Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

False by definition?

Are conspiracy theories false by definition? I ask this because it is not clear from either the article or talk archives. If a conspiracy theory must be false by definition, then I would submit this should be made clear in the lede. On the other hand, if there is an example of a conspiracy theory turning out to be true, the article should list at least one or two examples. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:1581:5192:18A9:3595 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 'being false' is generally a defining characteristic of conspiracy theories. Many are incapable of being falsified: e.g. ones that presume the existence of powerful secretive groups, taking the lack of evidence for existence of such groups as evidence for just how secretive they are.

Furthermore, given how many conspiracy theories there are, and how vaguely-defined they tend to be, some are going to turn out to be 'true' (or true-ish enough to convince the 'theorists' that they were right) by chance. This is entirely uninteresting. It would take a great deal of talent to spew out endless streams of often-contradictory conspiracy nonsense as many 'theorists' are prone to de, and to be entirely wrong about absolutely everything. Monkeys with typewriters can be right some of the time too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories which turn out to be true aren't called "conspiracy theories", they're called "conspiracies". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of true and false. Conspiracy theories cannot be falsified because any adverse evidence can be explained. Similarly, they cannot be proved because they presuppose the operation of forces that cannot be seen. It's like asking if demonic possession can be proved true or false.

Confusion arises because the term is often improperly used as an ad hominem.

TFD (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of fascination with the concept of “conspiracy theories that turned out to be true”, and it’s a perennial subject here [1]. There is a lot of clickbait media feeding this idea, and it’s a popular angle for conspiracy-mongers to use when trying to convince the gullible. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

\Yes, as once they are shown to ber real hey are now just conspiracies. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I came to this page to have this very question answered. Obviously things like the moon landing being faked or the Obama birther thing are false, but what about the Jussie Smollet deal? There were a bunch of stories referring to it as a conspiracy theory. If I understand correctly, once the hoax theory turned out to be true, then it ceased to be a conspiracy theory? If that's the case, the lede should make this clear. Or if conspiracy theories are false by definition, then I think this is also something that should be spelled out in the lede. I would imagine I'm not the only person who came here to see if CT could be true or were by definition false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:505D:900A:5D98:7858 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe the conspiracy theories being forwarded in the Smollet case were along the lines of "a cabal of liberals funded by George Soros fabricated the attack in order to make Trump/supporters look bad", which invoked unseen forces and unfalsifiable claims, rather than what actually happened: he lied about it in order to boost his career. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. My only contention is the article should clearly spell out that conspiracy theories are definitionally false *or* that once a CT is shown to be true it ceases to be a CT and becomes a conspiracy. As I mentioned, my reason for originally visiting this article was to see if a conspiracy theory could indeed be true. It appears this is not the case. Something of this importance should be clearly defined somewhere in the article. I realize a lot of you are very educated, but please bear in mind some of the readership here did not attend Harverd. As I mentioned befroe, a good number of visitors to this page are probably coming here for the same reason I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:505D:900A:5D98:7858 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not the claim itself that makes it a conspiracy theory, but the reasoning of the proponents and their assumptions about the knowledge, power and degree of evil of the people pulling the strings. Rational people form conclusions based on evidence, while conspiracy theorists arrange evidence to support predetermined conclusions. And as i mentioned above, the term conspiracy theory is often used as an ad hominem. Obviously some people make false claims to police and they are supposed to verify them. TFD (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So getting back to my original question, should the article say something along the lines that "Conspiracy theories are either false or unable to be verified. If a theory is provable or true it is then by definition not a conspiracy theory." Forgive me if I seem stuck on this, but I believe this is probably one of the most popular questions (ie: is there ever a situation where a conspiracy theory is true) regarding the topic. If there was a sentence like the one above situated prominently in the article, it would clarify this for people like me who came to the article seeking an answer to this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:E94E:E7BE:4400:87CF (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The article should be based on what the sources we cite have to say on the subject. Which as far as I'm aware doesn't include any such statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am assuming the sources address the fact that conspiracy theories are either false or unverifiable. It would seem that this is a central question regarding conspiracy theories in general. As I stated the article itself as it stands doesn't rally address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:E94E:E7BE:4400:87CF (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Find something in a relevant reliable source which states directly that "conspiracy theories are either false or unverifiable" and we can consider including it, at least as an opinion. As I have already made clear, I don't think such a claim is consistent with how sources generally define conspiracy theories. They are a form of narrative, and a mindset, rather than a type of 'theory' as the term is used in say science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead already says, "Conspiracy theories resist falsification." TFD (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well then how about something along the lines of what you said: "While some conspiracy theories may end up being true, this is purely by chance, as conspiracy theories are more a form of narrative than an actual 'theory' in the traditional sense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

We would need a supporting source to say that in the article. I'm afraid there's no getting around taking a trip to the library. MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So the sources don't support having a section on the veracity of conspiracy theories? As I've mentioned several times, this is a central question to the topic at hand. I'm making an assumption that most readers would want to know if conspiracy theories can be true or if they are automatically false. Perhaps this is a bad assumption, but I'm surprised there is not more agreement that the article should try to tackle this somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6D80:688F:729B:9C1F:248C (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m afraid we’re not going to find agreement among high quality sources to support an open-ended ”some conspiracy theories can be true” caveat that could be used as a bludgeon to convince others that some crazy new theory making the rounds could be true. The nature of conspiracy theories is that who is embracing them and what they are claiming tends to define them rather than some standardized formula or generalization. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

We can only put things into the article that are reliably sourced. you should use a book such as Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction (J. Byford, Palgrave Macmillan 2011), rather than one of the numerous popular books written by non-experts. TFD (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

A stopped watch is correct twice a day. But, if you are asked the time, you don't produce your stopped watch. Though it may be accidentally correct, there is no value in seeing it. Conspiracy theories are theories without acceptable evidence and expected to be false by those who require more than suspicion. In any case, WP relies on reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that fringe theory is a preferable term as compared to conspiracy theory. Both of these suggest a belief that is highly dubious, but whereas conspiracy theory suggests something that should be dismissed out of hand (and doesn't seem to necessarily require an alleged conspiracy), fringe theory relies on a more factual interpretation, i.e. that the theory has limited acceptance.

Wikipedia describes appropriate usage of WP:fringe theories, while the paper “Conspiracy theory”: The case for being critically receptive makes the case for the challenges associated with using the term conspiracy theory. Fabrickator (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources have to say on a subject, not on contributors' personal opinions. The sources cited in the article use the term 'conspiracy theory'. As indeed does the source you cite, which makes no mention of 'fringe'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag added

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page consistently presents opinions as facts. It will have to be thoroughly edited to attain neutrality.--Jameswilson321 (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Sorry, but a mere assertion that the article has neutrality issues isn't sufficient grounds for adding the NPOV tag. Provide examples. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Further to this, your recent edit [2] contradicts multiple sources, which make the meaning of the term abundantly clear: it isn't just the conjunction of two words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC) Jameswilson321: I agree with AndyTheGrump on both points, and with the removal of your edits by ATG and LilianaUwU. Please do not restore them unless you have a consensus from the editors on this page to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC) @Jameswilson321: See my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC) A conspiracy theory is simply a hypothesis that two or more people worked together to plan and/or do something. Nobody cares what your corny CIA-run fake website or curated CIA-owned fake sources say. Facts are facts. Opinions are opinions. Learn the difference. Or don't. Literally no one cares. - Jameswilson321 (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

First Usage

The term conspiracy theory was used as far back as 1703. Can someone please add this, I don't have an account. See page 79 and 84 of "A Sermon Preached Before the Queen at Windsor, Oct. 24, 1703" By Edward Pelling, published in 1703 47.55.178.85 (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Is the source available online? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't seem to find a freely-available copy of the Sermon online, to look at the context, and we'd really need a secondary source stating the the usage of the phrase concurred with more recent understandings of the concept.

Incidentally, the 'Etymology and usage' section should probably be entitled 'Usage' instead, since we aren't discussing etymology as such - the constituent words are much older. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Google Books: [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is about a theory of a crime which involves invoking a conspiracy, and not the usage of "conspiracy theory" as understood today and detailed in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that etymology is of less use here than “usage” or possibly “history”. The etymology of the two separate words can be done, but the term is new enough that its history isn’t exactly accounted for in the same way. HistorianFromSyracuse (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories that aren't labeled as such?

POV push Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What about things that are the same basic thing as conspiracy theories but are not labeled as such? Example: The media played up a garage opener in Bubba Watsons garage as a noose put there by Racists White Supremacists and Nascar in order to scare off the Black driver. Turns out it was a garage opener that was already there. The rationale of how it was reported fits the Wikipedia definition of a conspiracy theory, exaggerated claims of secret entities doing things when there are simpler explanation. Of course their not going to report this and also call themselves conspiracy theorists at the same time. Example 2: The city of Las Angeles investigates "nooses" hanging in the city park, They suspect a White Supremacy group put them there to intimidate Black people in the Area. Turns out it was exercise equipment put there by a Black citizen. Example 3: The entire Trump Russia collusion was reported for years, nothing of importance was found, the investigation started off by flimsy evidence, the dossier was paid for by the competition, Hillary. Twitter even told FBI there was no evidence of Russian Bots, but the FBI kept pushing against it. Yet it was reported on constantly, with wild accusations, theories, and prominent members of Government past and present. They're not going to label themselves conspiracy theorists while conducting the act. Example 4: Elon Musk is buying Twitter to overthrow elections and prevent free speech, (by allowing free speech). Completely made up random ideas, why would they even believe Twitter would have the power to effect elections, they never mentioned that before? Jack Dorsey even said under oath that it wasn't that powerful. What are these type of things called, if the only source that can label something a conspiracy theory is the source creating it? It fits your definition far more than other people that wiki lists as conspiracy theorist. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:FCF7:9923:45D6:851C (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Without any evidence, don't you think this is a bit meta? Roxy the dog 07:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Bubba Wallace: https://deadspin.com/bubba-wallace-responds-to-critics-its-a-straight-up-no-1844147873 apparently even after the FBI investigated a pull rope and revealed it as such, he still insists it was a noose. Exercise Equipment is Racism: Sorry this was in Oakland not LA OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Oakland’s mayor said five ropes found hanging from trees in a city park are nooses and racially-charged symbols of terror but a resident said they are merely exercise equipment that he put up there months ago. https://apnews.com/article/libby-schaaf-us-news-ca-state-wire-crime-oakland-f00bc694ee86e14badaa6344ca56c5e2 Russia Trump - evidence of this would be time consuming, but i found this Federal election regulators fined Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee earlier this month for not properly disclosing the money they spent on controversial opposition research that led to the infamous Trump-Russia dossier. https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html Dems knew Trump Russia collusion was a haox, did nothing. https://nypost.com/2022/02/18/dems-knew-and-did-nothing-to-stop-the-russia-collusion-hoax/ FBI knew Trump Russia Collusion was a haox, did nothing. https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie-but-hid-that-truth/ 2603:90C8:503:BE18:FCF7:9923:45D6:851C (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics Of course, the fact that a source is listed as generally unreliable doesn't mean that everything they publish is false, but sometimes, Perennial sources hits the mark. Fabrickator (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Sourcing aside, if its true its not a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Your main takeaway from my entire post is a source isn't reliable? It wasn't true, the exercise equipment in the park was exercise equipment, not nooses placed by White Supremecy groups to threaten Blacks, which the Mayor of Oakland theorized. The Mayor theorized an extreme position, but no "reliable" sources called him a conspiracy theorist. As for the media, are you suggesting the only possible way a reliable source can be called a conspiracy theorist is if that same reliable source refers to their own reporting as such? 2603:90C8:503:BE18:FDF7:1172:225C:9994 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Examples 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the subject of this article. Example 3 uses a terrible source. And, it is well documented that Russia did interfere with the 2016 and 2020 elections and has done so in other countries as well. Example 4 I've never hear of in the manner you presented it. And, his concept of "free speech" appears to be things he likes are OK, but he deletes things he doesn't like. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC) The statements about Elon were before he even took over. There would be no reason to even suggest he would ban speech to such extent it altered elections. Why would you even think of that? Perhaps because he was mentioning politics prior to buying it. But it's not like twitter didn't already ban hunter Biden laptop story which turned out to be true despite multiple media companies saying it wasn't, including Wikipedia. So Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Wikipedia, and most all major news sources plus the FBI lying about or hiding information on Hunter Biden laptop right before the election isn't a conspiracy theory or attempting to alter an election, but Elon taking over might be because he talked about politics prior to buying it? Wikipedia's concept of conspiracy theory is things we don't like are conspiracy theories and ideas we do like are not, and we'll only accept sources with the same bias that we have as a cover. 2603:90C8:503:BE18:947F:F756:20AD:2E39 (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

