" caveat for the fiction type is a NPOV requirement, "often represented as" could work too. zen master T 18:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Zenmaster, please answer my question: would you REALLY state that a fairy tale is about alleged fantasy, or "a fairy tale is represented as phantasy", because you think that it would be POV to describe something as meaning what is meant, so that it must be alleged to mean it?! I think that's simply wrong, and I object to it. Comments of others are welcome too. Harald88 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If the author of the narrative or story says their work is a "fairy tale" or a "conspiracy theory" then we can accept that, however, if the situation is a third person counter criticizing or categorizing an author's allegation as a "conspiracy theory" then it would violate NPOV to accept that directly. Also, we should perhaps point about the possibility the "conspiracy theory" fictional genre is potentially disinformation, though we probably would need citations for that and I doubt there are any. It is however a coicidental fact that any theory that alleges a conspiracy can have the same name as the allegedly eccentric and paranoid type of (alleged) fiction. We can and should point out the potential for confusion from this coincidental fact. zen master T 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Cripes. 'turn my back for two minutes, and look what happens. In order of importance: (a) The genre of 'conspiracy theory' is absolutely not fiction - a key feature of the genre is that the narrator believes his story is true. If we're trying to simplify the reference to genre by directly claiming what place it occupies within a taxonomic system (something previously discussed and rejected under considerations of the structuralism/post-structuralism issues this overlards the article with) it must be referred to as legend, myth, fable or folklore, not fiction. (b) Tom is correct above that the anonymous editor's claim requires substantiation. I challenged Zen-m above for a list of the cases he had in mind when he last raised the suggestion that the label "is mainly used" thus - answer came there none. So far, we have no cited evidence of substantial conspiracy allegations being suppressed in this way. Isn't it about time we saw some? Adhib 19:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary.com, Fiction: "1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented." I see nothing saying that fiction must be believed to be untrue. IOW, that argument is invalid. And "Folklore" was also proposed, and it was also wiped away by editors.

But I can't care any less since the only substantiated (and referenced) genre description to replace the old unsubstiated formulations, "paranoid type" was without any argument or protest replaced by new editor's formulations. Thus I won't help anymore with that, and I'll stop commenting on it. Instead I'll perhaps watch this as an amusement show. (Sarcastic? A little, but nevertheless I'm serious!) Harald88 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Also Abhid, please comment on last week's news example, I gave the link and we can cite from it. For sure more can be found, but it was striking that that happened during the discussion. And why are you talking about "mainly used" or "suppressed"? I could not find any of that in the current article, thus it's not relevant. Right? Harald88 20:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence is saying what you interpret it to though perhaps we need to be more a lot more clear. We only say "conspiracy theory" is additionally a type of fiction which is ostensibly true. As far as judging the accuracy of individual arguments and narratives we only say "allegedly eccentric and paranoid" which is also true? Perhaps we should say "category of fiction"? I would support "alleged fiction" or similar but I didn't think you folks would.

