Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Conspiracy theory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Suggestions

Tupac Shakur would be a good add for "Conspiracy Theories by Topic". His death is an ongoing dispute, mainly between fans. There is a video clip on the internet, where Tupac supposedly walks out of a building. James Tapp aka [Magnolia]Soulja Slim would be a good add the "assasinations" list.

Protection

I protected the page due to the fact that have a long simmering war going on. Talk things out on here and try to come up with a version people are happy with or use dispute resolution. Thanks. And by protecting this particular version I'm not taking sides. We just protect. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You just protect? :) I can feel the conspiracy floating :) _→AzaToth 03:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't add any sort of protection notice to the aritcle? zen master T 03:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I just added a notice. Carbonite | Talk 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the history record now shows the article was protected. zen master T 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I added the protection notice template, although Woohookitty actually protected it. article block log Carbonite | Talk 03:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if protecting a page showed up in article history directly? zen master T 03:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I think so, and it would also be nice if protecting a page automatically added the protection notice. Carbonite | Talk 03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry all. I think that's the first time I've forgotten to put the tag on. I wish it was all automatic, but it probably never will be. Off topic a bit, but it's a pain. To protect a page, you have to...protect the page, add the tag, add the page to the protected pages list, add a note to the RfP page and then usually leave a note on the talk page of the article or of the requestor. It's nuts. Btw, here is the protection log. It shows when the pages were actually protected, not when the tag was put on. Oh and when I say "we protect", I just mean that we do it blindly without picking a side. I have no stake in this article whatsoever or any opinion on it really. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for intro

Zen-master suggested on my talk page that "we should include both intro presentation methods/word choices until we find a bipartite solution on the talk page." I think Carbonite's version does this to the extent it needs to be done.

I see the page is protected until we can agree on an intro. I suggest this one. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, "Carbonites" version is lacking at least everything the current version has, also why did you say "to the extent it needs to be done", that does not sound like something someone that is following my "we should include both presentation methods/word choices until we find a bipartite solution on the talk page" proposal would say...? zen master T 03:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I like Carbonite's version- it's not perfect, but it's better than the others.--Sean|Bla ck 03:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the plan to go with an all inclusive intro until we come up with a succinct bipartite version here on talk? zen master T 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to empathize with the users of this tool and forget about inter-Wikipedia politics. As a tool, the elements that convey the most information about the term should to come first. --Peter McConaughey 03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean specifically? zen master T 03:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with Peter, and I tend to think that that's more or less a requirement of a respectable encyclopdia article! Therefore, the version [[1]] was IMO not too bad; for a reason unknown to me, some people here decided after some uncoordinated tweeking occurred, to simply bulldozer it away. And please note that Carbonite's version as well as Zenmaster's version did not respect that minimal requirement. Harald88 17:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What minimal requirement? Peter has yet to explain what he means. I think your version and Carbonite's version are actually rather similar and both insufficiently explain "conspiracy theory". Until we can find a bipartite wording compromise here on the talk page I think the intro and article should be a superset of both versions. zen master T 17:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have explained that here several times, with good examples of other Wikipedia articles. If possible, one starts an article with a "catch-all" description and next one may provide particular notable uses if there are. Another example, and now I stress it by imitating this article: An automobile is not "A car, whereby the expression however may also have a literal meaning of self-contained motion and sometimes the expression is used for buses, jeeps and vans." ... Harald88 17:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the proposed "catch-all" version itself is disputed as being insufficient, apparently we need to include more info. zen master T 18:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I know of no such dispute, and it's a mystery to me how a "catch-all" first sentence could be "insufficient". IMO it can only be faulty or unnecessarily general. And note that compared to "An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor", "A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that explains the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence" is already extremely detailed. Harald88 18:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is that dispute. That sentence plays up the X-files angle of "conspiracy theory" too much, especially since it's equivalent to "Conspiracy theory can refer to any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together". zen master T 03:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, I don't support your proposal to "include both presentation methods/word choices." Sorry if I gave that impression. I think the intro I prefer already addresses academic use, pejorative use, and "literal" use (which I don't actually think is correct, but am willing to tolerate for the sake of consensus). Tom Harrison ^(talk) 03:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Our interpretations of what is sufficient differ, so what should we do? zen master T 03:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Alternate theory

I guess it depends on the context, but to me, Conspiracy theory is a derogatory term that is non-neutral. I think that it should be used when suggesting a conspiracy, i.e. some detailed plot. But when describing just another version of events from what the official story is, then I think that Alternate theory is a better term to use.