The definition of a conspiracy theory is simpler than stated on this page. It is simply a theory that some form of conspiracy has occurred to stage an event or process. Look up the definition for the words conspiracy and theory please. 79.69.25.157 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do here, as this is not a request for an edit. - Roxy the dog 08:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is an idiomatic expression, not the concatenation of two definitions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy, which explains why a compound term does not necessarily mean what its two components would suggest. Otherwise, Siamese cat would literally mean a cat from Siam. TFD (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that’s a cat from Thailand now. Dronebogus (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Are conspiracy theories inherently false?

Don’t reply here - please comment at Talk:High-frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#"False_conspiracy_theories" Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I now see there is an earlier discussion which is too long to read. As well as replying at the link above could you possibly put a succinct answer in the FAQ? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The FAQ is already very succinct on this page, I think. King keudo (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Performative definition of "conspiracy theorist"

Judging by a number of articles I have seen in _Wikipedia_ recently, the term "conspiracy theorist" should be defined, in performative terms (that is, by the intention behind its use rather than by the information it conveys) as "a term used to discredit an individual who contradicts the prevailing narrative." The most recent experience I have had in this regard may be instructive: I read a publication by Dr Naomi Wolf on Substack entitled "Dear Conservatives, I Apologize" in which, in short, she says that the events of January 6, 2021 are more complex that many people believe and that opinions regarding those events have become polarized, notably because of their having been politicized. I then looked at the _Wikipedia_ page on Dr Wolf and noted that it labels her a "conspiracy theorist." The effect of this essentializing is to discredit all of Dr Wolf's beliefs, even those that do not fit any definition of the term "conspiracy theory." What an encyclopedia should do in such a case is to carefully enumerate each of the beliefs that Dr Wolf has articulated and that have been called into question, clearly identifying who calls them into question by so labelling them and what vested interest they may have in contradicting her, rather than using the blanket term "conspiracy theory," which has the effect of positing the existence of a kind of universal truth, or at least a nearly-universal consensus, which when examined closely does not exist. Even in the realm of the exact sciences, beliefs evolve, and there is a measure of belief in any "truth." To me this demonstrates that Wikipedia, rather than an encyclopedia, has taken on a political dimension and has become an arbiter of beliefs that consistently takes the side not of truth or even of wide consensus, but of the prevailing narrative put in place by those whose purpose is not to disseminate knowledge, but to maintain power. And it's a damn shame. Lestrad (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, do you haver any sources that agree with you? Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup, sometimes "conspiracy theorist" is a slur, at others it is 100% objective and accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

In the article and section Naomi Wolf#Conspiracy theories, it does not appear the classification is unjustified. The categorization is not based on a single incident, rather a long pattern of promotion of incorrect ideas, often by claiming some greater secretive conspiracy. That's a textbook definition of conspiracy theorist. --Jayron32 12:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Influence of critical theory"

I just shortened the "influence of critical theory" section. The one reference it cites isn't about conspiracy theories per se, and the section seemed to veer off-topic into a discussion of critical theory itself. So I included a link to that article and cut the section down to its final quote, keeping the reference. Please revert if I went too far. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted your Bold edit. Please do not restore it until you have a WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page for the change to the WP:STATUSQUO you propose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not providing a link to the edit in question - here it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the abridgement improves the text by staying on point.BTW when discussing an edit it's helpful to provide a link. I would be interested in hearing arguments from both sides before deciding. TFD (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I too agree with WeirdNA that there is a lot of tangential content, and their edit looks sound to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for feedback and will wait for general consensus here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WeirdNAnnoyed's edit seems fine to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's consensus enough for me, I'll restore WnA's edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and intelligence

"Some researchers suggest that conspiracist ideation – belief in conspiracy theories – may be psychologically harmful or pathological, and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism."

This argument seems plausible and well-studied. However, I find it interesting that C.M. Lagan, who is estimated to have an IQ approximating 200, believes in a wide range of conspiracy theories. Is this worth noting? Ramanujaner (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You will find the sources if you read the WIkipedia article about Lagan.

His IQ:

His beliefs: Ramanujaner (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, so what relevance does this have to this article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It demonstrates that, although it is true, there are some notable exceptions. Ramanujaner (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Also it only prooves that one of those may not be applicable to him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, there's really no general acceptance (except colloquially) of the idea that IQ necessarily measures "intelligence" (whatever that is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

'Estimates' of IQ from media sources are meaningless guesswork anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Imagine someone claiming in the year 1900 that the German government one day could kill millions of people because of their ethnicity. The person probably would have been taken to an insane asylum. What seems to be absurd one day may prove reality years later. Other times, what seems to be absurd is absurd. But it may be actually a fine line determining that.

Let me show some examples about absurdity involving authorities.

A man was taken to a mental hospital after refusing to accept he was the man a cop was saying he was. Psychiatrists said he was delusional for refusing to accept the identity the cop was assigning to him, was forcefully medicated, and locked in a mental hospital for two years. The Innocence Project later determined that the man was right and the psychiatrists and authorities wrong.

Many people distrust the government and claim secret experiments behind some pharmaceutical products. Journalists often exclaim such speculations are absurd conspiracy theories. But historically the US government has a track record of conducting illegal secret experiments. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. Everybody knows that people have been wrong before, and neither do you need to give examples for it, nor is it relevant for truth or otherwise of general statements about conspiracy theories, nor is it relevant for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there such examples in the article backed by reliable sources? There are a few examples of even news organizations going to the other extreme of the thought spectrum into dismissing any suspicion as conspiracy theory and this apparently is not explained or included in the article. Although I think this deviates from this thread. I will probably open a new thread about it. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So? many many more people are often wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

it is correlated with [..] low intelligence It does not say that it is exclusively associated with low intelligence, it says it is correlated with it. See Correlation. Will you go to Talk:Lung cancer and mention smokers who have reached a high age, or go to Global warming and mention that it was cold yesterday where you live? This is silly and innumerate, and it does not improve the article. You should also read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no correlation with low or high intelligence, at least according to the sources in tbe article. I checked the edits log and the addition of low intelligence/analytical thinking was much later than the other correlated traits and was added by a sockpuppet account with an agenda. Schwarbage (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not worth noting because intelligence is not the only factor that correlates to belief in conspiracy theories. Obviously there are many intelligent conspiracy theorists, including the people who make a living promoting them. But that can usually be explained by other factors in the list: lower analytical thinking, projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism. TFD (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

References

How "Conspiracy Theory" label has been misused

Can we add a heading detailing how governments and other bad actors have used the "conspiracy theory" label as a smear tactic? I would do itbut nearly all my edits get reverted. Surely everyone cannot think that the person labelling something a conspiracy theory is justified and well-intentioned 100% of the time. Good day1 (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a good reliable source written by an expert that discusses this? TFD (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"well-intentioned 100% of the time" The road to hell is paved with good intentions. "the act, regardless of its virtue, leads the actor to unintended negative consequences." These people are spreading panic and misinformation. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

governments and other bad actors have used the "conspiracy theory" label as a smear tactic. Examples documented by reliable independent sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

"[G]overnments and other bad actors" is a massive tell that the OP is of the opinion that governments are ipso facto "bad actors". (Some certainly are, but not all.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism.

The sentence "and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism"'s support is the citation of the paper Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire. I haven't read the paper in its entirety but based on the abstract it only deals with psychological projection and Machiavellianism. The word "intelligence" doesn't appear even once, and words related to analysis only appear in the context of analyzing data. "Paranoia", for that matter, is only mentioned in reference to a previously published paper. 89.247.166.53 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I do see citations of papers demonstrating a linkage between lower analytical thinking and lower intelligence to "receptivity to bull**" elsewhere. More exactly, a citation of a news article that links to the relevant publication. 89.247.166.53 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah can a admin please address this issue? Its insane to say conspiracy theorizing is linked to Low intelligence and Machiavellianism. Theorizing is just another instrument of society. The person who came up with the big bang theory and the people who covered Watergate are not un-intelligent people. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators don't address whatever you seem to want them to do. We don't arbitrate content. Work it out. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah i ask that you atleast consider it because i dont have the power to change it. Adress the point NotYourAverageUser (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The relevant publication cited indeed contains the correlation between conspiracy ideation and low intelligence. Are there academic papers that argue the opposite? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Sound of Freedom (film) regarding inclusion of connections to QAnon

There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Controversy

I think the section "Controversy" must be put back.

A19kBt (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

Katrina98 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

change "They are widespread around the world and are often commonly believed, some even being held by the majority of the population" to"They are widespread around the world and are often commonly believed, some even held by the majority of the population"

I think "being" should be deleted, which creates a problem of semantic confusion.

 Done ULPS (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Election denial" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Election denial has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Election denial until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"Stolen election conspiracy theories" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Stolen election conspiracy theories has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Stolen election conspiracy theories until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"Election denier" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Election denier has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Election denier until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"Election deniers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Election deniers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Election deniers until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Theory?

