Talk:Conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] "Mental illness"

People really need to do some research on psychological warfare tactics. This article is basically one big piece of it. It has been popular in recent times to treat anyone who believes in "conspiracy theories" as mentally ill. The very term "conspiracy theory", which is used to describe any theory conflicting with the official one we're given, denotes in itself a crackpot theory with no evidence to back it up. This is intentional. We have been trained this way by the TV portrayal of "conspiracy theorists". If the news calls something a conspiracy theory, then it's just some crackpot, right? No need to actually look into the theory for yourself, and see if it could be true.

But my main point is the implication that anyone who believes in a "conspiracy theory" (it's not my favorite term, and when I use it, it's just to refer to the definition above -- a theory that conflicts with the official one) has a mental illness. You hear psychologists (or pseudo-psychologists) talking about why people have a mental or emotional "need" for these theories. Again, this article is full of it. This at once assumes that the theories are not true (not that any research has been done, but they're just crackpots, right?), while implying, quite strongly, that the person has something mentally wrong with them, some instability that causes them to need to use these ideas as a crutch. The fact is that a lot (but not all, by any means) of these "theories" are true, and the evidence isn't even hidden. It's put right in front of you, but you're trained not to look at it. You're trained to enjoy sex and violence, while the actual books written by the people involved, in which they admit to their plans very candidly, gather dust on library shelves because they don't contain any of these things. And this is how it's meant to be. Legally they're not keeping anything a secret; they're publishing all their plans. They just know we won't read them anyway, or so few will that it won't really matter.

That was a bit of a tangent. However, my point is basically that people need to actually look into these theories before writing them off. You're being trained to do that by the media. Of course, once you stop writing them off, you've got to be very careful to also stay skeptical, because the conspiracy world is filled with disinformation. The idea is that once someone gets to the point where they are starting to realize what's going on, they cannot be left to search and discover in peace. Therefore, the intelligence agencies flood the internet with disinformation about space aliens, 2012, and other New Age garbage. And it's not just the internet. They fund a lot of crackpots to write books on these subjects, and spin it off in a different direction to confuse people. See David Icke, with his reptilians, "infinite oneness" and "the world is an illusion". That is disinformation, put out there to lead people in the wrong direction, and to discredit the people doing the real research. Nalencer 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Nalencer


If you want to criticize use of the term, it would be best not to include something (your ideas about the media and disinformation) which is essentially a conspiracy theory. Suicidesamurai 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


It's also true. I'm not going to beat around the bush just so people won't dismiss my opinion. Anyone can see the way the media programs the public, if they pay attention. The problem is that most people don't. They're trained that the media always tells them the truth. Is it not rather telling that, no matter how much evidence you provide, a lot of people can not comprehend of what you're saying unless it's on the news? Most people have no critical thinking skills left, and they just believe and repeat whatever they're told by the TV. Nalencer 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Nalencer

can you really not see the irony here? "It's true! ANYONE can see it!" Thats like the battle cry of the "conspiracy theorist". I argue that "conspiracy theory" has a very specific, subjective, definition as a term. It IS a pejorative. It is NOT the literal combination of "conspiracy" and "theory". It is a term applied to those who have blind faith that certain situations and events arent what they appear, reject any evidence to the contrary, and continue to pursue that line of reasoning. Often, these "theories" involve drawing SWEEPING conclusions about incredibly broad and complex institutions and stating that its "OBVIOUS" what is "going on". To you "anyone can see the way the media programs the public". To me, I'd like to see some evidence of this "programming" that isnt ideological, emotional, annecdotal and paranoid. What I see when I survey the media is typical human behavior that has been the same in one form or another since the dawn of time. Commercialism, voyeurism, enforcement of societal beliefs, etc. Humans are social animals that must ban together to survive the elements and nature. We are also high order thinkers. As a result, our societies have more subtleties and complexities than ant colonies or wolf packs, but the basic drivers are still there under the surface. Sex, struggle, violence, competition - these things inform everything we do. Governments are just structures that we agree on because without some basic order, most of us know that we'd be in trouble. Anarchists, I suppose, are either delusional or very very confident in their ability to crush opposition. The media is no more or less than a reflection of our society. The equivalent of mass media in ancient Greece or China was no different. Back on topic, anyone can claim that "research" is "wrong research" or "right research" and that "their research" is right. Reasonable folks look at a tapestry of evidence and try to find a prepondrance. I err on the side of scientific consensus. If someone has a wild theory, I listen to it, weigh it, test what they're suggesting against common sense and other available evidence, and then either discard it or investigate further. The TERM "conspiracy theory" has come to very specifically be used for those theories that persist even after a majority of folks have moved on and decided to discard the theory. If you choose to continue to fixate on one of these "theories" then of course this definition will not sit well, but that IS what the term has come to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.23 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Conspiracy theory: it means exactly what it says. It doesn't say whether it's true or not. It says that there's a conspiracy, but it's just a theory and isn't proven. What would you rather it be called? Conspiracy law? That's the next step up but thats way too definitive. I don't think conspiracy theory has any secret connotation suggesting it to be something way out there or far fetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Then you don't pay attention. You see, the point isn't to debate "conspiracy theories" as a single entity and discuss whether they're true or not. They each need individual attention to decide that. Some of them are perfectly true, some are utter nonsense. But trying to say you're mentally ill for believing in "conspiracy theories" is like saying you're mentally ill for believing in theories regarding anything else. It matters [i]which[/i] individual theories you believe in.208.114.161.24 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Nalencer

Well I don't like to use the term at all, but you must see that is has a negative connotation, which is intentional. I discussed it all already. 208.114.161.24 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Nalencer