For example: the Backpacker murders is one case where virtually nobody believes the official story. It makes zero sense. The idea that someone killed 7 people at different times in entirely different methods, with no link between the 7 ways that they were murdered, or between the 7 people (they were not all backpackers - only 4 were), and burying them in different ways over 100 kms apart from each other suggests that they were without question NOT done all by one person. Not only that, but there were 32 people who went missing, yet we only say that 7 were killed. The "Alternate theory" is far more believable - this is a very simple run of the mill organised crime syndicate killing people indiscriminantly and ordering a cleanup crew - just that the police felt powerless to stop the might of the organised crime syndicate. Pretty simple really. And pretty freaking obvious. So calling that a "conspiracy theory" in my mind is just a ridiculous way of describing it.

Another case was the recently concluded case of Peter Falconio, where the official story was totally absurd and nobody believes it. Officially, a guy went to a remote area, near to the town of Barrow Creek, Northern Territory, population 11, where cars go past 5 per day, and stopped someone randomly to kill him and rape her - and yet, in spite of having 5 hours to stop her, he failed to find her and kill her, did not shoot a single bullet out and didn't go for her. Ridiculous theory. Absolutely absurd theory. The "alternate theory" is pretty simple - Joanne Lees killed him. A huge amount of people believe that. Much simpler, much more obvious, much more believable. Sure, he was found guilty, but nobody in the court believed the official story. They believed any one of a million other tiny little slightly believable theories as to how he might have killed her. Yet we call theories such as her killing him a conspiracy theory. Come off it. Which is more believable? A girl gets in a fight with her boyfriend and accidentally kills him? Or that someone comes from out of nowhere with no motive to kill him and yet allows her to live? Absurd.

I could keep going with examples like this, but I think that you get my point here.

Is it really appropriate to talk about things like this as conspiracy theories?

However, I'll give an example of what is a conspiracy theory: the idea that s11 conducted the September 11, 2001 attacks so as to protest against globalisation. That's a conspiracy theory, because for it to be true implies a huge amount of assumptions and its really a huge stretch. Probably less than 10,000 people worldwide believe that s11 are responsible. They just had an unfortunate name.

So that's what I think there. Believable, easy to understand, logical theories should be called alternate theories, while complicated stretch of the imagination theories should be called conspiracy theories.

What do you think? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Zordrac, well put. I removed a section on here about clinical psychology because it was literally laughable -- clearly no psychologist wrote it and the purpose is to try to malign, not inform. 'Denial' was listed alongside 'schizophrenia' - might as well have been a link to an entire psychology textbook and every disorder could be listed there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.107.185 (talk • contribs) .

I restored the documented reference and removed the undocumented reference that was added. I also removed the description of pejorative use, since that's already been addressed at length. In reference to the comments above, I do not support calling a conspiracy theory anything other than a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Request made on the Mediation Cabal page for assistance

Hello everyone: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, a mediator from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. User:Kim Bruning made a request some time ago for us to provide mediation assistance regarding NPOV issues about this article back in November; I am very sorry for the severe delays in handling cases, which has been caused by a number of issues, and it seems this particular case was overlooked. Does anyone still think that mediation assistance is required? I would be grateful if people would comment at the Mediation Cabal page for this issue, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/30 November 2005/Conspiracy theory, if they feel that we could assist in this page in any respect. Thank you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, take a look at the details of the dispute(s) here on the talk page and the different versions of the article and let us know if you think you can be of some assistance. Karmafist is a mediator? He seems to have already prejudiced this mediation against me by saying on the mediation page this about me "Take anything with him and that article with a grain of salt". That doesn't seem like a very neutral thing for a mediator to say, especially at the request stage. Karmafist must be following the Conspiracy theory disagreement very closely to be able to take sides so strongly, which is separately a rather odd thing for a mediator to do at any point in time regardless. zen master T 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Stigma

Perhaps this article needs to distinguish between "conspiracy theories" according to the prevelant usage and theories invoking conspiracies.

First, I would like to add my opinion on the matter of stigmatization regaurding the phrase "conspiracy theory." The fact of the matter is, in the English language, "Conspiracy Theory" suffers from a derogatory connotation. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot change that. Rather, it ought be its duty to document this fact. Further, if not by definition, then by common usage, conspiracy theories are always false. When you speak about something that has been proven true, for example, the Black Hand's involvement in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, it is no longer called a conspiracy theory, but rather a fact. Hence, a "conspiracy theory" by common usage refers to an inherently unsubstantiatable theory.