Almost all of these are actually hypotheses, not theories. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The word "theory" has a number of different usages, depending on context. A "theory" in scientific context (i.e. "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses") is not the same thing as a "theory" in colloquial usage, which is closer in meaning to what is called in science a hypothesis, i.e. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

This disparity in meaning between the two different contexts has lead to a lot of popular misunderstanding about scientific theories, such as when people say about the Theory of Evolution, "Well, it's only a theory", meaning, of course, that it could be wrong and some other theory -- such as, say, Creationism -- could be correct instead. People who say this do not realize that since so much in science is contingent, a "theory" is the highest possible level of organization of proved data; it is the current state of "true" as far as is possible for scientists to determine.

In this case, "theory" is not a stand-alone word, it is part-and-parcel of "conspiracy theory" which is what the things being described are called. Following the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, we use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe these things, regardless of the ambiguity of the word "theory" standing alone. In this usage, "theory" is meant in the colloquial sense, meaning "hypothesis", and not in the scientific sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A seahorse is not a horse. Still called seahorse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs

The article "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs", by David Robert Grimes, is important, and it needs a chapter in this article.

2.138.34.36 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

For what? Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It has been cited many times.

2.138.34.36 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see then why it needs its own section then. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If not, put in another section.

2.138.34.36 (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Try reading the article. It's here: Conspiracy_theory#Viability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not incumbent on the editors here to do your work for you. If you want to get a consensus to add a "chapter" on this source, you must make the arguments necessary to get agreement from other editors. Otherwise, it will stands as Not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Rethoric

In section "Rhetoric" it should be good to add a subsection like "Rhetoric of oficialnoids" 2.138.38.109 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

What's an "officialnoid"? Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Conspiranoid is the person who believes in unofficial conspiracy theories. Officialnoid is the person who only believes official conspiracy theories.2.138.38.109 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears to have something to do with song lyrics.[4] Which means that it's not usable here, any more than Frank Zappa's assertion that dental floss is an agricultural product. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How about "Rhetoric of anti-conspiracists".2.138.38.109 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Issues with weight and structure

This article definitely has a fair few issues, not least with its weighing of different material and its chaotic structure. There appears to be a huge overemphasis on illustrating and criticizing US conspiracy theories, often in an overly specific and not particularly prose manner. (Such that a globalise template would not be inappropriate.) This issue bleeds over into the structural problems, with sections such as "examples", which is a rather trivial section seemingly serving as a host for a link to a list, and itself just presenting a collection of US conspiracy theories. More generally, the page is made up of a patchwork of smaller sections with little more cohesion than that. There is notably no history section, with the history of conspiracy theories parceled away into other sections in pieces. The section currently entitled "Consequences" begins with some obvious history material, and this also illustrates the lack of cohesion across the page. It points to governments in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union using conspiracy theories to conduct witch-hunts, while rather conspicuously missing out the US and McCarthyism - one of the greatest examples of a conspiracy theory-fuelled witch-hunt in history - because this material is stowed separately in the "politics" section. That is no service to the reader. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles must reflect the weight in reliable sources. Official stories by democratic governments (broadly defined) are usually not considered conspiracy theories, even if they meet all the criteria. TFD (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Are referring to McCarthyism? If so, there are plenty of sources assessing either the political phenomenon itself or at least the paranoid beliefs on which it was based as conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't found any books or articles about conspiracism that include McCarthyism. Can you link to any? TFD (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, a tertiary source that references it is Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. The same source also includes an entry on Floridation as a related anti-communist conspiracy theory during the same period. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Flouridation. "Floridation" is the process by which the US slowly turns into an expanded version of Florida. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I had to check, and we do not have a section on what is one of the archetypal conspiracy theories. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's missing from Conspiracy theories in United States politics too it seems, so yes, there are a few pages making that rather conspicuous omission. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAICT, your source does not refer to McCarthyism as a conspiracy theory but introduces it as an aspect of anti-Communism that helped fuel conspiracy theories about fluoridation etc. So did the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the loss of China, actual spy cases, and Soviet development of the atom bomb and putting the first satellite into orbit. TFD (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The encyclopedia of conspiracy theories calls it the "conspiracy of communism" - I don't think that conspiracy in this particular context means not conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental difference between believing that (for want of a better word) an "enemy" country (or its controlling political ideology writ large) is conspiring to infiltrate one's government and social institutions, and the kind of conspiracy theories which this article deals with, especially when one considers that we had just finished involvement in a war in which such things absolutely did happen on both sides. That's not at all a justification for McCarthyism or a indication of approval for it, it just means that it's a different kind of thing, and not a "conspiracy theory" as discussed in this article. It's rather like saying that the widespread belief in the South prior to the Civil War that Northern abolitionists wanted to destroy Southern culture is an example of a "conspiracy theory" in this article's meaning. Such an expansion of this article to include McCarthyism and Southern misapprehensions about abolitionist's motivations would unfocus it in such a drastic way as to make it much less useful to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, I am not aware of the article making any clear distinction between government-led conspiracy theory and any other kind of conspiracy theory. It mentions several governments and notes that conspiracy theories are often closely linked with both propaganda and witch hunts - both of which were clearly hallmarks of the second Red Scare. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Those subjects are more than adequately covered in other articles. Their inclusion here would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT, at the very least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It would not be a violation of WEIGHT because the purpose is providing proper weight in the first place. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it mentions governments taking advantage of conspiracy theories rather than govt led ones. And of course it's never our government, it's some foreign non-democratic one.

McCarthy's claim that he had a list of 205 Communist Party members in the State Department was plausible. Compare with a common theory among extreme anti-Communists at the time that 50,000 Communist Party members had become priests in the U.S. in order to infiltrate the Catholic Church. Or that the Soviets controlled water boards across the U.S. in order to add fluoride to water. Also, McCarthy's claim was falsifiable. Just ask to see the list and investigate the people on it. But the other claims could not be proved or disproved. TFD (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

And of course it's never our government, it's some foreign non-democratic one. - I would say that this is rather the point here. It smacks of systemic bias. This page is devoid of history/context. On page 73 of the encyclopedia it continues with anti-federalism, noting that "The United Status was founded on conspiracy theories..." The page currently presents a rather stereotypical caricature of conspiracy theories with conspiracy theories being something that only foreign governments and fringe nut jobs in the West partake of, rather than as a rather more widespread psychological phenomenon and common off-spin of unhealthy paranoia that democratic institutions have also readily fallen prey to at times in history. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that the United States was formed in opposition to the legal government at the time. The conspiracy theories that fueled the revolution and upon which the country may have been founded were not therefore the "official" narrative.

From the War of 1812 to the War in Iraq, the U.S. has used misinformation to justify its entry into most wars. But we don't call them conspiracy theories.

Saying that the U.S. govt was behind 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Saying Iraq was behind 9/11 is not, even though both are false.

TFD (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The relationship between the falsified US government linkage of Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda/WMD and conspiracy theory remain a matter of very active discussion. See [5][6][7] [8][9]. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's only an active discussion in the Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. The most common explanations are that the architects of the war were mistaken, lying or had persuaded themselves because it helped justify the war.

The Collective defines conspiracy theory as "any theory that posits a conspiracy."[10] That's not how it is normally described and not the topic of this article.

His comments about how the term is used however are worth noting: "pundits have shown an “increased willingness to use the term to deride ideas that do, in fact, have a lot of cultural cachet, provided that this cachet is limited to an outgroup,”" Notice how outgroup excludes misinformation originating from the government.

TFD (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Controversy" part

Time ago, there is a part named "Controversy". It must be put back. :2.138.38.101 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I support creating a section with information about cases of abuse of the term, because the term is routinely used to disparage opponents and quash debate, as it happened with the COVID Lancet letter. It literally and fraudulently stopped scientific debate about the origins of the virus, worldwide. Researchers, physicians and scientists felt their reputation and even jobs were in danger if they dared to study the possibility of a lab origin. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Generaly we avoid controversy sections. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there expert sources that contain analysis and commentary supporting the idea that the term 'conspiracy theory' is being abused in a prominent and substantial way? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the expert sources suffice to be reliable sources like news reports. As far as I know, conspiracy theory is not a topic like a medical article or other subjected to specific guidelines more stringent than other articles regarding expert sources. I was checking an interesting article about the subject from New York Magazine titled, "The Surprisingly Contrarian Case Against Lying About Science". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

One philosopher is Kurtis Hagen, who has dealt with the concept of conspiracy theory. He has written the book "Conspiracy Theories and the Failure of Intellectual Critique", where he deals with the use of the term "conspiracy theory". It turns out that there are several authors, and each one uses a different definition of "conspiracy theory". In the section on definition, this fact should be cited and the different definitions by different authors (Hagen, Dhentit, Coady, Keely, Pipes, etc.)

2.138.34.36 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure if anyone listed as an "independent schooler" woud be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Kurtis Hagen argues that conspiracy theories, including those that conflict with official accounts and suggest that prominent people in Western democracies have engaged in appalling behavior, should be taken seriously and judged on their merits and problems on a case-by-case basis. This obviously doesn't reflect the majority view of expert sources. I suppose it could be explicitly noted in the context of a minority view, but a more appropriate place for this kind of navel-gazing would be at Philosophy of conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Even a "minority view" must come from a recognized expert and reliable source in order to be included in the article. As Slatersteven wrote above, I'm not certain that Kurtis Hagen meets those criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think Kurtis Hagen is reliable. There is a reference to them at the article Cass Sunstein. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

One reference in a grouping of five. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

A writer in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy might be a reliable source. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"I suppose it could be explicitly noted in the context of a minority view". Exactly. And I believe it should be in this page because the purpose is to balance this article properly according to WP:NPOV. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, even minority views must come from a subject expert. Being an unemployed philosopher and writing a single book about a subject not actually in his area of expertise may qualify him as being a subject expert. I think that it's the burden of those who wish to quote him to provide evidence sufficient to get a consensus here that he is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't hurt for someone to read the book as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the author unemployed and how many books on the subject have been written by the other sources used in the Conspiracy theory page? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Kurtis Hagen has written some books, see in Amazon. Two of his books about conspiracy theories.2.138.38.109 (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a couple books on Amazon too. So what? There's a very popular book about conspiracies named Mein Kampf, should we include it. I'm being snarky. But, an encyclopedia needs reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that Kurtis Hagen writes in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, as indicated previously. Beyond My Ken was complaining about a single book. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