People ARE sometimes out to get other people. Thinking everyone is out to get you is none the less a mental illness called paranoia. There really are conspiracies at work in this wicked world - but to see the hand of conspiracy behind everything is undoubtedly mentally sick - a form of paranoia in fact. Nalencer - this is a real thing. It is not in itself a conspiracy of psychologists or anything. Do you have a particular unconventional idea that you are convinced is true? You may just be right, and even if you are wrong you are very likely quite sane. I tend to agree with you to a certain extent about mass media manipulation of public opinion, for instance - but then then one can generally pick which way the spin is going - some media are very conservative and some reasonably liberal, and by taking things with a pinch of salt you can make a reasonable assessment of what is likely to be true.
On the other hand - do you hold a great many unconventional views about the real nature of the world? - do you in fact tend to believe almost anything provided almost no one else does? - is contradictory evidence simply further positive evidence of the conspiracy? - does all this drive your whole world view? Even if one or two of your ideas are more accurate than anyone knows then I'm afraid you are suffering from a severe mental disorder. You won't be cured by convincing everyone that your world view is the correct one - if you were to succeed in doing that then all you would have managed to do is to make us all as mad as you. If "conspiracy theory" as a term is offensive (intentionally or otherwise) then it may well need a new name, but if so, what? You will have only "discussed" anything when you have at least responded to what others have said - discussion goes two ways. It isn't over once one person (even you) has spoken.Soundofmusicals 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the psychological assessment. I understand my own mind a lot better now. 208.114.161.24 03:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Nalencer

I think it's all thanks to the lizardmen, they're brainwashing people brains as a way to control us. If we don't do something they're gonna take over the world and make us their slaves! We need to rewrite this article people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.27.26 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah brother, let's do it! the reptilians are comming!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.87.86 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say that all conspiracy theorists are mentally ill, but some certainly are. I’d bet my bottom dollar that, the conspiracy theory subculture has at least double the occurrence of mental illness of the general public. — NRen2k5 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The perception that conspiracy theory is crazy talk is the problem. Conspiracy theory can simply mean that there is an alternative possibility, that what you're being told might not be true, perhaps because of political motive. Hmmm. What are the odds of a politician lying for their own ends. Theorists throughout time who have disagreed with accepted truth have often been considered mentally imbalanced. Theorizing has led to a ton of discoveries that went against the very fabric of everything considered rational and acceptable. The World is not square, you don't have to buy your way into heaven through absolution and indulgences sold by the Catholic Church, McCarthy was wrong but whipped up enough support to be considered a bastion of nobility for some time, and Nixon, a president, broke laws and cheated. That would have been considered insane before Watergate was exposed by those two "maddened" journalists.(Deminizer (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Let me just say... if you believe someone is out to get you, and there is absolutely no reason why any other person would believe that if they were in your situation... then you are mentally ill. It's a question of facts. Too many people engaged in studying conspiracy theories will accept mere speculations in place of actual facts. Fuzzform (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson 1983

What does the Note 2 listing of the age of his Johnson have to do with the article? Would someone either remove this, or explain what a "Johnson 1983" is.58.107.15.245 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory

I had not considered this subject before, but it occurs to me that the term "conspiracy theory" is not commonly used by scholars, but is more commonly used by people to discredit things they feel uncomfortable with. Actual nonsense can be dissected and its weaknesses exposed, but for people unable to dispute a subject, the term "conspiracy theory" avoids addressing the subject.58.107.15.245 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is commonly used by scholars. See, for example, Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And isn't the sine qua non of a conspiracy theory it's lack of falsifiability? Example: I state that JFK was shot by an invisible unicorn from the grassy knoll. I cannot "prove" the non-existence of invisible unicorns. Similarly, many conspiracy theories contain key plot points (so to speak) that cannot be proven false. Conspiracy theories, in the perjorative sense, cannot, by definition, have their weaknesses exposed. Perhaps you should read the article? 74.128.143.21 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau
Yes, I agree - well said. "Conspiracy theories" may as well be called "conspiracy hypotheses". The issue is a lack proof, a lack of solid facts. Once you have enough facts to permanently establish something, it becomes a law - e.g. laws of gravity. Conspiracy theories are generally far-fetched extrapolations concerning what "probably happened" (or on what "is happening but isn't known by the general public" - which similarly points to a lack of evidence). In essence, they're hypotheses.Fuzzform (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow.

This article was written all in all to make it seem that any Conspiracy Theory is just alot of middle class people running around with some wild idea in their heads. God forbid we take into account that these may or may not be true. Almost all Conspiracy Theories are involving the government, so of course they are discredited or covered-up. Does no one see that? I mean--they must there are websites and movies and statements and organizations everywhere that meet and discuss these things...there must be SOMETIHNG behind it. But most articles you will find filled with definitions and clips from someone elses suggestions and novels and not their own and we just let it slide. There is no way around it. No one will ever take new ideas seriously because of articles like this one. It made me want to vomit. I literally feel sick knowing that hundreds of people have looked at this article and probably 40% won't think twice about it...will never question it and will never form their own opinions about the truth and the power given and all the open windows for cover up and corrupt(ness?) I have to go get tums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.98.55 (talk • contribs) 03:23, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

Try a little piece of candied ginger, and read a couple of the references listed in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


If you literally get sick because about 300 or 400 people (40% of "hundreds" - being generous) might never know the TRUTH about "all of these coverups" because the article in the Wiki implied that "conspiracy theories" are crackpot notions conceived by people fixated on "coverups" rather than objectively examining real evidence, then you might have some bigger issues. Of course you cant really check with a medical professional on that weak stomach because they may harvest your organs. Taking away the sarcasm, I'd argue that if your litmus test is "ALL of these people cant be wrong! there must be SOMETHING behind it!!" I'd remind you that there was a time you could be executed for claiming that the world was a sphere, that Darwin was almost made a criminal, that the idea of a virus was considered prepostrous, that women were burned at the stake as witches... Need I go on? There are always "a LOT of people!" who believe a "lot of shit" that is wrong. Reason? They're idiots. It seems a large segment of the human race has a very limited command of their brain. I guess its a lot easier to just "believe" and not think. Fortunately, those of us who focus on real evidence, rational thought, and critical analysis tend to continue the struggle of moving the species forward.