I hence think it would be a good idea to discuss a certain artifact of this stigmatization, which zen master noted, namely, that any theory which discusses a conspiracy, even one which could be proven true via evidence, and hence cannot be labeled as a "conspiracy theory" by the common definition, can be dismissed simply by labelling it as a "conspiracy theory." Therefore, there are two types of conspiracy theories: "conspiracy theories" (the pejorative variety) and theories alleging a conspiracy, which, like the Gavrilo Princip example, may turn out to be true.
--Adam (http://www.ifobos.com) 18:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Great point. It would help with addressing the NPOV issues to note that conspiracy theories are by their nature derogatory and immediately dismissed. Anytime that you have a theory for something that happened, all that someone has to say is "conspiracy theory" and nobody takes it seriously. Thus official stories, no matter how ridiculous, can be pushed through as fact merely by reference of any alternatives as being "conspiracy theories". Of course, its not always true, as occasionally official stories are actually debunked, and some officials are regarded as unreliable and hence not taken seriously. Going alongside that, though, and following it to its logical conclusion, we can suggest that governments (and officials in other capacities) can push through something as fact by referring to anything else as a conspiracy theory. And perhaps also we can suggest that this is how governments lie to people. I know its a bit of a circular argument but its got a fair bit of merit and isn't wholly circular. We could perhaps also reference "disinformation" and "plausible deniability", where some governments push forward a conspiracy theory on purpose, so that a ridiculous conspiracy theory is believed, thus meaning that all that the government needs to do is to dismiss the ridiculous conspiracy theory and then their official story is believed unquestionably. I can think of a lot of examples where that kind of thing happened, and where both the conspiracy theory and the official story were ridiculous and were both pushed by the same official source. Anyway, I digress a bit there. Good point you made. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adam (and Zordrac), apparently we already have consensus about that: it's common to all words that are also used perjoratively and I think that all recent proposals take it inito account. IOW, I think that's not the problem. And note that nothing that has been proven true is ever called a "theory"; also, it's a common error to think that what can't be proved must be false. For you newcomers it may be interesting to look at this month's versions. Harald88 18:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not just any theory involving a conspiracy is properly called a conspiracy theory, any more than any garden with children in it is a kindergarten; See the list of features.

Was the Black hand's involvement in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand suspected, dismissed as a conspiracy theory, and later proven to be true?

The "literal" meaning is already addressed, inaccurately, but as a compromise. The possibility of pejorative use is already addressed, more prominently than it should be. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

reminder: suggestions from featured articles

Here follows as a reminder, roughly the intro's from the featured articles (with Babelfish + a little polishing) which should serve as a guideline; and note that they both align well with the kind of intro which we had until a few days ago and which I here above motivated as the right kind of intro.

German:

Conspiracy theory one calls the attempt, to explain events, conditions or developments by a secret conspiracy; thus by purposeful, conspiratorial working of two or more persons for a hidden, illegal or illegitimate purpose.

Italian:

A conspiracy theory is a theory that eludes the common understanding of the historical events or puts into them into doubt, supporting that these are the result of manipulation from part of one or more hidden powers or conspiracies.

"conspiracy Theory" (or also complottismo) is a colloquial term used in order to refer to unconventional theories, regarding historical events or puts them in doubt, that infondate can appear, bizarre or irrational. In a generalized manner, conspiracy theories support rather that a particular event - like a murder, a revolution, or quite the failure of an event - has not only resulted of the visible actions of the political forces or event, but hidden operations. Since the classic theories of the conspiracy are often simple presumptons of undercover operations, and since these stretch to be based on little or no testing, the expression "conspiracy" theory, in the common language is used to refer to accusations of collusions that are thought to be untested, improbable or false.

This week we had several variants that compare well with the above featured German and Italian examples; here two examples:

12 dec [[2]]:

A Conspiracy theory is a theory which alleges clandestine and conspiratorial activities by individuals or groups in order to achieve an outcome that might otherwise be considered to have occurred by conventional or natural means.

In common usage, Conspiracy theory loosely refers to misconceived, paranoid or disproved rumors, similar in many respects to urban legend; it is used by academics to identify a type of folklore of eccentric and outlandish stories that generally describe vast cover-ups. The term "Conspiracy theory" is also used pejoratively in an attempt to ridicule or dismiss a conspiracy allegation.

15 dec [[3]]:

A conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that explains the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or natural occurrence. Casually, it is used pejoratively to label and therefore dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.

Academics use "conspiracy theory" as a term to identify a type of folklore similar to the urban legend, having certain regular features. In almost all cases, believers in a particular account vigorously reject the classification of their belief as a conspiracy theory, leading to controversy over legitimate uses of the term.