Where have I argued the allegations were "suppressed"? A few months ago I did a quick google search for en.wikipedia.org and "conspiracy theory" and found 20 "dismissively ridiculing" usages of "conspiracy theory" and posted that list on another talk page. Peter seems to agree pejorative usage of "conspiracy theory" is obvious, ostensibly and presumably the people that use the phrase feel ridiculing a specific allegation is appropriate. zen master T 19:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, folks, let's calm down. We can discuss this rationally. Basically, we need acedemic references to give us a clear-cut, accurate, and logical definition for "conspiracy theory". Does anyone have those?--Sean|Black 21:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The way I've seen it used it can mean any theory that alleges a conspiracy or an attempted categorization in an allegedly fictional, allegedly eccentric, allegedly paranoid collection of arguments and narratives that all happen to connote some sort of vast conspiracy. It's hard to define something that means what it's constituent parts mean and is also a noun/name for something. zen master T 21:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to define something that like this, in that it seems obvious but is difficult to put into words. However, I think we can find one. Actually, what sources (in general, not just the definition issue) are we using on this article? Those would help us start, at least.--Sean|Black 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For defining the allegedly fictional story type we can cite the definition sources already presented but highly caveat them to make it clear this is "their" definition, what do you think? I tried to define "conspiracy theory" as meaning exactly what its individual words mean (in which case my source is any dictionary) but that was rejected. What happens if there aren't really any acceptable or appropriate sources? zen master T 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The article needs to begin: "A conspiracy theory is...", and then we say what differnet scholars and so forth think about the term. The problem is, if we use one of those sources in the intro, we're sort of endorsing their definition, so we need to come up with a neutral descriptor.--Sean|Black 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can start with "A conspiracy theory is..." given the fact the phrase has multiple meanings. zen master T 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Like what? I mean, it has certain connotations, and it's meaning can be interpreted differently, but it's more or less one thing.--Sean|Black 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, you don't see "allegedly eccentric or paranoid" in the argument type do you? It is a type of argument/literal language definition and separately a type of psychiatric diagnosis and fiction for allegedly false, eccentric and paranoid arguments and narratives that each connote the existence of vast conspiracy. See my posts above about the need to disassociate these concepts. zen master T 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(unindenting...) So you're concerned about seperating the perjorative use, the use as a type of argument, and the use of conspiracy theories in fiction, yes? That makes sense, and I agree. How about something like this:

A conspiracy theory is a type of logical argument or narrative structure that alleges that given events and individuals have hidden meanings or alterior motives. Oftentimes, this involves accusations of a cabal or similar secret society. Some see these accusations as inheirtly ludicrous or paranoid, with little to no basis in fact. Conpiracy theories are often used in fiction.

Any good?--Sean|Black 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not so keen on narative structure, we should define it here. Also, we have to explicitly point out there is more than one definition, like "A conspiracy theory is both...". I think the pejorative use is actually when the first two usages are combined, it's not necessarily its own usage. Your version has too many excessively linked terms, gives too much emphasis and connotes the genre. I think your organization could work but the wording should be taken from the current intro. zen master T 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so..

A conspiracy theory is a type of logical argument that assigns alterior motives and hidden meanings to actions and events, and alleges that there are many unseen causes and motivators for everyday events. It can be used as a perjorative, in an attempt to dismiss an argument as ludicrous or paranoid. Conspiracy theories are often used in fiction.

How's that?--Sean|Black 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"assigns alterior motives and hidden meanings" is too evocative of the genre and can't be considered a part of a "logical argument". The pejorative usage should be separate from a description of the narrative/popular entertainment culture usage. Also, the pejorative usage isn't directly trying to dismiss an allegation as being paranoid or ludicrous, they are trying to dismiss by implied categorization in or association with the genre that is itself allegedly paranoid, allegedly ludicrous and allegedly fictional. zen master T 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that I'm having difficulty adressing your concerns, Zen-master, could you possibly revise one of my intro choices above to meet your concerns?--Sean|Black 22:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean, Conspiracy theory has a basic meaning with a clear split, as explained here as well as now in the article, and in the discussions of the last week. Welcome to the discussion. ;-) Your suggestions are IMO less good then what we currently have -- and that's not at all surprising as what we have now was the result of a one week long debate, and we almost reached consensus on it - apart of some disagreement about last tinkering. That's why I think it's a Very Bad idea to mess it up again as you suggest now.

And my other comments on the above:

Zenmaster, I now looked up the Wikipedia starting line of fairy tales, and it's as I expected: "A fairy tale is a story featuring folkloric characters such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, giants, and others. " - Please Zenmaster, take note that according to the editors, a fairy tale is not alleged to be a story of.... For the description of the term it doesn't matter if someone may allege that a certain story is a fairy tale, a genre is not about any particular story or fairy tale, and it should not be necessary to explain that here. Just check the dictionary for words such as lies etc. In order not to flame, I must end my argument about that point, but it's almost certain to pop up again ... Harald88 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference is because the categorization of something as being a "fairy tale" is rarely if ever disputed? The way "conspiracy theory" is used against what are first and foremost allegations makes its attempted story categorization highly improper. zen master T 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

About "No appropriate sources", and "Rejected" (Zenmaster): - 1. The dictionary is clear enough. - 2. A dictionary-like description happens to be the current umbrella description, with in addition the two common most extreme uses (genre as well as the consequental pejorative use). With a clear disassociation, exactly as it should be. Harald88 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean, I'll now get out of this discussion.