In the Lectric Law Library (http://www.lectlaw.com/) a conspiracy is defined as a criminal offense: "CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member." Perhaps we should be using the term "Collusion Theory" which may be an underhanded but legal maneuver. This term is eminently defensible and impervious to accusations of paranoia. At the same time, is is only a small step from collusion to conspiracy. One other point I'd like to add is that there is a sort of "anti-conspiracy-theorists conspiracy" in place that has, in effect, put a damper on any reasonable suggestions that some nefarious endeavors might be taking place behind closed doors. Serious students of history who even hint at collusion/conspiracy are then painted with the crazy brush and summarily dismissed. Scearfo 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC) scearfo

The term "conspiracy theory" is a part of the language, getting 2,000,000+ Google hits, the term "collusion theory" is not except perhaps as a technical term in the field of economics, getting 832 Google hits. -- Boracay Bill 23:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm an attorney, and yes, conspiracy to commit a criminal act is a punishable offense. Conspiracies exist. People conspire to do murder, kidnap, and rob banks. They are usually individuals with identifiable motivations. Best of all, in order to do time for conspiracy, the prosecution has to (pay attention, key point coming up) PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you want to state that FDR allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, if you want to aver that Bush, instead of being the most incompetent president ever, is, in reality, a criminal mastermind who put 9/11 into motion, fine. Prove it. Facts. Figures. Dates. Times. Documents. Tapes. Fingerprints. Unless there is falsifiable evidence of a conspiracy one may as well be farting as speaking for all the sense it makes. 74.128.143.21 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

LOL! I'm an attorney, too, and I will absolutely DESTROY your midget brained ass if you come into court with that piece of GARBAGE you just posted. "Prove it. Facts. Figures. Dates. Times. Documents. Tapes. Fingerprints. Unless there is falsifiable evidence of a conspiracy one may as well be farting as speaking for all the sense it makes." That makes the "bin Laden did 9/11" the most obvious conspiracy theory of all, wouldn't you agree? Can I falsify that bit of dogma foisted on the American public? Give me dates, times, facts, figures. In fact, we KNOW the head of the FBI Moeller himself ADMITTED that there is no evidence proving that any of the purported 9/11 'hijackers" ever communicated with each other, or that they ever made any phone calls to their reptilian fuhrer in Tora Bora. Now, THERE'S a kooky conspiracy theory. Yeah, the other conspracy theory is that kerosene melts steel, but don't let the laws of physics get in the way of a good story. In fact, I think bin Laden has just handed a tape to the good folks of al jazeera. Better flip on the tv screen to listen to Emmanuel Goldstein. LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.181.119 (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Why not just say that a conspiracy theory is developed when the official version (if it exists) is not satisfying. Of course, proving a conspiracy theory is a major point that has to be pointed out, but proving the official version too. Conspiracies appear in response to an unsatisfying "official version". I don't want to say that any conspiracy out there is right, but just that they usually aim at pointing out what seems to be wrong in what is being said. Just think about it this way. 71.61.90.157 06:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because thats hugely POV? Are you so POV on this that you cant see that? The "official version" is "unsatisfying" *to the folks who crave conspiracy theory*. For the, sometimes minority - sadly, group of folks who like to draw conclusions based on a prepondrance of evidence and the majority consensus of experts, along with a sprinkling of common sense, these "official versions" are *not* unsatisfying. Osama Bin Laden is a gleefully self professed general in the war that radical Islam is choosing to wage against various societies world wide. He happily takes credit for endless acts of violence and the oppressive taint of his organization is felt from one end of the world to the other (know anyone in the Phillipines or Indonesia?). Whether or not you hate/mistrust the US and George Bush, Osama Bin Laden is a pretty good suspect. Not to mention the fact that he has taken credit for the action and many subsequent actions - if not directly, at least as "spiritual leader". To find that "not satisfying" and instead wander down flights of fancy that the US govt actually destroyed downtown Manhattan deliberately or the "the Jews" did it or that Osama "doesnt even really exist" etc etc. You've got to see that this seems quite insane to many of us. Same with Kennedy, or the moon landing, or Area 51. The very fact that a certain group of people cannot accept the "official version" of large events like this because they are "unsatisfying" causes other people to want to examine and find some sort of term to define this seeming quirk in human behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.23 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I may just be confused, but what does the legal definition of "conspiracy" have to do with anything? A conspiracy is a plot to conceal something, usually "evil" or underhanded, but not necessarily illegal. Legal definitions are unnecessarily narrow for the purposes of this page. Primium mobile 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who was this conspiracy theorist?

There was once a popular American conspiracy theorist who had a rather large following among Left-wing/Right-wing extremists, then was abandoned in the blink of an eye. He was your average pre-Icke, pre-conspiracism-as-religion type whom focused on Kennedy, Moon landings, Roswell, 666 ID chips, New World Order, etc. One day, while giving a speech at some conspiracism convention, he announced that "the Mexicans", with the help of the UN/NWO, had implanted a small dwarf in his lower intestine which spied on him and gave him gas. His support evaporated.

If we could identify him, it would be a great addition to the list of conspiracy theorists. Childe Roland of Gilead 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracism... you've just coined a great neologism.Fuzzform (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he was a cousin to the guy who saw WMD in Iraq. Or it could have been J Edgar MacCrathy - the Red under every bed guy.159.105.80.141 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This person must be related to the wikipedia user Slimvirgin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.85.78 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Related to the American conspiracy theorist in question? I doubt it. Fuzzform (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions to section common conspiracy theories

I have added several examples of common conspiracy theories to the list, with the intention of showing that the nature of conspiracy theories is not a black and white division between actual conspiracies (ie Watergate) and totally crazy urban myths (ie Watergate before initial allegations were taken seriously).