Harald88 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete, the above versions use word choices way too evocative of the X-files angle, and do not disassociate between when the phrase is applied, illegitimately, to an actual theory and when it describes what the author would agree was fiction or folklore. Those versions also don't mention the literal fact any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together can be labeled dismissively as "conspiracy theory" and deemphasizes the fact real theories are being proposed, not mere "conspiracy allegations". I consider it improper to label a proponent of a theory a "believer" as that may discourage a scientific and factual consideration of that theory. zen master T 08:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that our versions that are close to theirs are much better because they do handle those issues, I agree! It was my purpose to show how good we are. In contrast to the featured examples, our recent summary descriptors managed to include those issues in a concise way. Harald88 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Move sentence?

I agree with Zen-master that there is some redundancy in the current version, and I propose to move the last sentence just before the introduction to the start of the last paragraph of the introduction (again!). The word "controversy" will therewith stand out, and that's IMO not bad either -> sometimes "Less is More"! Harald88 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As a result, the Introduction will then end with:

"It may be considered improper to dismissively categorize a competing theory or viewpoint as folklore or rumor as that may discourage a scientific and factual analysis. Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labelled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy. If legitimate uses of the label are admitted, they work by identifying structural features in the story in question which correspond to those features listed below."

Harald88 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is a slight improvement except "identifying structural features in the story" is impossible if what is being dismissively labeled was an actual theory. We need to do a much better job of disassociating between when the phrase is applied to an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy and when it is applied to stories or folklore that coincidentally has the same "conspiracy theory" name. I propose that "arguments" should only be labeled as "conspiracy theory folklore" if the author of the argument agrees they are stories or folklore. If someone is actually theorizing something we should encourage a scientific and factual analysis, rather than unquestioningly accept someone else's sublte yet dismissive categorization. If someone is actually theorizing something we should focus on the details and evidence of that theory/allegation/conjecture rather than focusing on the mere fact that a conspiracy is alleged (which may lead to that theory being discredited as "conspiracy theory" fiction/folklore/rumor). zen master T 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Zenmaster, I think you have a point there, but what you propose now is similar to proposing that a lie be only called a lie if the author agrees with that label! That doesn't sound realistic. And you seem to (still) be confused between a discussion about the phenomenon (lies, stories, ...) and particular cases (specific examples) which may be disputed. I'm afraid that if I'm right about that, then as long as you don't first disassociate those things in your own mind, your proposals will not be feasible and discussions here will be endless. Harald88 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy is backwards. Arguments and theories should be proven false by a scientific analysis and should not, under any circumstances, be categorized dismissively as folklore or rumor. We need a definition in this article that sufficiently disassociates between when the phrase is applied to a theory and when it is applied to folklore or rumor so each specific usage is more clear. The way "conspiracy theory" discredits any theory that literally alleges a conspiracy most people may not be aware of the possibility of a categorization dispute. zen master T 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's something else, and I think that everyone agrees on that (except for overdone disassociation: what some may regard as a rumour, others may regard as a serious theory). IMO the current lead of the article does just that in a concise manner (except for the last sentence which doesn't really belong there). Harald88 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The current intro fails to mention the fact that any theory that alleges a conspiracy can be labeled a "conspiracy theory", a key point to mention is the phrase can be ambiguous due to coincidence. Since "conspiracy theory" has more than one meaning I don't think the word "term" should be used in place of it. The first sentence of the current intro is basically the literal definition excessively played up with the X-files angle. I recently noted an interesting fact: "theory" is simply replaced with "hypothesis" but "conspiracy" gets a long winded "deceptive plot" definition which is coincidentally extremely evocative of the type of folklore or rumor (that happens to have the same name "conspiracy theory", go figure), shouldn't both constituent parts of "conspiracy theory" be defined equally? It would be much more simple to define "conspiracy theory" as "a hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together" but you seem to want the long winded played up conspiracy definition in there for some political reason (the succinct and non evocative "a group secretly working together" comes from conspiracy FYI...). And I'd hardly call AIDS conspiracy theories a "casually" pejorative example of usage, we definitely should remove "Casually". Also, I think we should change "allegedly" to "what are represented as being" in reference to the the "eccentric, paranoid, or outlandish 'rumors'" because "rumors" needs a stronger caveat as that is another categorization that is likely disputed. Additionally, "believers" needs "or proponents" and "belief" needs an "or theory" caveat. All of these are somewhat sublte yet profound NPOV violations... zen master T 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so: I prefer the first sentence shorter, as I explained before -- and at that time neither you nor anyone else responded to my request for other opinions, if I remember well. However, in a place like Wikipedia the resulting text can not be anything else than a compromise that takes into account different ideas. I find the lead as it is now a reasonable compromise that is much better than what was achieved in German and Italian. Which doesn't mean that it can't be improved more.