Good luck folks Harald88 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, Harald, and I would appreciate if you would continue to discuss. In any case, Zen-master has his own views on the subject, and I feel that the intro should reflect this. However, I have to ask: What would you change about the current intro, or either of my potential intros?--Sean|Black 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Harold, look up "conspiracy" and "theory" and you will have an accureate definition of at least the literal definition of "conspiracy theory".

?? A last comment then, for I am stunned by these two last questions and the one here except if it wasn't meant for me; I already gave two suggestions here above in this section to clean up the phrasing, so I'll copy them once more below. And I repeated twice the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory", also here above in this section. Harald88 23:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sean, I like the status quo intro, what do you not like about it? zen master T 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at again, it's pretty good, actually. I think the problem is the overly complex prose, and some wording issues. I'll do a rewrite now, and please tell me what you think of it.--Sean|Black 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Revising the intro

Please post your suggestions for the intro here. Thanks.--Sean|Black 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK here one last time, my suggestions based on what we have now (slightly adjusted):

A conspiracy theory alleges the cause of a specific event or series of events to be a plot by a covert alliance rather than activity by a single perpetrator, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence. Conspiracy theory is used in popular culture to indicate a type of fiction that includes a wide variety of eccentric or paranoid arguments and narratives in favour of the existence of vast conspiracies [14]. The term is also used pejoratively to dismissively ridicule an allegation, which may discourage careful analysis.

Or even:

A conspiracy theory alleges that an event is due to a plot by a covert alliance rather than activity by an individual, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence. In popular culture, conspiracy theory indicates a certain genre that includes a wide variety of eccentric or paranoid arguments in favour of the existence of vast conspiracies [15]. Consequently, the term is also used in order to dismissively ridicule an allegation.

All the best. Harald88 23:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"eccentric or paranoid arguments" or "fiction" needs a caveat like "allegedly. zen master T 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be the moment to go back to the lead at [16]; ask that the page be locked by an admin, and discuss the need to collectively take zen-master to arbitration. This has been going on for months.--Cberlet 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? zen master T 01:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't pretend it isn't an issue. Don't pretend it is not already being discussed by other editors. Don't pretend you have not been at this for months. Don't pretend that this same conversation over the term conspiracy theory has not taken place-over and over-on multiple pages. Just don't. It is tacky, if nothing else.--Cberlet 13:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been working for the last 2 days with other editors, in general agrement I might add, so I still don't know what your specific complaint is here. zen master T 18:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your long history of disruptive editing until you get your way. See: [17]--Cberlet 22:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I dare say a post by Kelly Martin (her opinion) is not evidence nor an example of any disruption on my part, please elaborate. zen master T 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hypothesis - argument