I recognize that there is a strongly held view among some contributers here that the term should only be applied to those theories that people who want to be thought of as reasonable should not ever consider.

But the diversity of the examples that I have added is intended to show that some conspiracy theories contain both an element of truth and an element of hysteria in varying degrees. Take for example the theories around conspiracies of child abuse. These theories have elements of mass hysteria and false accusations, but also a serious body of evidence involving actual criminal conspiracies.

Also, the choice to use the label "conspiracy theory" as a means to discredit any attempt to investigate a motive, opportunity, benefit, and cover-up is detrimental to citizen activism, and investigative journalism.

The term "conspiracy theory" includes, but is not limited to, some examples of group hysteria and individual paranoia. This aspect of conspiracy theories absolutely belongs in the article. However, the aspect of labeling attempts to bring to light facts not yet in the public domain, on the basis of inconclusive evidence, is prejudicial, illogical, and contrary to the empirical method. And so the article needs to also include a wider view of the history of conspiracy theories, including those theories that some interest group would have preferred had never been investigated in a serious light.

The process of identifying and bringing to light actual criminal activity among groups powerful enough to prevent an investigation absent public outrage is undermined by limiting the notion of "conspiracy theory" as something that defines insanity.

See also the letter by Norman Mailer, et. al. to the editor of The New York Times Book Review published on June 17, 2007.~~ Michael J Swassing 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to only one of your examples; Operation Rescue really did have (at least some of their principals) recommending attacking doctors and vandalizing facilities. And the "pattern of criminal activies" in RICO claims, is much more expansive than even the legal definition of "conspiracy", which is, in turn, more expansive than the common definition.. I don't think I've removed any of the rest of your examples, and I agree that most of them clearly fit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In adding examples I made a conscious effort to balance left and right, and provide diversity in examples that include theories that have a large element of hysteria and examples where actual conspiracies were proven. I really cannot imagine an article about conspiracy theories being complete without some mention of RICO, the primary federal law meant to deal with criminal conspiracies. If Operation Rescue is not the best example to do this, then perhaps the Mafia is. After all, prior to significant convictions of crime family bosses there was a widely expressed view that the Mafia was a fictional creation of popular culture. A conspiracy theory, at that time, in the way you intend the meaning. I have not restored the example of Operation Rescue, because I'm trying to understand your point. Does the debate about the Mafia during the mid-sixties to late seventies better represent a conspiracy theory? And does that change shift the balance of the article (ie, I had Operation Rescue balancing the Earth Liberation Front in the same way I have the Vince Foster conspiracy balancing the "vast right-wing conspiracy.")~~ Michael J Swassing 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RICO really relates to conspiracy theories. The "pattern of criminal activities" under RICO only needs to be 2 listed criminal activities completed by 2 people acting in concert. Not really a "conspiracy" as we, or other rational people, would define it. (Although it doesn't appear in any of the Operation Rescue articles, I recall one of the leaders "suggesting" it might be appropriate if the abortion doctors were killed. If my recollection is correct, and if someone acted on it, that would be an open conspiracy, not really what is discussed here in this article.) If you really feel RICO is appropriate, perhaps the Mafia would be a better example. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it seems to me that you're concerns are reasonable; and that maybe I'm a bit too smitten with my own words. For the benefit of third parties reviewing this discussion I'll include the disputed item here (listed among the examples of common conspiracy theories): "* The prosecutions of anti-abortion activists under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act on the theory of a widespread conspiracy to commit property damage, assault, and murder at abortion clinics or against abortion providers." ~~ Michael J Swassing 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

Reference 2 is to a BBC page, gives a different first use from that currently in the page: 'The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909'. Whether 'a history article from 1909' or 'an economics article from the 1920s', it would be useful to have the reference. Furthermore, a Google Books search suggests that the phrase was in fact used in books before 1909. Dsp13 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracies list

While attempting to preserve examples of left/right/apolitical theories, I have basically removed examples of plausible or true conspiracies. This is because "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term which does not literally mean "alleged prior plan to commit crimes", but "implausible, convoluted, or highly unusual theory of supremely powerful actors manipulating events in secret".

The literal meaning (the denotation) is "theorized/alleged prior plan to commit crimes (typically in a clandestine manner)". The connotations/semantically loaded nature of the term provides the second definition from above: "implausible, convoluted, or highly unusual theory of supremely powerful actors manipulating events in secret". For some people, even the word "conspiracy" itself imparts a sense that the events didn't actually occur. There is a difference between the literal (denoted) meaning, and the cultural (connoted) meaning of a given word/term. The latter type of meaning can vary from person to person and from place to place.Fuzzform (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, something widely acknowledged to be true stops being a "theory" in the popular sense of the term. We don't talk about the "theory that Super Bowl XVII took place" or the "Cheese is made from milk theory". We do talk about the "theory of gravity" because it's a "theory" in the technical scientific sense of "overarching explanation of observations in terms of factors which cannot be directly observed".