IMO you have good chance of getting "casually" removed, and also "believers" may be replaced by for example "proponents". However, with other details I give you less chance -- such as to replace "allegedly" (which you had added, I think) by a long chain of words is for me an abuse of language, I doubt that many people will agree with you. Wikipedia is not only for patent attorneys... Harald88 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lead: Reality Check

The lead now manages to be almost illiterate and incomprehensible, totally biased in favor of a tiny minority POV, and almost useless to the average reader. It is really a sad reflection of how a tiny group of relentless editors can wear down other Wiki editors and displace the majority reputable published scholarly viewpoint with a ludicrous fringe POV. This page is a disgrace. --Cberlet 22:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting POV, and consequently you will think the same of the featured Italian and German versions as well as the dictionaries -- they must, according to you, all be "ludicrous fringe POV" -- Right? But if not, what important feature in those examples do you notice as missing in the lead of this article? Or, possibly you forgot to Refresh your page? Harald88 23:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reality check time. I challenge folks to provide a reputable published source for their claims about the term conspiracy theory. This challenge extends to all editors no matter what their view of the issue or the lead. Apparently, for some, there is such clear scholarship on the issue that the perjorative usage needs to be repeated in the lead and hold the major focus of the lead. WHere is this scholarship? Neither the German or Italian leads do this. They both describe the term, and mention the perjorative use. Here, a ludicrous fringe POV dominates the lead and dominates this discussion. The vast volume of discussion on this talk page ignores the huge volume of scholarship on this subject. It even ignores the body of the article, where this scholarship is discussed. The lead has been hijacked by a minority POV. Editors need to provide cites, otherwise it is all POV original research. I challenge all of us to produce cites to back up our respective positions.--Cberlet 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The accidental repetition of pejorative use (one r) in the lead was already on its way out, it was a left-over from an earlier edit war; apparently you overlooked the discussion just above on that point. Personally I prefer to shorten the first sentence so as to bring it closer to the dictionary definition (see the references at the bottom of the article). And now that you bring it up, the bulk of the article appears a bit too narrowminded (the term is not exclusively owned by scholars) but it's not feasible to improve everything in one go. Is there anything else?

-> FYI, here is (Babelfish, unedited) how the featured Italian Wikipedia article defines it in more detail, and note the sometimes where apparently you claim always:

Conspiracy and theory of the conspiracy the word "conspiracy" derives from the Latin "to conspire", ("to breathe together"), and in the contemporary use it indicates a situation where two or more persons come to an agreement themselves in order to complete an illegal or immorale action. The essential members are the involvement at least two persons, the segretezza and the malicious attempt. He puts into effect them existence of such innumerevoli conspiracies it is very famous and he comprises bands and criminal organizations, trusts in order to control the market, organized political corruption and therefore via. In every moment, hundreds or migliaia of conspiracies are in action. Such conspiracies are considered crimes in the greater part of the nations, and can be pursued in how much finalized to commit an illegal action, or for being part of a criminal structure, or also, sometimes, for being simply to acquaintance of the conspiracy and not having I churn for opporvisi. For an argument on this type of conspiracies of it sees the article conspiracy (famous: the term "theory of the conspiracy" comes sometimes used in order to indicate attempted to you the sociological ones to study the phenomenon of the conspiracy). While the term theory of the conspiracy can refer to every theory that presupposes the existence of a conspiracy that has not been still tried, it can also be used from people like sminuente retorico instrument in order to indicate ideas that, in their opinion they are: Theories not tried that generally they are considered false; Impossible to demonstrate (it is true that false); Paranoiche or without foundation. The historical ones generally use the term conspiracy in order to indicate a conspiracy that it is considered real, tried, or at least seriously reasonable and with some elements to support.

Harald88 17:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the lead and opening sentences for this page from a year ago English language Conspiracy theory page from a year ago. Guess what, it is remarkably similar to the current page from the Italian Wikipedia. The lead and opening sentences from a year ago are better than what is currently in place.--Cberlet 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That old version has many problems, for starters "colloquial term" seems inaccurate given Wikipedia's official acceptance of the label in AIDS conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories and others. The 2 definitions are basically saying the same thing and excessively play up the X-files angle. zen master T 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing Cberlet! Thanks for showing that.

1. The lead was then less good than now (now an umbrella definition that splits, then two meanings that don't cover all; this was also improved in the Italian version). Still, it was already better than some of the leads of last month...

2. Probably the body of the Italian version was based on the English version. What happened with the part "Conspiracy and conspiracy theory"?!

Now I see how much the article improved overall in one year time, I know enough. You won't see me here often anymore, if at all. Good luck with the crowd!