A conspiracy theory is NOT a logical argument, it is a hypothesis. Among people who actually use logic, a hypothesis is tested with fact-checking and replicable experiments, and then defended with logical arguments. Conspiracy theories could be tested this way, but often they are not, thus the genre of "conspiracy theory." The lead on this page is a travesty. --Cberlet 12:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've revised the intro, removing the "logical argument" description. It still could use some work, but it's better than the previous version. Carbonite | Talk 13:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but it is a bit like putting a band aid on someone who fell into a commercial meat grinder.--Cberlet 13:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. How do you think the intro should be worded? Carbonite | Talk 13:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to get back into this but I thought your wording was much better than Zen_master's "clarification." I liked the way you refer to a conspiracy theory as an "explanation" for an event rather than a narrative or argument. –Shoaler (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the excessive wikilinking? What about the situations when someone tries to label an allegation a conspiracy theory? I don't mind too much but Cberlet's version doesn't directly mention the ostensibly fictional story type in the intro at all, was this intentional and if so what is the thinking behind that (compared to the definition of the story type the rest of us come up with yesterday)? zen master T 19:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to use the term "allegation." An allegation is just an assertion that doesn't have sufficient proof. But whether proof is sufficient in any particular case is someone's point of view. I didn't see anything about "ostensibly fictional story" in there, but why does everything have to be in the header? Can't we have a basic, sufficiently broad definition in the header and put most of usage information in the body of the article? –Shoaler (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that more people are discussing this, and I'll note that I like Carbonite's intro. The one I used yesterday was attempt to get a compromise with Zen-master; it still needs work, but I think it's possible to please all the parties and still have a good intro.--Sean|Black 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Shoaler, a summary is good but the intro should also note a clearer and more separate distinction between explanatory use and "more zeal than logic" use, not to mention the entertainment media complex usage is missing. I don't think "and that it presents only the facts and factoids that support its case" is accurate, the "zeal and logic" use is trying to equate an explanation with on ostensibly fictional narrative, they aren't even acknowledging a case is trying to be made so how could they be discrediting it that way? Also, I don't like how the last intro sentence is worded, it actually discourages consideration of the evidence in the reader, not in the person doing the criticizing/labeling. Also "it" is slightly ambiguous and could be read to mean the subject of the article "conspiracy theory" rather than "explanation". zen master T 20:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but that's more than I can handle in one response. Can we just look at the definition part and see if we can get a sentence that we can all agree to? I propose, just for discussion purposes, a slight variation on the one that's in there now:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for a specific event or series of events that seeks to explain the cause as a plot by a small and usually powerful covert alliance, rather than the result of activity by a single perpetrator, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence. –Shoaler (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's mostly ok, though it seems redundant to use "explanation" and then "seeks to explain"? I don't think "usually powerful" is accurate, it's debatable, and "powerful" does connotes the story type. I am still not sold on "explanation" being prefered over "allegation" though I am not exactly sure why, how about the redundant but clear "theory" or someone suggested "hypothesis" earlier? As in "A conspiracy theory is an alternative hypothesis/explanation that proposes a specific event or series of events may have been caused by a small but influential covert alliance rather than the result of...". The comma before "rather" is unnecessary and confusing (too many commas in last part of sentence) I think but I could be wrong syntax wise. zen master T 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Which reference supports which definition of conspiracy theory? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe we are trying to create a neutral amalgam definition from all sources and examples of usage. How do any of those references disagree with the current definition? zen master T 23:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Popper, Melley, and Fenster regard ct as existing only in opposition to the background of mainstream belief. Melley or Fenster I think explicitly says they're counter-narratives. Someone who has the book can correct me if I'm wrong.

The intro should mention the (at least superficial) malevolence of the supposed conspirators, which is generally accepted. Hofstadter articulates it as well as any.

Melley says ct's rarely rely on a small secret plot, but on vast, powerful systems, like Macarthy's "conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man."

What is in the intro but should not be, is the suggestion that ct is mostly the opposite of "lone gunman." Defining it as not "the result of activity by a single perpetrator, a group of people acting publicly, or a natural occurrence" is implying that same old "literal definition" of ct as "a theory about a conspiracy." Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with starting out with a relatively neutral opening sentence and then adding the elements that make it a worldview, narrative genre, and subject of stufy in the next sentences? Then we add the idea that the term can be used in a perjorative sense. Seems fair and NPOV.--Cberlet 05:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Tom, I think we can expound on all these points but the difficulty is being neutral, applying all the necessary caveats, and disassociating between the literal definition and the popular culture/narrative meaning (plus other meanings). Not all conspiracy theories necessarily hypothesize melevolence though I agree generally they do. Is anyone going to respond to my points/criticisms above of the current intro? zen master T 05:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)