He had an article accepted by a journal in his area of expertise, philosophy, which doesn't make him an expert on conspiracy theories. Again, opinions quoted on Wikipedia can only be expressed by subject experts. Where is the evidence that Kurtis Hagen, former Associate Professor of Philosophy at SUNY Plattsburgh and current "independent scholar" (i.e. unemployed), whose website won't load, is a subject expert on conspiracy theories, except that he wrote a book on it and got a university press to publish it? His other books are on Confucianism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I would consider him subject expert. No idea why you assume he is unemployed or what has anything to do with this discussion. Also, there are various levels of subject experts you know. A subject expert doesn't mean just people who have dedicated their lives to studying a very specific topic. They are the foremost subject experts, but not the only ones. I wonder if your stringent standard is true with the rest of the references in the page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever other points might be valid in this discussion, there is no good reason why an academically published book on conspiracy theories cannot be referenced on this page. This is a distinctly unproductive direction of travel in the thread, and if anyone has major objections along these lines then they should simply take them to WP:RSN. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What is a "subject expert" in this case? Are there "conspiracy theory degree programs", or "conspiracy theory journals" that aren't just political advocacy organizations? If not, what is the difference between a subject expert and someone who has had academic publications about the subject? jp×g 07:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, a subject expert is someone whom a consensus of editors agrees is a subject expert. I see no such consensus here, just a couple of people WP:Bludgeoning a discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a fine line between bludgeoning in one side and undue censorship in the other. It amazes me people who resort to such essay. After all, complicated discussions such as this may have offshoots that generate further discussion. And it is easy to abuse such essay to try to silence minority views. I mean, if there are 10 people who agree in something vs 2 who agree in the opposite, the 10 people need less text space each to make their point than the 2 people. Of course someone would yell BLUDGEONING! after seeing the lone 2 views more than the set of 10. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use the word "censorship" when referring to editors. It is a lack of good faith. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I like how you don't say anything about bludgeoning. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Where did I not assume good faith? O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Who? jp×g 04:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Kelly M. Greenhill

This addition to the lead was reverted since it is not only a very generalized opinion stated in Wikipedia's voice but also a WP:COPYVIO from the cited source. Aside from that, Ms. Greenhill's opinion that Watergate is 'an example of a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true' isn't shared by expert sources on the topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Kelly Greenhill isn't a subject matter expert and her opinions, as you say, do not reflect mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted a change and mistakenly labeled it "vandalism" in my edit summary. I removed the addition not due to vandalism, but because the information added doesn't seem to belong in the place it was added, and consensus was not gained for the information added. Again, my apologies for the incorrect edit summary. King keudo (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I added information about David Grimes' article. It must no be reverted.2.138.38.109 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Must not"? Where is the "must"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@King keudo I don't understand how it doesn't seem to belong in the place it was added. In the text immediately before we read information about the Grime's study. The information added seemed to be precisely about said study.

There is no need to gain consensus before adding information in this article at the time of this writing. In fact, the header of the talk page of this article actually states, "When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless." The editor simply was bold and unless I am missing something I don't think they were reckless. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Take back the information added about Grime's study. I think it is very useful.

2.138.44.74 (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken, you stated in your revert, "No, it is not vandalism, but none of the sources cited are RS. Please do not restore badly sourced information, it harms the encyclopedia".

I made a dummy edit where I replied, "the citation includes Little Atoms a science publication that featured an article by a writer who is listed as having written also for The Guardian and The New Statesman; we had a discussion about Kurtis Hagen, who has published work in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Cultura Científica is a publication of a university in Spain." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The connexuschurch.com website obviously isn't a RS. Kurtis Hagen, Matthew R. X. Dentith, et al argue - philosophically and in the abstract - that disparaging conspiracy theories is intrinsically unfair and logic dictates that such theories must be taken seriously. Unfortunately this narrow sliver of philosophers have been embraced by fringe advocates looking to promote belief in outlandish and politically charged conspiracy theories. There may be some merit to deeper discussion and analysis of Grimes at the philosophy of conspiracy theories article, but it doesn't represent a significant impact on mainstream scholarship to warrant expansion in this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the connexuschurch may be in general not a reliable source but in this case it may be because it is being used just to back information that "A pastor quoted Grimes' article". It would be a primary source though. But certainly, I don't think that particular sentence is a useful addition to the page. Maybe User:Beyond My Ken decided, in my opinion mistakenly, the other references were not reliable after reading the last piece of text with a church as a reference. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

So, find a reliable secondary source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As I indicated, I am not interested in adding the pastor info in the page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The reverted phrase said: "Several persons have pointed out that his article is seriously flawed and reject his conclusions.". This phrase does not say that the critics are right. It only says that said article has received criticism. This is something the reader should know. This phrase must be reverted. 2.138.36.10 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure those sources pass muster. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What "must" be done is what consensus says should be done, and there is no consensus for reverting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which means the version before the contested edit was initially made. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Paranormal?

My interest is to improve a Wikipedia article. Therefore, what I say should stay in the "Talk" section, whether what I say is correct or not. It is about trying to improve an article. Since the issue of conspiracy theory is controversial, I think this article should not be included in "Paranormal".

2.138.36.196 (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not, is not "paranormal" controversial as well? Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what is being said here. There is no mention of conspiracy theories in the paranormal article and the one, very short, mention of belief in the paranormal here is absolutely fine. DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the 'paranormal' banner at the top of the Talk page, that is for WikiProject Paranormal, a defunct wikiproject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it is a defunct wikiproject, take away this banner. Take away the category "paranormal" too.

2.138.44.74 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, take away this banner.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The WikiProject is defunct, so it's a noncontroversial edit to remove the banner. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead is not neutral and article maybe is not

The lead basically is an exercise of excoriation of conspiracy theories. Even though the claims are mostly sourced, there is zero neutrality or attempt at due balance. I think there should be a more objective and neutral lead according to the WP:NPOV policy. For example, according to Richard Ebright, professor of molecular biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey, “It’s very clear at this time that the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you disagree with. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, the article is about the concept, not the various ways people can use and misuse the term. The reason one doesn't give equal validity to the view that the Jews control the world and the view that they don't is that no reputable sources claim they control the world. If you don't like this interpretation of neutrality, then you need to get the policy changed rather than argue here. TFD (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You are distorting the issue and focusing in one specific instance. Also, for balance to your comment for example, a government of a world power killed 6 million Jewish people. Therefore, some people probably have legitimate motives to distrust government and speculate about possible dangers. I guess someone warning Germans at the end of the 19th century that the government could kill millions would probably have been committed to a psychiatric institution. The page needs to comply with due balance according to provisions of the NPOV policy.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem not to have actually read WP:NPOV. It does not advocate some imaginary abstract 'neutrality', but instead that article content should be aimed at "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Ebright's opinion (that of a molecular biologist, and thus one might think not a subject-matter expert) is clearly not shared by most of the sources writing on the topic of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have read that. You on the other hand seem not to have actually read the wording, "for example" clearly written before Elbright's opinion. I am also aware of WP:PROPORTION and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS.

I simply stated what I saw in the lead. Maybe it is more an issue with the article as a whole instead of the lead.

I'm not sure if the claim that "Ebright's opinion (that of a molecular biologist, and thus one might think not a subject-matter expert) is clearly not shared by most of the sources" is true, at least for the opinion that "the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you disagree with".

I will explore more what reliable sources state on the topic with a neutral mindset.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Only subject experts are qualified to have their opinions presented in Wikipedia articles. A biologist could well have their opinion about biology-related subjects quoted in biology-related articles, but they are not qualified to be quoted in other articles about non-biological subjects, such as the current one: expertise is not transferable. Present an opinion from a scholar -- an historian, a political scientist, a semanticist -- who has studied the subject of this article, and qualified as an expert on it, if you expect to add their opinions to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Kurtis Hagen is a philosopher of University of Michigan and talked about term "Conspiracy theory" and its fallacies. He must be cited.

2.138.29.120 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Who and why? Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, the site is down, not a good sign. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Clear evidence of a conspiracy if ever I saw it! ;-) DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't appear that he was on faculty or a student at U of MI. He was an associate prof at SUNY Plattsburg until six years ago and is now an "independent scholar". O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then why does the lede begin with a definition of ''conspiracy theory'', defined not via authoritative sources of definitions of course, but via secondary sources in preferred media in order to build the article's narrative from the editors' POV? – RVJ (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and refrain from making accusations about editor motives. The article uses reliable sources because that is a policy of Wikipedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Controversy" section must be put back for NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.

2.138.29.120 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede does not have sections. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be possible to find other sources noting that the accusation of conspiracy theorizing has been used and abused at times as a means of deflecting the inquisitive. (And that the source provided by Thinker78 is but one example to this end.) Now obviously every 'conspiracy theorist' thinks they are just the inquisitive being deflected, but this does not mean that they are never, on occasion, correct, and the victim of aspersion. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

But until we get an example of such from a recognized subject expert cited in a reliable source, it's not going into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Journalists routinely research collusion. But that does not mean that they are "conspiracy theorists" in the meaning of this article. It simply means they are searching for evidence, instead of simply making an untenable claim. So, being inquisitive is not the problem; making claims without evidence is. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not the specific claims that make them conspiracy theorists, but their underlying assumptions and methodology. Someone might for example use superstitious reasoning to accurately predict the winning lottery numbers. But the fact they got it right doesn't mean that their underlying assumptions and methodology were correct. They're still irrational. TFD (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we have more than enough of such info in the page. Don't tell me that you believe every time an accusation of conspiracy theory is lobed against someone it is because by necessity it is a conspiracy theory, no questions asked. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is convincing evidence, then it's obviously not a conspiracy theory. But the burden of proof is upon those who make the claim there's a conspiracy. Just merely having a hunch does not mean one has fulfilled the burden of proof. Again, there is nothing against investigating collusion, but such claims should not be made prematurely. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A group of scientists wrote a letter to The Lancet, denouncing the COVID-19 lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. Turns out some of those scientists had links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where there was research on coronavirus. They did not disclose such conflict of interest. After the letter was published, news media worldwide adopted as a sacred dogma and they too denounce anyone who dare to think the pandemic started as a result of an accidental virus leak from the lab. Nevermind that such accidents have happened before. People around the world were censored and researchers, physicians, journalists did not dare to explore such theory for fear of their reputations or jobs. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, a mere hunch that it is a lab leak should not get published. When there is enough evidence, it is no longer a hunch, and may get published.

People who published shoddy evidence for it being a lab leak were duly ridiculed. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We do not mention this as far as I am aware. So why raise it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course I don't. Politicians and mainstream media frequently use the term to denigrate dissent. But it doesn't mean the term is meaningless.

Democrats call Trump a fascist and his supporters call them socialists. While there is no support for these accusations in reliable sources, it doesn't mean the terms are meaningless. TFD (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I never said the term is meaningless. I think maybe you are thinking of someone else's thread? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" And to be fair, George Orwell volunteered in the Spanish Civil War fighting fascists.

But what we do here is divide distinct ideas into separate articles, instead of equivocating on them because they may be somewhat related and/or sound similar. That's why we have Fascism, mostly about early to mid 20th century European politics, and we have Fascist (insult), which is mainly about people forgetting that the word "authoritarian" exists. That's why we have this article, and also an article on conspiracies, sans "theory". When a conspiracy "theory" is found to be true, it's simply "a conspiracy". It's like when "alternative medicine" gains rigorous scientific confirmation and becomes simply "medicine".

"Theory" here is not used in the scientific sense of testable hypotheses. It's used in a colloquial sense to mean almost the exact opposite: a set of beliefs that are mostly impervious to the outside world. GMG^talk 11:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'", George Orwell said. And the term 'conspiracy theory' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'belief that I want to ridicule'

"If there is convincing evidence, then it's obviously not a conspiracy theory." What? Then, the phrase "Conspiracy theories are never true" is just a trivial tautology. A trivial tautology that does not provide any information. A trivial tautology that proves nothing. A trivial tautology that only produces confusion.