Harald88 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If the German and Italian pages got some of their material from this page a year ago, we can't really cite those. We need independent material so we don't get an 'echo.' So far, we have the references cited in the article at Further reading, and the dictionary that Harald88 mentioned. Anything else? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 00:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, I pointed out (but apparently not clearly enough) just here above that the featured pages did not copy the lead, or if they did, they modified it because in their opinion the old lead was unsatisfactory. Thus their lead examples remain, and IMO our current lead is similar to theirs but better.

Harald88 07:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But what were their sources for the material? I'm afraid they didn't have any, and that they just talked among themselves about what they thought conspiracy theory meant, kind of like many of us have been doing here. Then somebody said, "Hey, the English Wikipedia has a page; Maybe we can use some of that;" Again, just like us. Now that's not entirely bad; I've said before that I would like some non-US perspectives. But it's not really a citable independent source in the same way as the published dictionary you mentioned. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 20:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

Bold textAdds?

"Tupac Shakur sightings" would be a good at, next to the "Elvis Sightings". Under the circumstances, "James Tapp aka [Magnolia]Soulja Slim", would be a good add under "Assasinations" also.

Alternate intro proposal

Conspiracy theory has multiple, possibly ambiguous, uses and definitions. Literally, it means any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose. In many notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what was or is represented as the mainstream explanation for one or more historic or current events. Separately, within academia and popular entertainment "conspiracy theory" is the name given to a widely varied collection of eccentric folklore, similar to urban legend, which usually takes the form of first person accounts and narratives each describing the existence of vast conspiracy.

Frequently, the "conspiracy theory" label is used to dismiss what is represented as false, paranoid and outlandish rumor. In almost all cases, believers or proponents of a particular account reject the classification of their belief or theory as a conspiracy theory. The phrase is potentially ambiguous at an unconscious literal definition level because of the coincidental fact any individual theory that simply alleges a conspiracy, and, the eccentric folklore can share the same "conspiracy theory" label or name, respectively. Critics of the "conspiracy theory" label claim it is used, often subtly or inadvertently, to pejoratively confuse and misclassify an actual theory that alleges a conspiracy with the type of eccentric folklore for the purpose of: obfuscation, thwarting a scientific and factual analysis, or dismissal. The label may even be considered inappropriate if used to dismiss theoretical speculation in any form.

Comments

What do people think? We may only need 2 of the 4 sentences from the second paragraph above, but I am not sure which 2 and we may actually need that extra clarity. zen master T 10:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can say much about the motive of persons who call something a conspiracy theory. Sure, it is possible they are using the term to malign or discourage further research, but it is more likely they are simply expressing their own profound and honest skepticism. The opening paragraph of the article already says that sometimes the term is used pejoratively. If any clarification is needed, I think it should go in the body of the article. –Shoaler (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Would the simple "perhaps inadvertently" or a similar caveat addresses your concerns? "Used pejoratively" is woefully insufficient. Also, in most cases, critics are specifically charging people that use "conspiracy theory" to label theoretical speculation with the specific intent of thwarting and discouraging further research. Perhaps I should write up my interpretation of "conspiracy theory" and submit it to a respectable journal for inclusion, that may be the only way to have a direct fundamentally critical source available (though someone else would then have to be the one to include it in the article but I digress). zen master T 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I updated the alternative intro proposal above, what do people think? Also note the common non-legal definition of "conspiracy" seems to have disappeared from the conspiracy article, but I just added it back. zen master T 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does our text have to include that it is "ambiguous" and "pejorative". Those are two concepts that keep being added by one editor and keep being removed by others. -Willmcw 22:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The current version of the article uses "pejorative" it's not just "my" proposal above. I think the potential for ambiguousness is obvious after you realize the label is applied to both actual theories and folklore. zen master T 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Phrases are not ambiguous simply because they have multiple meanings. Why does our definition have to have that and "pejorative" in the introduction? -Willmcw 23:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A phrase is ambiguous if it's unclear whether the subject being labeled should be thought of as a theory or as folklore, which is often the case with "conspiracy theory". I think everyone would agree that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is "pejorative" but users and proponents of "conspiracy theory" as a label would argue ridicule and dismissal of allegedly eccentric folklore and rumor is justified, however I strongly disagree that it is ever justified, especially in the context of a scientific investigation. zen master T 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