Because I hate listcruft, I ask that if you wish to add plausible or proven conspiracies, you please remove some of the whacky conspiracies to make room. Eleland 07:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You have unilaterally removed content because you don't like it. Further, your reasons for doing so have been discussed, back and forth, above. Your opinion of what is and is not a "conspiracy theory does not have a neutral point of view. You opinion of what a "theory" is, is flawed. It is the policy of wikipedia to discuss major changes or deletions of content before removing other peoples contributions. You have unilaterally imposed a new rule for others to follow. Who the hell do you think you are?Michael J Swassing 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But we already have a place to put conspiracy theories: List of conspiracy theories. I disagree with Eleland's criteria for inclusion (I think it confuses the idea of Conspiracy theory with Conspiracy, but completely agree with what his reasoning, and his goal.
Rather than "proven" conspiracies, I think we should include a selection of "classic" conspiracy theories. We shouldn't need more than 5 or 6 of them to help the reader understand what a conspiracy theory is. Mark Chovain 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Though a classic list would be a nice addition, we cannot let up on the presentation of theories that now have enough evendence to be much more widely considered justified. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that most people know what a conspiracy theory is, at least by subverted mainstream definition, but what they don't know is the bredth of validity most of those based on rational investigaiton do have. Eleland is obviously operating from such a perverted conceptualization of not just what the words "conspiracy" and "theory" mean together, but both separately as well. That explanation of a theory isn't just flawed, it's dangerous. A theory is in NO way based on social acceptability. Galileo's revolutionary calculations did form what can only be called a theory, despite the almighty Catholic Church's staunch insistence for almost two more centuries that the Earth was the center of the solar system, if not the entire universe. Of course most people weren't ready for Einstien's work, even though it endured as the Theory of Relativity, the basis for what is now known as the absolutely unbreakable law of the speed of light. This also does work in reverse. Widely accepted and at least institutionally-unchallenged "facts" DO in fact stay labled as theories. The theory of gravity should actually be an example of this, so is that of evolution, climate change, plate technotics, etc. Beyond the disconnect between theory and general acceptability, let me also point out that what is percieved as widely acceptable, common belief, can quite often actually be another false constuction by disconnected special interests. Anyone who still believes in fully benign representation, may I suggest you while you're here look up the term "astroturfing." SpiralEyelash (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

This article, as any other on Wiki, should be written in a neutral tone of voice. Primarily stating the facts. Criticism is fine, as long as both the pro's and cons are listed. 84.87.70.130 11:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


I would just like to say that all scientists are theorists. There are, for instance, competing theories as to how life formed on earth, how the earth itself formed, etc etc

What you see today, especially in the light of recent history, is the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" used as a derogatory term in an effort to discredit someone who has presented a fact which others have a hard time believing because it affronts their sense of decency. Patrick Henry described how "...we are apt to shut our eyes to a painful truth...", J. Edgar Hoover stated "The individual is handicapped by a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." Adolph Hitler talked about the "Big Lie" etc etc.

But the fact is, conspiracies do exist. People are convicted of conspiracy every single day in the courts of justice in the USA. The official government version of the events of 911 are themselves a conspiracy theory, the premise being that Osama bin Laden CONSPIRED with 19 hijackers to hijack 4 planes and fly those planes into buildings. That is the government's CONSPIRACY theory. The fact is, the Bush administration has presented no evidence that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. They rely mostly on tapes in which a purported bin Laden confesses. But the tapes themselves are often fakes, with a fake bin Laden. On the F.B.I.'s 10 most wanted website, bin Laden is listed but he is not wanted for the 911 attacks. When asked about this, the F.B.I. stated "they have no solid evidence linking bin Laden to the attack(s)".

FYI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.34.112 (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"[N]o solid evidence linking bin Laden to the attack(s)". [sic] Yeah. I would have been too embarrassed to sign that one, too. Wow.74.128.143.21 19:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

Theorize THIS : On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html 83.233.182.143 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And so what really? I mean do you examine why you spend energy on this? John Gotti was not formally charged until DECADES of evidence had been accumulated. Did he magically become guitly the day he was charged? The accumulation of evidence by a law enforcement body really has no relation at all to guilt or innocence in absolute terms. The FBI is demonstrating that they need to meet a certain burden of proof that isnt met yet. Of course folks like you translate this into "SEE! Bin Laden is INNOCENT!! ISRAEL DID IT!" Ironic because many of your conspiracy minded compatriots would argue on ANY OTHER TOPIC that the FBI of all agencies can NEVER be trusted. So which is it? Is the FBI your absolute source of truth, or are they they evil agents of a corrupt government that covers up whats REALLY going on? Each individual needs to make judgement calls on what to believe or not believe. A small minority of people, on any issue, seem to always want to believe the OPPOSITE of what is accepted. Anyone can claim there is "no evidence" for anything or that there is "evidence" for something. Anyone can choose to just blindly accept or reject evidence. As hopefully intelligent, rational, beings we survey a landscape and draw a conclusion. Increasingly, it seems that paranoia and disillusionment fueled by "internet research" is causing more and more people to hop on bandwagons and pursue what really appear to be dead-end lines of reasoning. Its scary really, how many people get sucked in these days. Looking at this phenomenon it becomes more and more obvious how people like Mohammed, Christ, Koresh and Jim Jones attracted so many followers to begin with. Today the religion is conspiracy and extraterrestrial super-intelligence. I can only hope that some day (soon) we can colonize ANYTHING else (the moon, a station, an asteroid - Ill take ANYTHING) and then those of us who prefer actual scientific method, critical thinking and rational analysis can leave and the rest of you guys can stay here and continue to debate 9/11, UFOs, the moon landing, Kennedy and the Illuminati until you run out of food.
    Good luck growing food on the moon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.41.77 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many external links

I think we have way too many external links - it's starting to border on listcruft. As per WP:EL, we shouldn't be including links just because the linked site relates to the topic. We should not be linking to external sites that contain only information that would be included in a this article if it were a featured article.

Only sites that include useful information that can not be included in the article because of copyright or verbosity should be included. For articles on people, companies, or products, you'd normally only include a link to the official web site for the topic. For articles about terms, like this one, it's really quite unusual to have any external links at all.