2.138.34.25 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Being tautological doesn't invalidate something so long as it respects the common usage of a term and the widely understood meaning behind it. Also there's a difference between tautological and definitional. After all, all definitions are, by definition, tautologies. That's kinda the point. A definition that doesn't restate the same meaning in different terms wouldn't be very useful.

Watergate isn't a conspiracy theory; it's a conspiracy. Because again, trying to conflate the two is just equivocating on the strict and colloquial usage of "theory". GMG^talk 11:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Orwell was being ironic and his observation is an exaggeration. Obviously references to the ideology of Mussolini's Fascist Party are not meaningless, nor are those to parties modelled on it in the interwar period. Many experts avoid the term in reference to post-war politics. But there is a wealth of literature in reliable sources on fascism and good luck with getting fascism related articles deleted. TFD (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• Here's a source which, in its own words, "critically examines the ways in which public commentators, political leaders and public servants use the label of ‘conspiracy’ as a means of discrediting, de-legitimatizing and disempowering those individuals and groups who dissent from United States (US) foreign policy orthodoxies." That's from a political scientist. Or here: "Conspiracy theory” is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term. Politicians use it to mock and dismiss allegations against them, while philosophers and political scientists warn that it could be used as a rhetorical weapon to pathologize dissent." That's a psychologist. So sources mentioning the intersection of the subject with politics and dissent are not hard to find. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  The first cite is a book review by a student studying the politics of food in the Middle East. The second is, as you say, a psychologist. Of course terms can be misused. But I'm not seeing how these opinions help us. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Objective3000: You read the blurb of the contributor of the book review immediately prior. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's what's at the link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a journal, with running copy: that's how journal reviews are normally formatted. You need to start reading mid-page where the title of the relevant review begins... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I read everything on the page. It's a book review. It says "Book Reviews" at the top and the phrase you quoted is part of the student's book review talking about his view of the book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Martinez is the author of the prior review (appearing at its bottom). The book in question is the one below by Tim Ainstrope. The review is by Damien Rogers, a political scientist at Massey University (i.e. not Martinez). The journal format is obviously confusing you. Here's the neat Google scholar link, and here's a link to the book itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  So, what we have is an opinion of an opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're welcome for the explanation at no benefit to myself. What we have here are two reliable sources, one an academically published book reviewed in academically published journals; the other an academic journal paper - both discussing the interrelationship between conspiracy theory, politics and dissent. These are the sort of things we quote in Wikivoice. If by opinion you mean epistemologically these are academic voices from individual academics, whose academically published thoughts are on some level derived from their personal academic opinions, then yes; if by opinion you mean akin to an opinion piece in a new outlet or the opinion of you or I, then no. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that. But your quote is not from the book. I'm just not comfortable with a book review as a source for anything other than a criticism of a book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  The sources are just to illustrate the interconnected themes. The academic book review simply summarises the contents, and there is no reason to assume the review would be wayward in its summary. The precise quote is somewhat irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if you look at the quote; basically it is saying the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies. Well, lots of that during the Vietnam war and McCarthy era. But, that fits this article as it is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies. Well, lots of that during the Vietnam war and McCarthy era. Exactly. We need to include such kind of information in this page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, there is one hell of a lot of examples of conspiracy theories -- and this article is already quite long. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  No idea what spin you did here. You mentioned, "the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies." Is there such information about the term being abused by the government or others? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended content
I stopped reading at the word "spin". O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC) If you don't have anything productive to say, try not saying anything at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC) If you don't have anything productive to say, try not saying anything at all. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

None of this is about the idea of "conspiracy theories", but about how the term "conspiracy theory" can be misused, which is literally true of every word in the english language. I don't see how any of it is relevant to include here, because its inclusion would be undue without much better sourcing than has been provided here so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not about a term; it is about how the psychological and societal apparatus of conspiracy theories can and has been used and abused - something the article already mentions in reference to the Nazi regime and Soviet Union. There is a long and dark history of conspiracy theory abuse by governments, and just because contemporary references to conspiracy theory may be dominated by the more familiar internet-fuelled viral QAnon-type crap, that doesn't make this the summation of the topic and its history. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is entirely about the term, though. Notably (and as I've gone into more detail on below), a straightforward interpretation of "conspiracy theory" (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy) includes virtually all interpretation or documentation of hundreds to thousands of verifiable historical events. The term "conspiracy theory", as used in journalism, politics, social media and advocacy, is an idiomatic phrase referring to an extremely restricted subset of this (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy after it has been conclusively proven false). Whichever thing we want to write an article about is fine, but we cannot have it both ways: either it's a literal description (in which case the article needs to be titled something like "False conspiracy theory") or it's a figure of speech (in which case the article needs to be primarily about the figure of speech). jp×g 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is not about simply a linguistic misuse but about a political, ideological, scientific, historical misuse. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what this has to do with my comment. jp×g 23:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"The article is entirely about the term". The article is about the topic. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Most theories that people believe about conspiracies are true (i.e. the lightbulb makers' conspiracy, the Watergate conspiracy, etc); since these constitute an overwhelming majority of the subject matter for an article about the topic, what we have is not an article about the topic, but rather an article about the term as used by journalists and politicians etc. starting in the last half of the twentieth century. It may be condign to write a new article, with a broader scope, but that is not what we currently have. jp×g 06:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. So you are arguing that the term and the topic are different things here? The only logical outcome of that approach would be the creation of a separate article about conspiracy theory as a topic with a disambiguation page to term and topic. Is that really the kind of artificial distinction that would best serve readers looking to learn about the subject? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Allow me to be more clear.

The article is entirely about the psychological and societal apparatus of conspiracy theories. Notably (and as I've gone into more detail on below), a straightforward interpretation of "conspiracy theory" (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy) includes virtually all interpretation or documentation of hundreds to thousands of verifiable historical events. The term "conspiracy theory", as used in journalism, politics, social media and advocacy, is an idiomatic phrase referring to an extremely restricted subset of this (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy after it has been conclusively proven false). Whichever thing we want to write an article about is fine, but we cannot have it both ways: either it's a literal description (in which case the article needs to be titled something like "False conspiracy theory") or it's a figure of speech (in which case the article needs to be primarily about the figure of speech). jp×g 10:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Having waded through a few papers on the philosophy of conspiracy theory today, I've actually come around to the idea that there may indeed be a couple of different subjects here based on different epistemological readings of the term. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (re: lead)

The above section is pretty difficult to read; I suspect that most people are taking this as some kind of synecdoche for broader political issues. To be fair, so are a lot of people: if you do a news search for "conspiracy theory" you will find tons of stuff about people believing in UFOs, Qanon, the Illuminati, the vast Jewish plot to make everybody eat the bugs and live in the pods, et cetera. But I don't think that this common collocation changes what the words "conspiracy" and "theory" refer to, in a direct way, to a reasonable sane person.

To give an example of what I mean: most people know that the phrase "old wives' tale" refers to something being a crock of shit, i.e. "if you die in a dream you die in real life". This does not literally imply that all tales told by old wives are nonsense. Marie Curie published The Discovery of Radium at age 53, while she was married to Pierre Curie; while it was indeed a tale told by a wife who was old, I hope everyone can see that it would be asinine beyond belief to describe the book as an "old wives' tale". Similarly, the Catilinarian conspiracy, the Watergate conspiracy, the lightbulb makers' conspiracy, and the conspiracy to give Hitler ultimate power all happened, and people have theorized at great length about all of them.

In fact, for many conspiracies, it would be an inane fringe position to claim they aren't real (e.g. "all elections in Turkmenistan are 100% free and legit"). Even ridiculously outlandish claims that check all the boxes for being nonsense, like "the CIA spent years secretly dosing people with mind-altering drugs and then lied about it", have turned out to be real. So I do not think there's any way to reliably distinguish, a priori, the difference between a "conspiracy theory" (idiotic nonsense) and a "conspiracy theory" (established fact): it is necessary to examine the actual merits of the claim. For the sake of clarity, I think a reasonable person would want to make some distinction when describing the two, e.g. "false conspiracy theories" versus "true conspiracy theories", or something along those lines.

With that said, the lede of this article seems somewhat lacking: it is not terrible, but I don't think it is great either. It opens by saying that "a conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". This does not seem true to me. This is a little complicated, so I will explain. It is obviously true that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used by many people (i.e. journalists, politicians, podcasters, people in daily life) to refer to nonsensical claims. However, this is true only of the phrase: like I said, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of conspiracies which are completely true. Legitimate scholars publish theories about these conspiracies on a regular basis (Arthur Robinson (1994). "Avoiding the Responsibility: Cicero and the Suppression of Catiline's Conspiracy". Syllecta Classica. doi:10.1353/syl.1994.0005.; Ruth P. Morgan (1996). "Nixon, Watergate, and the Study of the Presidency". Presidential Studies Quarterly.) If we say that these are false, we are the crackpots writing original research to support fringe theories!

We go on to utter a very strange sentence: "A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians". While this is certainly helpful, and better than not saying anything at all, it seems a little confusing and inadequate. Right after we say this, we devote the bulk of an entire paragraph to claims that people who believe in conspiracy theories are unintelligent, paranoid, narcissistic, and schizotypal.

You can see that most of what I'm saying here is indeed supported by the article as it stands; the sections "Origin and usage" and "Difference from conspiracy" are both helpful and necessary. However, I think that more of the stuff from the latter section should be in the lead, and that the article should be overall more clear about the fact that it describes a term versus an actual category. If I may be blunt, the page should look more like a Wikipedia article and less like an essay arguing against people who believe that 9/11 was fake. jp×g 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The page is currently more polemical than encyclopedic. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

While one cannot tell a priori if a specific claim is a conspiracy theory (e.g., the U.S. gov. was behind 9/11), you can tell a priori if the narrative is.

Conspiracy theorists presume a totally evil, powerful and knowing cabal, they present their claims as facts rather than suggestions and they use dubious facts and circular logic.