See below for "pejorative"; and compare with for example "cult" (indeed, the word pejorative is not necessary, other words can be used to express the same). Harald88 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that this article is being edited with an eye towards substantiating positions at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality, which calls the term "ambiguous" and pejorative, and which concludes that the term should not be used in titles for those reasons. Could user:Zen-Master please comment on that concern? -Willmcw 01:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If we compare the current article to the mid October and other earlier versions I think the opposite case could be made, namely, that changes have been decreasing the chances of Wikipedia:Title Neutrality ever passing. The old version of the article (that I did not edit) defined conspiracy theory colloquially as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" which I still maintain proves the phrase should not be used in scientific nor encyclopedic contexts. Just the fact the word "theory" is used in the name of a type of folkore should be enough to prove the high potential for ambiguity here. zen master T 01:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So is it correct that you have no intention of pursuing future policy changes to prevent the use of "conspiracy theory" in article titles? Or if you do, that you don't intend to refer to this article as a justification for doing so? Since your editing here comes after numerous attempts to change Wikipedia guidelines, some assurance that there is not an ulterior motive would make it easier to assume good faith in this regard. -Willmcw 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression that I am giving up on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? I've been doing everything I can to stop or slowdown the removal of clarity from this article. Massive changes were made starting in early to mid October that I believe dramatically decreased the comprehension and understanding of the inappropriate uses of conspiracy theory in scientific and encyclopedic contexts. Coincidentally, early to mid October also happened to be around the time when I was separately working on version 2.0 of the Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal... At the time I asked my fellow editors to explain, here on this talk page, their rationale for making all the changes, especially removal of content, but they never did. Since then I've been trying to salvage some clarity from what we have now. Hopefully I've come up with a clear and sufficiently disassociated proposed intro above. I can always refer to historical versions of this article to make a case for Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So then you are planning to continue to use this article to support your arguments at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality? If that is the case there is a possibility that you may make edits here in order to further your position there, rather than to create the best possible article here. I appreciate your desire to "slowdown the removal of clarity", but I'm afraid you are also pursuing the same ultimate goal here that you've been pursuing since the summer: removing the phrase "conspiracy theory" from the titles of articles which describe conspiracy theories. -Willmcw 04:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion, the only "agenda" I am trying to advance is neutrality. I understand more than a handful of editors disagreed with version 1 of my proposal and interpretation but I am nevertheless going to try to convince them the phrase is pejorative and unbecoming of various wikipedia neutrality standards and policies. A case could be made that recent editors of conspiracy theory are the ones that have an agenda against the Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal and have been doing everything they can to perpetuate confusion and ambiguity surrounding the phrase. Thank you for appreciating my desire to slowdown or stop the removal of clarity (from this article), but isn't removing pejorative ambiguity from wikipedia article titles the same or a very similar desire? zen master T 04:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if this diff from conspiracy is an example of what Willmcw is talking about. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 05:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom, that page errantly defined "conspiracy theory" as "a theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers" -- which doesn't really seem to be saying much of anything, and plays up the X-files angle, and is seemingly way more ambiguous and incomplete than even the current definitions used in this article. Correcting ambiguity, obfuscation and incomplete definitions should not be a crime as you seem to be implying. And also for the record I think the definition I quickly came up with is infinitely better and properly disassociated: "conspiracy theory, either any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose or a collection of folklore and rumor similar to urban legend". What exactly did you not like about my version? Your version completely and conveniently ignores the folklore, rumor, academic, popular culture, and dismissive usages of the phrase...? zen master T 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Listing examples

User:Shoaler says, "We are not labeling these "conspiracy theories"." I say, "Yes we are." They fit any definition in use; They have the features cited above them on the page; They are conspiracy theories. We should say so, just as a page on fossils should list representative fossils as fossils, not Alleged fossils. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. When I saw the link "AIDS and HIV" I thought it was the general AIDS article and not the AIDS conspiracy theories article. I will revert. –Shoaler (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Recurrent fallacies

Some new contributors have reminded me that the same old issues keep coming up. Perhaps this discussion should take the form of an FAQ. For my tu'ppence ha'penny, here are the biggies:

Pejorative sense: Labelling an idea a conspiracy theory identifies it as just that species of explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws, which arise on the basis of the features the article lists. This and only this explains why the categorization is understood as dismissive by crackpot A when it is applied to his 'theory' that aliens caused AIDS. Why is he not content with the categorization? Because the defining features of the category include naive, poorly-constructed 'reasoning'.
Literal sense: Not any explanatory narrative alleging conspiracy is properly labelled a conspiracy theory - only those constructed in the faulty manner indicated above. Nixon's men did conspire, and the Post did expose their conspiracy. But the way the Post went about that exposure ensured that it did not succumb to the fallacious reasoning that conspiracy theory implies. Watergate never existed in the form of a conspiracy theory - it was at all times a methodical narrative. If the methodological aspects of the category are too high-falutin' for anyone here, I'm tempted to say 'that's just too bad'. The sense is clear.
Academic sense: The reason we cannot insist that all usages are pejorative is that, for sociologists etc, the truth value of the narrative is of no relevance, so they cannot be treated as having pejorative intent when using the term. They use it more as a biologist uses the term pig to refer to the class of porcine beings, with no particular interest in the pig's feelings either way. It is a 'species identifier', for a particularly interesting species of cultural product.
Deceptive usage: An assumption arises here frequently, unsupported by cited evidence, that valid conspiracy allegations are routinely dismissed as 'just' conspiracy theory by conspirators (or their dupes), as a means to evade the valid accusation. In other words, that the term is frequently, mendaciously applied to explanatory narratives that do not suffer the methodological flaws which would warrant that categorization. For this assumption to carry any weight whatsoever, we need to be shown at least one such case of illegitimate usage. It shouldn't be that hard, now? Just one methodologically sound conspiracy allegation which has suffered such libel from the villainous conspirators it seeks to expose? I'll be back in the New Year to review your candidates!