Unless there are any major objections, I'm going to heavily cull the list of list in a few hours. I will copy all culled links to a table here on the talk page to assist with any further discussion, and give my reasons for removing them (citing WP:EL##Links_normally_to_be_avoided). I'll leave links that may make good references alone for now, but will list them as such here so we can look at getting them changed in due course. Mark Chovain 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I've removed all of the external links. The following table preserves the links themselves, and records my reasoning for each. Most were just general articles on conspiracy theory (reason "1"): If there is anything in the article, then these should be refs. If there's anything worth putting in the article, then such information should be included, with a ref. Listing all such articles will lead to listcruft.
If anyone thinks some of these links should stay, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how they fit with WP:EL. Mark Chovain 04:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
link reason comment
Centre for Research on Globalization 4 No clear relevance to people wanting to know about Conspiracy theories
'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics by Jeffrey M. Bale in Lobster Magazine 12 Non-authoritative essay
Conspiracy theory forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation 11 public forum
Crepuscule.sourceforge.net ... 14 hardly relevant software app
The Economics of Conspiracy Theories 1
An Integral Approach to Conspiracy Theory 12 blog
[1], Ordem Gael web site No clear value - effectively a youtube link
On the hunt for a conspiracy theory, CS Monitor article 1
Top Ten Conspiracy Theories of 2002, from AlterNet. tangential - focuses on one flavour of conspiracy theory
The Paranoid Style in American Politics' Richard Hofstadter, Harper's 1964 November 1
Skeptic's Dictionary on conspiracy theories 1
The Dynamics of Conspiracism 1
Amir Butler: Our Credibility Problem is a Conspiracy 12 blog

Mark Chovain 04:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

What is the point of deleting general articles on conspiracy theory? It makes no sense to me. The point is to help readers.--Cberlet 12:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:EL sets out what kind of things we should be linking to, and it doesn't include news articles on the topic. I realise that WP:ALLORNOTHING is a really bad argument, but how would we decide which of the thousands of opinion pieces that have been written should be included? Ones that include factual information should be have that information incorporated into the article. Other information is nothing but opinion. I really do think we should be able to get more info from these articles, and reincorporate them as references (hence my reason for preserving the list above in a readily available format), but until that happens, they only really serve as a list of stuff. Mark Chovain 14:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Several of these links are important to include as high-quality material at a level of detail we cannot get into here. I think they should be considered on their merits and added back. Tom Harrison Talk 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Which ones do you think fit that category? Mark Chovain 22:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A term abused widely

The term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" is in itself extremely dubious. Of course there are people that see conspiracies everywhere, but noone with any grain of sanity left can dispute that questioning the official accounts of the Kennedy asassination, 9/11, and other important events, is perfectly valid in and of itself. The sad fact that there are people that come up with ideas that involve magic, miracles or other kinds of supernatural phenomena has nothing to do with that, and must be completely separated from it. For instance, there is absolutely nothing magical or supernational about a power elite plot to kill JFK. Using the term conspiracy theorist for researchers of the JFK killing is pure name calling, in this respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.135.245 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The term is dubious and has definitely been twisted into an automatic mainstream write-off, but we can expect no less from a sheltered, naîeve public and opportunistic, secretive global elites. This has always been the struggle. Those that are most ignorant or most threatened by the possibility of information leakages will always set up knee-jerk defenses to destroy the credibility of the whistle-blowers. This term was originly supposed to be objective, yes, but it can hardly be said to be now. As this article points out, the same can be said for "UFO's." Right now they are using Dennis Kucinich's story of a sighting to try and discredit him the same way, even though he very eloquently and meticulously stresses the "unidentified" aspect. The fact that there's all this debate in the mainsteam over the "existence" of UFO's in and of itself is a conundrum and clearly illustrates how crassly the intended objectivity of these terms is subverted in our media-dominated psyche. "Do you believe in UFO's?" SHOULD be a trick question! ANd yes, just as dangerous as the mainstream's tendency to connect those to aliens is the insistance of some eons-away "conspiracy theorists" that the elites manipulating events are even further manipulated by alien intervention. Though I think most of us open to actual conspiracy speculation do embrace the idea of alternate life somewhere else out there in the universe, merging the these two hypothesis when forming a theory does nothing but weaken the issue of what is actually happening here on Earth. SpiralEyelash (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory Continuum ??

I think many perfectly sane people distrust some public institutions (quite often not entirely without good reason), and, rightly or wrongly (if rather more often the latter) blame them for all kinds of private and public ills. On the other hand we would all agree, I suspect, that some of the ideas espoused as a result of this distrust are much more far-fetched than others. In other words conspiracy theories sit on a continuum from "rather improbable, but disturbingly possible" (Say, concerns about the official explanation of the JFK assassination) to "absolutely stark crazy" (Say, the idea that the world is actually flat, and all evidence to the contrary, including the space program, is an elaborate hoax to fool true believers). Most CTs are probably clustered about halfway between the two. The ones near the crazy end to tend to label their adherents as, well, crazy. Perhaps we need to talk of a "CT continuum" - and treat the ideas near the "sane" end a little more kindly, even be prepared to admit their possibility, and have them well investigated. Sadly, a real believer in a CT is not disuaded by irrelevant details like contrary evidence - that just adds to his/her conviction of the widespread nature of the conspiracy!! Soundofmusicals 07:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Soross

In my country exist cospiracy teorie about bilioner Goeorge Soross. Main basis of teory is that liberal and democratic ideas and movements are organized by Soros for some unknown dark reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.205.130 (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true. One only has to look at the organizations Soros funds. 208.114.161.24 (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Nalencer

[edit] Missing the point

This article is probably the poorest I have seen on Wiki. It entirely mis-represents its subject and appears to be the work, primarily, of editiors and writers who wish to portray conspiracy theories as either extravagent flights of fancy or symptoms of mental disorders.

Virtually all conspiracy theories do not focus much on the consipracy side of things so much as logical, rational and often scientific argument. And usually it's based on evidence which is presented. In the case of moon landings, for example, it's things like the lighting effects in the photos; In the case of 9/11 it's things like the structural vulnerabilities of steel-framed sky-scrapers; In the case of Kennedy it's things like the details revealed in the footage.