Unlike rational theories, there is no way to prove or disprove their claims. New information is interpreted to fit the theory. So when bin Laden admitted being behind 9/11, the video was seen as fake. Oswald's orders of mail order firearms are dismissed as forgeries. His palm print on the murder weapon was planted. TFD (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That describes one type of conspiracy theorist (basically the NWO variety) and is a ridiculous caricature of the beliefs held by conspiracy theorists. People can readily hold irrational beliefs in a certain conspiracy theory without subscribing to the whole gamut of theories out there. That is gross oversimplification. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia uses terms according to their common meanings. Again, there was a "conspiracy" behind 9/11, and it involved 19 people who planned a terrorist attack. In common usage, that is linguistically cordoned off from "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, which involve wild notions that Gee Dubyah bombed his own cities in a false flag operation to justify a ware in the Middle East. The original research here is getting neck-deep in dictionary definitions and abandoning the common usage of the term. GMG^talk 11:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, but presuming that this page is only the page for media caricatures of conspiracy theory wackjobs, that still leaves the actual theory and philosophy of conspiracy theory, which is actually quite a sizeable academic discipline, and includes debates about whether falsified official narratives can also be considered conspiracy theory, the history of conspiracy theory and its role in politics, and conspiracy theories that turned out to be true all out in the cold. Where should all this sit? Conspiracy theory (theory)?, Conspiracy theory (full subject, not just popular stereotype)?, History of conspiracy theories?, Conspiracy theories in politics? Other material needs a home. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Conspiracy or one of it's sub-articles. This question has been asked and answered a zillion times. Just as Criminal conspiracy, in the legal sense, has it's own article. This entire argument, which again, has been rehashed forever, hinges on trying to use dictionary definitions to override common usage. GMG^talk 12:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Let me quote the FAQ, because no one seems to be reading it today:

Q:Are conspiracy theories inherently false? A:A key feature of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable, in the sense that they rely on circular reasoning and thus resist any attempt to assess their veracity. At best one can say that conspiracy theories are, by definition, not even wrong. This kind of hair-splitting misses the point, however. Conspiracy theories are not descriptions of real events. If they were, they would be called conspiracies.

• --Jayron32 13:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry -- I looked at the FAQ, and I couldn't figure out what conversations it was referencing (it seems to just be this one diff). Is there a section in the archives somewhere that established a consensus on this? jp×g 04:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Atrocities by governments as cause of conspiracy theories

I read in the lead mostly that conspiracy theories are considered by some researchers as part of mental disorders. I also read that conspiracy theories may be a reasoning for terrorism and attacks. And certainly, the Salem witch trials are one perfect example.

But there is also the opposite side of conspiracy theories that is overlooked. And that is for example wrongdoing or atrocities committed by governments. There is mention of nazis in the lead but my take is the reverse as well. A government of a world power went to great lengths to persecute and murder its citizens only because of their ethnicity resulting in the killings of millions. Then I would say it is reasonable to infer that such historical precedent would cause many people to be distrustful enough of the government as to suspect wrongdoing resulting in conspiracy theories.

My question is if there are reliable sources that talk about this take. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I found a source, don't know the author but reportedly is an emeritus professor. The Founders’ hard-nosed realism about the likelihood of elite political misconduct—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—has been replaced by today’s blanket condemnation of conspiracy beliefs as ludicrous by definition. Thinker78 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for sources to support an angle about conspiracy theories you feel is overlooked and must be represented (e.g. governments doing bad things), then you're going about it the wrong way. Article writing is about finding the things that the majority of sources agree are important and then summarizing these. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this page (judging by its lead) is overly one-sided and therefore I think there should be a meta-analysis examining the scholarly corpus regarding the topic, with an impartial mind. Per WP:FRINGE, Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written. Therefore, only including majority information may be inappropriate.

I do recognize that it is a complex matter to balance the different aspects of the WP:NPOV policy, specially if there are different interpretations and editors emphasizing different parts of the guidance.

But I also recognize that external factors to Wikipedia may unduly have some influence in editorial efforts, specially when several governments around the world condemn conspiracy theories and have active ongoing efforts against what they consider misinformation or what deviates from their opinions.

In fact, the issue is such severe in general not specifically regarding this page, that Wikipedia editors have been jailed by Saudi Arabia for editing Wikipedia against the official narrative.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Sad as it is, I don't see how the jailing of some of our editors in one country will affect this article. The article is clear that conspiracies exist and conspiracy theories are theories without consensus of those with adequate qualifications. Doesn't mean that they are 100% incorrect. But they are fringe. Actually, most are cartoonish and don't require experts to debunk. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists do not need any real things to base their ideas on. They can build ideas from nothing. BTW, the "reasoning" behind the atrocities of the Nazis was antisemitic conspiracy theories. And anybody who distrusts governments because of what the Nazis did must be extremely stupid - the Nazis made their intentions clear from the beginning, and there was no need for conspiracy theories about them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Atrocities committed by governments are a historical worldwide trend not even limited to Europe. Also, the comment must be extremely stupid illustrates certainly the apparent basis of radical subjective possible editorializing I am calling out. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The Nazis slaughtered Jews, Roma, blacks, Slavic people, disabled, either mentally or physically, gays, communists, trade unionists, social democrats, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. Reasons varied from racist ideology, political opponents, religious ideology, attempts to "improve" the gene pool, and Lebensraum. No conspiracy theories needed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The specific conspiracy theory that motivated most of the killings was Jewish Bolshevism. The Nazis did not actually slaughter blacks, but believed the Jews had sent them to Germany in order to replace them. TFD (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Badly written article

This is a little shocking. "Conspiracy theory" is a term to defame ideas which dissent from common consensus and/or official narratives and the article largely simply continues this defamation. Of course, many ideas tarred with this brush (QAnon, nuff said) do deserve this defamation - I clarify this to preempt inevitably being called a conspiracy theorist as a convenient way to ignore what I'm saying. It may be an icky-seeming thing to say, but it is objectively true, and not acknowledging it because it is icky is not conducive to a better Wikipedia. Until the article puts this fact first (figuratively), it will always have the strange decoherence others have already commented on, trying to have and eat cake with different reads of the phrase "conspiracy theory".

Personally, I believe that a strong dividing line is that pop culture conspiracy theories require no actual conspiracy to be proposed - just that the theorist is viewed as a tin-foil-hat crackpot. See the very article that brought me here, Marilyn Monroe - In the following decades, several conspiracy theories, including murder and accidental overdose, have been introduced to contradict suicide as the cause of Monroe's death. Sure, murder, maybe, but accidental overdose? That's not a plot by multiple people to collude on anything.

The article obviously has a lot of good material on the psychology involved in this particular sort of rabbit-hole delusion, how it stacks on itself and leads to a downward spiral, etc., but it needs to be extracted from the rest. Nerdwizard (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Per policy, Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect expert consensus and not give equivalency to it and conspiracism.

It's not so much the claims that conspiracists make, but the reasoning they use that makes them conspiracists. If you want to know why the accidental death of Marilyn Monroe is considered a conspiracy theory, see Death of Marilyn Monroe. The proponents claim that Robert Kennedy, Peter Lawford and J. Edgar Hoover staged the suicide. They claim that Munroe died in an ambulance and the body was returned to her bedroom so that news of her death would not become public until Kennedy had left L.A. This of course presumes that Kennedy was having an affair with Munroe, for which there is no evidence.

Do you not see that this is a very different way of analyzing events than we would expect from a medical examiner, court of law or historian? TFD (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Per policy, Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect expert consensus". Yes, although I have questions myself as to the type of consensus included and what consensus is not included.
• "It's not so much the claims that conspiracists make, but the reasoning they use that makes them conspiracists. [...] They claim that Munroe died in an ambulance and the body was returned to her bedroom so that news of her death would not become public until Kennedy had left L.A." Hmmmm. This reminds me the death of George V. His physician, Lord Dawson, hasted the king's death "to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that George's death at 11:55 pm could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals". Just pointing out the similarity of the narrative of the timing. Also, I was looking into the Kennedy's relationship with Monroe and the suspicions of an affair are generalized, not really fringe.
• "Do you not see that this is a very different way of analyzing events than we would expect from a medical examiner, court of law or historian?" Regular people certainly don't make technical papers about their suspicions or speculations. That doesn't mean conspiracies don't happen nor that there is no wrongdoing or that experts don't make mistakes. Regards,

Thinker78 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Right; but nobody said conspiracies don't happen? Do a search for [Real conspiracies] in the article. Yes: the article is mostly about the negative connotation, because that's usually how the term is used. Wikipedia doesn't try to fix the world, but instead describes it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, Wikipedia should also mention the opinions of philosophers who question or reject the pejorative use of the term, such as Pigden, Dentith, Hagen, etc. This would also be "describing the world."

According to Wikipedia rules, minority opinions cannot have the same relevance as majority opinions, but they should NOT be completely ignored either.

2.138.31.237 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The answer is the same as when you lobbied for this months ago. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a section should be included about Philosophy of conspiracy theories. According to what I have read, in epistemology circles conspiracy theory is mostly seen neutrally and not eviscerated as psychology or politicians do. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracies indeed happen and rational people may suspect conspiracies where none exist. What distinguishes rational people from conspiracists is that conspiracists begin with a false set of assumptions (that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-evil cabal manipulating word events), reject evidence that disproves their theories and rely on weak or fabricated evidence and faulty logic.

Dawson's alleged killing of George V's is entirely different from the suicide theory of Marilyn Monroe. First, Dawson was not engaged in a conspiracy. Second, his admission in his diary is strong evidence of his involvement and thirdly, there is no evidence that contradicts his version. However, had Dawson not admitted his actions and had not been present at the death and had a toxicology report shown that the King had not been poisoned, then it would meet the standards of a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, not what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

«This is a little shocking. "Conspiracy theory" is a term to defame ideas which dissent from common consensus and/or official narratives and the article largely simply continues this defamation. Of course, many ideas tarred with this brush (QAnon, nuff said) do deserve this defamation» => This is a little shocking. "Confidence trick" is a term to defame ideas which dissent from common consensus and/or official narratives and the article largely simply continues this defamation. Of course, many ideas tarred with this brush (Scientology, nuff said) do deserve this defamation. This is a little shocking. "Pseudohistory" is a term to defame ideas which dissent from common consensus and/or official narratives and the article largely simply continues this defamation. Of course, many ideas tarred with this brush (Lemuria, nuff said) do deserve this defamation. his is a little shocking. "Antisemitism" is a term to defame ideas which dissent from common consensus and/or official narratives and the article largely simply continues this defamation. Of course, many ideas tarred with this brush (Nazism, nuff said) do deserve this defamation. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You misspelled "different from my opinion" as "badly written". The usual misspellling is "biased", BTW. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Link “List of conspiracy theories” to the See Also to be consistent with other articles of this variety

Frequently on Wikipedia, when you see a broad topic like this (see also: the pseudoscience article), you have the concept defined and then a list of instances of the concept. For consistency I think that the List of conspiracy theories page should be linked from this one. I currently lack the permissions to make this change which is why I haven’t done it yet. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Article is poorly written and argumentative

Much of this page is inflammatory conjecture

Conspiracies happen. And this page paints any theory or thought about a situation that isn't confirmed, is de facto bats**t insane and shouldn't be tolerated.