Adhib 15:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Adhib, your overview is largely OK and certainly, with a few small corrections, very useful. Apparently you agree that "sometimes" in the second sentence of the article should be "often".

Still, it's not perfect (of course). The biggest flaw in your presentation IMO is a logical one (and as a consequence, as factual one): "only faulty" does not negate "routinely", there is a big gap between them. "rarely" sufficies to negate "only faulty", and without any need for "suffering libel". Several times I have given you examples, and each time you pretended that I wrote with invisible ink... Anyway, I think that yout argument is circular, you will simply claim that it's "not valid", and your unwarranted POV drips from the page when you write "illegimate usage". This time I let someone else try! Harald88 23:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the beginnings of a response, Harald88 (still curious 'bout that 88, BTW ...). I had trouble unpacking your intended argument from the condensed form you presented it in. Your sentence beginning "The biggest flaw .." and your sentence beginning "rarely" both proved indecipherable to me. Care to expand? I could only guess at the general conclusion that, like Zen-m, you are highly resistant to the possibility that methodological flaws might compromise an argument without reference to its empirical substance. Is this impression correct? [since Zen-m butts in to my post at this point, please note this was Adhib 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC), and that the question remains for H88]

I accept the possibility that "methodological flaws might compromise an argument" but the proper course of action should always be to encourage a scientific and factual analysis, rather than simply dismiss with the "conspiracy theory" label and effectively move on. We should cite any counter critics of a theory who are alleging "methodological flaws" in the theory's argument. zen master T 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The contradictory nature of Zen-m's position seems particularly clear here, to me. How else are we to reconcile Zen-m's acceptance that validity may be settled at the level of methodology, in one breath, and his assertion with the next that to do so is 'improper'? Adhib 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice advanced befuddlement response, you have to actually and always cite who counter argues a theory has "methodological flaws", articles can't just accept that counter argument as a given. Acceptance in an encyclopedia should be "settled" at the level of scientific analysis and investigation. Note the Flat Earth article as a good example of a historical belief that has been disproven yet the article is titled neutrally and facts are presented inside that show how and why it is false. Flat Earth is also a good analogy, if someone only has a limited amount of information it is reasonable to believe the earth is flat. Dismissing or conclusively labeling what is incomplete information actually has the effect of perpetuating errant belief. zen master T 16:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Not incomplete information, Zen-m, but false information, is what's under the microscope here. Adhib 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to cite who believes or states something is false, an article should not state that directly. People believed the Earth was flat because they unquestioningly accepted incomplete information as a conclusion, we should not encourage that for the future. zen master T 22:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete information is a new red herring. It suggests a desire for complete information which, as has been pointed out by DeLillo and others, turns out to be indistinguishable from white noise. Never mind completeness or incompleteness; all that's needed is conclusive information, and Zen-m concedes above that methodological flaws might well settle an argument's validity conclusively (before he proceeded to contradict the statement). Adhib 22:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The desire for completeness and conclusiveness is exactly what perpetuates errant belief, if history is any guide it should be obvious that there has always been something more to learn and investigate. zen master T 05:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

History similarly teaches us that a man at the bottom of a hole would do well to stop digging, but it's a lesson some folk jus cain't accept. Adhib 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to attempt an argument as to which one (or both) of us is in a hole, and which one is deeper. I suspect those that admonish others for alleged hole digging have a vast closet of unburied skeletons and aren't the sort that actually learn anything from history... zen master T 06:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of Harald88's many counterexamples (answering my 'deceptive usage' challenge), I regret that I must have missed them - the sedimentary layers of discussion have been laid down here at such a furious rate. Perhaps he would oblige us by quickly listing them again, here? If I miss them this time, he will have earned the right to call me chicken. Adhib 20:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Format

I added a section, References, that is for works actually used in writing the page. The section Further reading is for related works that were not used in writing the page, if I understand WP:STYLE. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)