Therefore, in my view, the article is way off the mark and in fact has the two sides back to front. Those who analyse photos should be portrayed as rational, the non-analysers having their positions founded on unscientific faith.

I would like to see it re-written from scratch as a sober, reasonable look at this social phenomenon. 81.96.164.105 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

      • Fishers of Men***
You have a point there. And let me point out that those conspiracy theorists’ arguments are pathetically uninformed. The “lighting effects” in the photos have been explained and shown to be natural and easily replicated in natural ways. E.g. the non-parallel shadows are attributable not to studio lights but to an uneven landscape. The 9/11 steel argument is just laughable. You can heat the middle of a steel bar and bend it with your bare hands, way under steel’s melting point.
Furthermore I think it really is you that has things backwards. People who accept expert opinions are rational. People who form their own unqualified opinions in light of facts to the contrary are irrational.
As for taking a sober, reasonable approach to the article, I agree with you on that point, but it seems we have wildly different notions of what is “sober and reasonable”. — NRen2k5 06:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Say that's a good disscussion if you want to through around scriptures, seence how this whole thing is based on cultural beliefs. Ironic though that Islam enbrances some aspects of Christianity though? [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdailey1 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracism

The section conspiracism says:

'Conspiracy theories are often not taken seriously, because so many conspiracy theories - almost by definition - lack readily verifiable evidence.

This phrase is unnecessary to introduce conspiracism and is full of weasel words: "often taken not seriously" (has anybody made a statistic?) "many conspiracy theories lack verifiable evidence" (how many?) and it happens "almost by definition"(??) what in the definition states tht the theory has to lack evidence???--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has nothing to comment about that I will delete the sentence above.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence of sections and bias

The way this article is set up suggests a very, very strong POV and it is not even really attempting to be neutral. First problem is the examples, for one they shouldn't be the second thing since it's mainly a partial list. This should be towards the end of the article. Also there is the descriptions:

The John F. Kennedy assassination was a plot by people in high places and not the work of lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. Oliver Stone's film JFK is based on this premise.

While this is a conspiracy theory, one I think is somewhat likely, it is actually the most extreme of conspiracy theories in this regard. Other theories were that this was a mob hit or carried out by Cuba or the Soviets. The UFO conspiracy theory is also stated in the more extreme manner. Some theories are that the U.S. government conceals an alien presence because they're afraid of it causing a scare, which sounds more reasonable than, "to be used for war and other ideas, mainly towards the New World order."

Also the fourth section is almost completely dedicated to explaining conspiracy theories in a discrediting manner, treating them like psychological abnormalities or attempts by confused individuals to make sense of a nonsensical world. It seems to be the most common and most annoying criticism of conspiracy theories. This section also is half of the actual article, with the rest mainly being an explanation of the terminology and even mentions of fictional conspiracies. Very little of this article goes to treating conspiracy theories as a justifiable practice in critical thinking that like all legitimate studies can lead to rather ridiculous theories. For instance, there are legitimate questions about 9-11, such as the $100,000 given to Atta by a head of the ISI. There are also allegations that the 9-11 Commission due to its structure and the associations of its head with the Administration was unable to do a thorough and independent investigation, with it ultimately being little more than a coverup. In every case critical thinking demands some form of explanation or theory for such facts. For instance one is that the Administration is trying to cover up connections between Pakistan and/or Saudi Arabia and 9-11. This would ultimately be considered a "conspiracy theory" and the mere suggestion the government is not being honest bring condemnation and references to tin foil.

Simply put, this entire article seems dedicated to explaining conspiracy theories away as some sort of mental illness rather than treating it like a serious and normal practice.

I believe the reopening of the investigation of Princess Diana's death is largely due to rampant conspiracy theories and attempting to satisfy demands for a more thorough investigation, as was the re-examination of the JFK assassination in the 1970's. It's possible 9-11 conspiracy theorists will ultimately play a crucial role in getting a new and better investigation of the 9-11 attacks. Conspiracy theories playing a role in more intense investigations on previously neglected subjects is actually very significant and can not simply be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism. Can we try to make substantial changes? Any suggestion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---Throwing around "Conspiracy Theory" like it's a "bad" phrase---

Far too many people jump to criticize conspiracy theories without stopping to think of just what they are. Conspiracy theories are nothing more than a believe that two or more people CONSPIRED together to achieve a certain goal. By definition, 99.9% of all conspiracy "theories" are accurately described.

Take the 9/11 plot, for example. No matter how you look at it, it's a conspiracy theory. Either Osama Bin Laden and his followers conspired to carry out the deed or some elements within the U.S./Israeli government did. Both are ACCURATELY best described as conspiracy THEORIES since neither have ever been proven to be absolute fact.

The term "conspiracy theory" has been stigmatized by those that stand to benefit from getting the average public to associate "conspiracy theory" with "nut job". When one combines "outrageous", "nutty", "ludicrous" or any other insulting adjective to "conspiracy theorists", they should automatically be looked at as possibly having a large role in the actual CONSPIRACY FACT! Only they stand to gain from demonizing the association.

Here is a conspiracy theory about the treatment of the term conspiracy theory. Oh my. "Conspiracy theory" is a term that has meaning beyond the combination of the words "conspiracy" and "theory". It is not defined literally, it has a subjective meaning. And it is used commonly to describe a continued line of research that is no longer part of critical thinking. Critical thinking requires that one examine all plausible possibilities and eliminate/reject each that no longer remains plausible as evidence surfaces. Conspiracy theory, as per the accepted definition, chooses to place blind faith and belief above evidence. Any evidence presented is simply rejected as being manufactured or put forth by "those with an agenda". I mean can you really expect those who see "conspiracy" in everything to accept evidence that goes "against their gut" and not, you know, instead believe there is a conspiracy? The article is very POV, but its funny because those complaining on these discussion threads seem to be like passionate believes (thinly veiled) in one conspiracy theory or another. Yes, you seem sane to you and your buddies, but to many of the rest of us, not so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.109.23 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a prime example of "demonizing" the term "conspiracy theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.186.71 (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [Intro] Why "many"?