This entire article needs to be rewritten to be nonpartisan and less accusatory Knst132 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. But there is a strong status quo in this page guarding the place. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

there is a strong status quo in this page guarding the place. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No, as they are right, there is, and we are both part of it, its called reality. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What a convenient little dismissal. Nerdwizard (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No amount of WP:SCREW can stand long against properly sourced, well written and reasoned material. Broad generalized complaints are always easier than doing the footwork of actually refactoring articles. So… be bold and fix it yourself… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

To be promptly reverted. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 – If the output isn't trash, one typically isn't reverted. Even if so: that's where well written, sourced, and reasoned come into play. That gets ya Ninety-ninety percent of the way there. The rest, is just a small matter of editing… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is very right to get back the section "Controversy". Another way, translate the section "Controversia" from Spanish article.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

there is a strong status quo in this page guarding the place If you mean there is a broad WP:CONSENSUS of experienced editors that agree non-notable minority views need not be given weight in this particular article, you are correct. Equivocating and navel-gazing on the topic might be covered at Philosophy of conspiracy theories however, depending on the sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyediting is literally what many would consider navel-gazing though. I mean who in society in general engages in protracted discussions about whether there should be a comma or a word in a sentence or not? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do, and when they do they are called Conspiracies, what we do not do (and should not to do) is give Conspiracy theories the same weight as proven Conspiracies. Thus we goi by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is controversial. There is no unanimity on its definition. Many philosophers and historian are against the pejorative meaning of the term "conspiracy theory." Among them, Dentith, Kurtis Hagen, Charles Pidgen, Micheal Parenti, David Coady and others. Their point of view should appear in the article, as it does with the article in Spanish. 2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if you share the citations of those authors. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There are some interesting papers about conspiracy theory:

https://philpeople.org/profiles/kurtis-hagen

https://philpeople.org/profiles/charles-r-pigden

https://philpeople.org/profiles/david-coady?app=678z

https://philpeople.org/profiles/m-r-x-dentith

And a very interesting book about conspiracy theories by Kurt Hagen:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conspiracy-Theories-Failure-Intellectual-Critique-ebook/dp/B0B25V15X6/ref=sr_1_5?crid=6BJHL72XVGTA&keywords=kurtis+hagen&qid=1695657719&s=books&sprefix=kurtis+ha%2Cstripbooks%2C551&sr=1-5

You can get a free sample for Kindle with some chapters. Even if you don't read the entire book, those chapters are very interesting.

You can see Spanish wikipedia:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADa_conspirativa#Controversia

You can use Google translator.

I would like to have contributed to the article in English, but I am afraid of being reverted.

2.138.45.126 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The doctoral thesis of philosopher Matthew Dentith named "In defence of conspiracy theories":

https://philarchive.org/rec/DENIDO-2

2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Many papers about 'Conspiracy theory theory':

https://philpapers.org/s/Conspiracy%20theory%20theory

2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

More papers:

https://www.academia.edu/search?q=conspiracy%20theory&utf8=%E2%9C%93

2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read these, the first hit on https://philpapers.org/s/Conspiracy%20theory%20theory says ", I take conspiracy theories to be self-insulating beliefs in conspiracies. On this view, conspiracy theorists have their conspiratorial beliefs in a way that is immune to revision by counter-evidence. I argue that conspiracy theories are always irrational. " that does not support your contention in ajny way, so if you are just going to post random links without even reading them, well there is nothing more to discuss. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read several of the articles, not all the articles.
2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well put quote and fits with this article. Helps explain why a group of people two years ago waited for months at the grassy knoll for JFK Jr. and JFK to appear. That the Kennedy's and Trump were direct descendants of Jesus and JFK Jr. would run as Trump's vice-president, even after they failed to appear. [11] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You are basically telling us, "Spend a few hours reading through these sources and get back to me if any of them support my view. I myself have better things to do with my time." TFD (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read many of the papers that appear in those links. If I have put them here, it is because @Thinker78 wanted citations. Those links may also be useful to other readers. I would put quotes from those authors on this Wikipedia if I knew it wasn't going to be reversed.

2.138.31.60 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if you quote the relevant passages of the cited sources, specifying page number and adding the citation after each quote (check Wikipedia:Citing sources). And of course, context is important. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To do this, the "Controversy" section must be restored. There are several interesting quotes for that section (from Dentith, Hagen and Pigden). I will make such appointments if I know it will not be reversed.
Furthermore, the "Controversy" section on Wikipedia says that the controversy exists, nothing more. It doesn't say the critics are right.

2.138.51.171 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

wp:brd is clear, you only make a bold edit if you have good reason to think it will not be reversed, as there is plenty of objection here to this, you must be aware it will be reversed. So do not do it without getting wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be consensus on recovering the "Controversy" section. What do others think?

2.138.51.171 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

*"Controversy" is misleading. There is no controversy in mainstream academia regarding the nature of conspiracy theories. Recently, there has been a rather small group of philosophers who have expressed disagreement with mainstream understandings: Charles Pigden, David Coady, MRX Dentith, Lee Basham, and Kurtis Hagen have argued philosophically in defense of conspiracy theories. Fringe believers are very excited about this because it opens the door for conspiracy theories of all kinds to be taken seriously, especially the ones they feel have been unfairly denigrated (JFK, 9/11, Covid, election fraud, aliens, etc). These philosophical squabbles are fairly recent and are confined to obscure philosophy journals, so the mainstream hasn't picked up on them. Being a WP:MAINSTREAM reference work, Wikipedia doesn't lead topics in new directions. Instead it lags behind and waits until a preponderance of high quality sources record the level of interest in that new direction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Obscure philosophy journals? When is it "obscure" a philosophy journal? Are philosophy journals less important than sociology journals or psychology journals?

2.138.51.171 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

In relation to JFK you should have been better informed. Look at the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations article, which states: "The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the following year, which concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

2.138.51.171 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracies do not exist. Therefore, everyone convicted by the courts of conspiracy has been a victim of a judicial error.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have confused this article, which is about claims of conspiracies that don't exist, with the article Conspiracy, which is about those that do. MrOllie (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory means "theory about a (possible or alleged) conspiracy." If conspiracies exist, some of these theories may turn out to be true. Many proven conspiracies started out as just a "conspiracy theory." 2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not the definition of the term given in the reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many definitions by different philosophers. See the work of Kurtis Hagen talking about several definitions.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This deserves its own threaded discussion with proper sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The terms "generalism" and "particularism" used by intellectuals in relation to the evaluation of conspiracy theories should be included here. 2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory means "theory about a (possible or alleged) conspiracy." If conspiracies exist, some of these theories may turn out to be true. Many proven conspiracies started out as just a "conspiracy theory." Of course. With some basic philosophical convolution, you can deconstruct anything to prove anything, theoretically. But that's not what this article is about. As mentioned above, Dentith, Kurtis Hagen et al may have a place at Philosophy of conspiracy theories. You've been pursuing the same argument here for two months using varied IPs. Continuing to lobby here against consensus is WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPTION. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie Varied ips (dynamic ip) are a thing because internet service providers in many places actually charge if a person wants to have the same ip all the time (static ip). No idea why you assume is even the same editor. If you see, an ip did not start this thread. Also, editors routinely follow a page to comment in its changes, that's the purpose of watchlists.

In addition, the ip brought info I did not know and I am interested to know more about. It is relevant info to improve the article and to me it is not disruptive but actually helpful. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Therefore, I ask the ip to share with us the sources they have in mind. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Sticks need to be dropped. When something is not based in reality, Wikipedia says so. Conspiracy theory advocacy is the archetypal WP:FRINGE editing, and anyone willing to engage in it is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's objectives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's ironic you mention sticks need to be dropped while at the same time talking about "conspiracy theory advocacy". Be consistent.

You are confusing advocacy with presentation of information. Also, one thing is fringe editing another thing is suppression of helpful information. Again, if someone has reliable sources about the information they are presenting, not allowing them to post them is undue censorship and disruption. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No one is being suppressed nor prevented from pursuing lines of argumentation or presenting evidence backing such positions.

Please note: discussion of behavior belongs within User Talk; broader topics not immediately related to this article may belong elsewhere (WP:VP, WP:HD, WP:RD etc.).

Also: WP:COAL. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE edits are stifled, and rightly so. Academic debate should not be stifled, but we only have to render WP:DUE academic claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [refactored to reflect current indentation-- dsprc ^[talk] 03:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)]

So let me get this right; a " conspiracy" exists.a theory about a supposed conspiracy, does. Or exist? How do things become confirmed true if they aren't a suspected theory in the first place?

The terminology of 'conspiracy theory' needs to change, because it's become a buzz term for dismissing people. If conspiracies happen, why don't they happen until they're confirmed to have happened? Are we not permitted to theorize about high level corruption?

And why is there no distinction between conspiracies about fanciful and non-fanciful things?

It's too broad a term, and the article leans very partisan toward one specific viewpoint, which doesn't paint a complete picture of the mosaic of people that might entertain alternative ideas, which is important. Knst132 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Knst132 It is not about truth or not truth due to epistemological constraints; information needs to be backed by reliable sources and as such, Wikipedia works by reflecting what reliable sources state. Of course, the process of adding info to articles is not perfect but if you have info backed by reliable sources, you are welcome to bring it to the table. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A part does not equal the whole

The lead sentence of this article is factually wrong and has NPOV issues, specifically the clause stating "when other explanations are more probable." Conspiracy theories where other explanations being more probable are a subset of the broader category of theories about conspiracies, some of which are the most probable explanation; to label all conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations when this is only true for some is the fallacy of composition.

That sentence as it is written, describes conspiracy theories with a pejorative connotation, which by definition, cannot be a neutral point of view. The factually incorrect assertion is attributed to cherry-picked sources on which undue weight is placed, when sources that do not describe conspiracy theories in a pejorative manner could be used instead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence does a nice job of clarifying that the term may be understood by some to have a negative connotation, rather than stating so in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose modifying the first two sentences to read:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're working from a false premise here. This is a particular term with a particular definition, which is well supported by the cited sources.

When there is a theory out there about a conspiracy that is probably true, that's not what this article is about, it is a different beast altogether. We do not need to contort the lead of this article to try to cover that situation.

Describing conspiracy theories as likely to be false is not a neutrality problem any more than saying the same about delusions. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Delusions, unlike conspiracy theories, are by definition false.

The same is not true of conspiracy theories, which are "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon" -- the definition does not exclude such beliefs that are true.

A conspiracy theory is a specific type of theory (a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained) and theories can be true or false -- unless you also wish to change the lede of theory to read "A theory is a false type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking."

Of course I'm aware that most people connotatively view conspiracy theories as likely to be untrue. But such is a subjective opinion, and when subjective statements can be sourced to reliable sources, they ought to be qualified, and not stated in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources do not chop the definition in half as you are doing here. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I trying to grasp at what you position is. My claims are:

(1) The definition of conspiracy theory, which is cited in the origin and usage section, makes no mention of veracity, as does the one i cited above.

(2) This notion of "conspiracy theories are false" is a cultural conception, not a fact, and it should be qualified as such.

(3) Sources which express opinions, no matter how reliable they are, should be qualified as such.

To which of the above do you disagree? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

All of the above, though (3) is technically correct and simply irrelevant here. To quote the article: when other explanations are more probable that is part of the definition. This is not a problem, just as it is not a problem that delusions are false by definition as you correctly stated. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well if you disagree with points (1) and (2), then you ought to revise this article's origin and usage section, which states exactly what I am saying as points 1 and 2. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Even assuming you are right: That is not how Wikipedia works. Editors should not remove sourced text just because they disagree with it. We have a lot of work reverting the edits of people who do exactly that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that MrOllie is wrong to say that points (1) and (2) are invalid because they are backed by reliable sources that are IN THIS ARTICLE ALREADY. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Language changes over time. Sources about how the term was used in 1863 or urban legends about the CIA don't have anything to do with how academic sources define it today. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You're strawmanning and not giving me a fair shake here.

OED is a contemporary source. The contemporary research cited in that section [12] Conspiracy_theory#cite_note-55 also state as such and says that it use used commonly in a derogatory way but is not per se implausible. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The OED does not overrule other sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The journal articles cited in the lead in no way overrule the OED or journal articles I just cited above.

Because reliable source disagree, we should qualify claims and not state them in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think the OED definition is fringe and can't be given undue weight, it shouldn't be included in the origin and usage or the lead. The origin and usage section doesn't get a special exception for the logic that you are applying to the lead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No one has said that, but have fun attacking that Straw man. MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you said that. I think you don't think that. I'm arguing that OED definition should also be in the lead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And you are making the fallacy fallacy by not addressing the substance of "The journal articles cited in the lead in no way overrule the OED or journal articles I just cited above.

Because reliable source disagree, we should qualify claims and not state them in wikivoice." Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

When a source is silent on a factual claim (as is the OED), that cannot be construed as disagreement. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

When a source's definition of conspiracy theory omits the condition that thing must be false/implausible/unlikely to be considered a conspiracy theory, that source necessarily makes the claim that a thing can be a conspiracy theory irrespective of whether or not it is false/implausible/unlikely. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If I say dog means "a canine which is named Fido" and you show me multiple sources that define dog without mention of "Fido", it does not mean that your sources are neutral as to whether or not being named Fido is a necessary condition to be considered a dog; it means that they do not think Fido is a necessary condition to be considered a dog. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You're making assumptions there which aren't reflected in the sources. If a source doesn't mention a thing that counts for precisely nothing, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories which are more likely true than false fall under OED's definition; yes or no? Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The premise of the question is flawed, so I cannot answer. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What controversial assumption is contained in the question? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It assumes that there are conspiracy theories that are more likely to be true than false, for one thing. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Would theories about conspiracies which fail the "other explanations are more probable" condition -- like for example, the theory that British aristocrats conspired with the Confederates -- be considered "conspiracy theories" under OED's definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is fruitful to try to apply modern definitions to usage from 1863. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Theorized conspiracies which are not implausible exist in any time period. The question is whether they are considered conspiracy theories.

Under the OED definition, they clearly are, which you clearly don't want to admit.

The OED definition should also be included in the lead to not give undue weight to sources which state conspiracy theories are unlikely to be true by definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not answering your questions because they are not germane to the matter at hand, which must be based on Wikipedia's policies, and not our personal impressions of what definitions should be. And as I mentioned earlier, when the OED is silent on a point that cannot be construed to mean that it disagrees with the other sources. MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is am absurd conclusion, and you are refusing to engage with my contentions in good faith. It is not unreasonable for me to make the adverse inference that you refuse to answer my questions because an answer would prove that I am right. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie is right to refuse. This is not the place for such discussions. Read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In the case of a definition, yes it is! Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How is it making an assumption to say that theories about conspiracies, regardless of plausibility, fall under OED's definition because OED's definition places no weight on plausibility? Peter L Griffin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I sense a pattern here, whether intended or not, quite similar to Argument Clinic. Luckily Wikipedia content is decided by a WP:CONSENSUS of experienced editors using policy-based rationale rather than a process of wearing down of opponents in endless circular debates. At this point, Peter L Griffin's proposal for making fundamental changes to the article topic is best retired, or if he wishes, submitted at a venue such as WP:NPOVN or WP:FTN where wider opinion is available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Peter L Griffin, the encyclopedia summarizes what WP:RS say about a given topic. You may disagree with what cited sources say, but it doesn't change editorial policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

At best, a conspiracy theory might be "unproven" for a short time, but even that situation is rare, because it normally has several parts, and it is rare for all of them to be factual. (It only takes one faulty brick to bring down the whole structure, and conspiracy theorists tend to be contrarians who are at war with many (not just one) aspects of what society considers facts.) Usually, some of the aspects of a theory are already proven false and/or they question and ignore proven facts, hence the theory is already false from the beginning. It is created to support some weird and false idea held by its creator. A theory that is proven true is no longer a conspiracy theory but a fact.

As far as our practice here goes, articles for false conspiracy theories often include the words "conspiracy theory" in the title. If the theory is proven true, we retitle the article and remove those words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's overly generous to say that "other explanations are more probable" and some of the sources for this statement are stronger, for example calling them false beliefs. TFD (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And some other of the sources do not make a claim as to whether or not they are false.

If reliable sources disagree on a factual claim, should that claim be included unqualified? Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is necessary. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

When is a Conspiracy theory not a Conspiracy theory?

When its a Conspiracy.

We have an article on real ones, this is about the false ones. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your thinking is far too binary; something not having been proven true does not mean it is false. The true-false dichotomy exists theoretically, but only when all the facts are readily available. Sometimes things cannot (or have not at this time) been proven to be definitely true or false, and the lack it being proven true does not mean that one can confidently assert in wikivoice that it is false.

A conspiracy theory is a theorized conspiracy which has not been proven true. It has not necessarily been proven false, and may be proven true some time in the future.

• Conspiracy theory which is proven true -> Conspiracy
• Conspiracy theory which is proven false -> Conspiracy theory
• Conspiracy theory which has not been proven true or false -> Conspiracy theory

An example of the last category would be the Georgia election racketeering prosecution against Donald Trump. The prosecution's theory is that Trump "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election.

A conspiracy theory? You bet. Is it false? We don't know yet.

Should it be summarily labeled as "unlikely to be true" because of the existence of other unrelated conspiracy theories which are false? Certainly not. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory (legal term) has its own article. This is not it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct that the example I have given also has a legal component.

Here is another:

In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, but concluded that the commission's report and the original FBI investigation were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable.

A conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination, which comes from a government body. I think it would be unfair to call it unlikely to be true. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This logic is based on some assumption like "US politicians cannot get anything wrong", which is not one of the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources say that this "conspiracy theory" is unlikley to be true? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And are there enough that this can be stated in an unqualified wikivoice? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please read WP:INDENT? You keep adding colons in a way that makes it look as if you are responding to yourself and refuting your own points. It's confusing and wastes the time of readers. I corrected it in this instance, but it makes the discussion a few lines above even more tedious than it would be without that.

What reliable sources say I am not interested in fetching the sticks you throw. This is the talk page of Conspiracy theory, not that of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and because of WP:OR, you are not allowed to draw your own conclusions and put them into the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, is this in this article, what conspiracy theories do we include do you object to including? Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See my above comment. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, but concluded that the commission's report and the original FBI investigation were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Another also mentioned in this article which I dispute calling unlikley to be true is:

The earliest known usage was by the American author Charles Astor Bristed, in a letter to the editor published in The New York Times on January 11, 1863. He used it to refer to claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're crazy uncle JimBob putting on a tinfoil hat and saying Joe Biden is an alien without any evidence is one type of conspiracy theory. It's also what most people think of when they hear the term "conspiracy theory." This is because, as is described in the origin and usage section, while the actual definition of the word is agnostic to whether or not the theory is plausible, and the word was not initially derogatory, the word is now understood in popular society to connotatively to be derogatory, though not by definition.

What I have mentioned above —- the New York Times' theory that the British conspired with the Confederates, and the House of Representative's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as part of a conspiracy -- should not be waved off as if they were just baseless claims that "Joe Biden is an alien."

Of course there are conspiracies which are real. As per the scientific method, any conspiracy must first be theorized before it can be definitely proven. And sometimes it is very difficult to prove or disprove a theory, so it will forever remain a mere theory of indeterminate truthfulness. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You are using the Heap fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so--What is the heap in this circumstance?

It seems more accurate to characterizing the position opposite of mine as using the fallacy of composition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a continuum between crazy uncle JimBob's claim and the House of Representatives' theory, just as there is a continuum between a few grains of sand and a big heap. JimBob's reasoning is crap and you can tell that it is crap, and the House's reasoning is crap and you cannot tell it is crap but other people can.

Your whole approach is flawed. Wikipedia articles are base on reliable sources. You are not a reliable source, therefore the article cannot be based on your reasoning. It is pointless to try. Go publish it in a reliable source, and if the reception is good, we may be able to use it. It's the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Plausible conspiracy theories

In the above section on the talk page, I have argued that, according to this article's own sources and "Origin and usage" section, a conspiracy theory is not dubious or implausible per se, but rather a descriptive term that gained a pejorative connotation in the 20th century.

Of course there are conspiracies which are real. As per the scientific method, any conspiracy must first be theorized before it can be definitely proven. Thus, some conspiracy theories, under the non-pejorative literal definition of "conspiracy theory", are plausible.

I listed, for example, the Georgia election racketeering prosecution against Donald Trump. The prosecution's theory is that Trump "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election. It is so plausible that this theorized conspiracy is true that Trump is standing trial for it.

Others argue that this article is not about those types of conspiracy theories, it is about our casual cultural conception of obviously loony conspiracy theories: QAnon, Pizzagate, Space Laser type stuff. As much as I disagree, if this is truly the consensus, then it naturally follows that we should remove the following conspiracy theories from this page:

• Claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests.
• The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations' 1979 finding that the Warren commission's report and the original FBI investigation on the JFK assassination were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable.

If the "when other explanations are more probable" clause in the first sentence of this article continues to be stated in wikivoice as applying to all conspiracy theories, it is only right to remove these plausible conspiracy theories from this page, as they do not fall within that pejorative definition of conspiracy theory. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As you say, this is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus above states that conspiracy theories are false. So now, I'm starting a separate thread to remove conspiracy theories that don't meet that definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"Other explanations are more probable" is not the same as "false". And the bullet points you are objecting to are in a discussion about historical usage of the term. Their presence in the article is relevant in that context. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" is usually described with a certain pejorative connotation, as they are NOT always true, and in the same way, they are NOT always false, although I don't agree 100% with you, you are completely right in your statement, only the facts gonna say one thing or another, without the proper facts, it's just mere speculation.

This is how many see conspiracy theories, as speculations that have not yet been proven, however, sometimes we tend to turn our backs on something, just because some are false, which can be dangerous, as not everything is the same, no matter how tiny the difference, still nothing is the same, likewise here, it's not because 10 conspiracy theories are false and pretentious that automatically everything else be too.

I even agree with this idea that, in fact, conspiracy theories are somewhat baseless, however, it is important to make it clear that not all of them are like that, quite the opposite, they only make us question the world we live in. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)