The intro says:

Many conspiracy theories imply that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.

"Many" according to which data and compared to what? Are they really so "many"? How do you identify a "conspiracy theorist"? If a "consipracy theorist" is just a person that believes in a conspiracy then the "theorist" cited above are just an infinitesimal and irrelevant percentage of all the "conspiracy theorists" i.e. a fringe minority that cannot be cited in the intro per WP:UNDUE. My suggestion is: remove the sentence. Any other suggestion?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a decent sentence. It's not biased like most of the article and the sentence is true. Many rational people who are students of history believe this to be the case. SkeenaR (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disillusionment

The disillusionment section is terribly one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.236.19 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology is not an exact science

I will keep deleting the opinionated entry about various psychological theories regarding the origin of "conspiracism" until you let it STAY deleted. Psychology is not an exact science and it is obvious that this is the old USSR tactic of calling dissenters "mentally ill" being used. This is especially un-cool considering that more space is used here on "explaining" the various psychological theories than is used to explain the so-called "conspiracy-theories" including the ludicrous "Official Conspiracy Theory" regarding the 9-11 attacks. 83.233.182.143 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than making this an issue of science, I think we should be more concerned that this verges on poisoning the well: attempting to quash disagreement by portraying anyone who disagrees as mentally ill. Science doesn't really enter into it; this sort of argument is fallacious both in science and outside of it.
But, that said, there are notable and respectable commentators on sociological and psychological factors in conspiracy theory -- and "psychological" here does not mean "mental illness", but rather "how the mind works". Take, for instance, Richard Hofstadter's or Bertrand Russell's comments on the subject. --FOo (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Judging by the wikipedia article The Paranoid Style in American Politics, which I know isn't the same as reading the book itself, it seems that the book addresses a tendency to paranoia which exists as much in the mainstream of political life as on the fringes, McCarthyism of course being perhaps the most notable example. Therefore to use Hofstadter selectively to rubbish non-mainstream beliefs, while turning a blind eye to all-consuming beliefs in apocalyptic conspiracies that are endorsed within the mainstream, namely the Axis of Evil and International Terrorism, is an abuse of his work.
I'm not aware of what Russell wrote about "conspiracy theories" as such, but I do know that he thought the official JFK assassination story was nonsense.[3] That would make him a "conspiracy theorist" by today's standards. To use anything that Russell said to trivialise legitimate doubt would be an abuse of his work. ireneshusband (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant to this article what "some psychologists" as the article says, THINK or THEORIZE may be the reason for "conspiracism". It's not "science" and they can not "prove" their claims ergo : it's opinion . What can be proven is that psychologists have assisted totalitarian regimes in committing critics (dissidents) to mental hospitals, often labelling them "paranoid schizophrenics". If somebody thinks there should be an article on the various "psychological reasons" for "conspiracism" they should either at least try to make it remotely neutral or better : they should write a new article . It has nothing to do in this one . You don't see all kinds of weird irrelevant psychological theories in the WIKI-entry about The Republicans do you ? 83.233.182.184 (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Psychology is a science. And, those opinions – being expert opinions and scientific in nature – are both valid encyclopedic material and relevant to the article. To say that psychologists’ opinions should not be included in the article because some “have assisted totalitarian regimes in committing critics (dissidents) to mental hospitals” is a blatant appeal to emotion and fallacy of proof by example.
Psychological theories should be welcome in any article as long as they meet Wikipedia’s standards. — NRen2k5, 07:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Clinical psychology is often suspected to be pseudoscience (see here). And sociology is certainly not considered science. If psychological and sociological theory should be always welcome then according to you we should insert (for examples) in the articles about Religion and Christianity large paragraphs devoted to the several psichological and sociological theories trying to explain them (such as Frued's association of christianity to Oedipus complex and neurosis or Marx's association to the economical background). I don't find reasonable to think that psychological theories about something must belong to the page devoted to that "something" (and have a relevant space there).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


“Clinical psychology is often suspected to be pseudoscience (see here).”
“If psychological and sociological theory should be always welcome then according to you we should insert (for examples) in the articles about Religion and Christianity large paragraphs devoted to the several psichological and sociological theories trying to explain them (such as Frued's [sic] association of christianity to Oedipus complex and neurosis or Marx's association to the economical background).”
“I don't find reasonable to think that psychological theories about something must belong to the page devoted to that "something" (and have a relevant space there).”
  • I didn’t say “must”. I said “should”, as in can. — NRen2k5, 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. For the controversy about psychology as a science you can see here.
  2. Have you ever heard about WP:NPA before?
  3. If you don't know something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist: read Psychology of religion and Sociology of religion.
  4. I don't either find reasonable to think that psychological theories about something should belong to the page devoted to that "something" (and have a relevant space there).
--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Yes. Problem?
  2. Yes. Problem?
  3. So? Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true.
  4. That’s your point of view, and you’re welcome to it – as long as you don’t let it affect your contributions. And like I said: should, not must. — NRen2k5, 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article structure

What would you think if the article "science" had this structure:

1 Terminology
2 Scientism
3 Criticism of science
3.1 Testing the validity of scientific theories
3.1.1 The "Rationality Theorem"
3.2 Falsifiability
4 Controversy
4.1 Usage
4.1.1 Verified scientific theories
5 Study of scientism
5.1 Psychological origins
5.1.1 Projection
5.1.2 Epistemic bias
5.1.3 Clinical psychology
5.2 Socio-political origins
5.2.1 Disillusionment
5.2.2 Media tropes
6 Political use of scientific theories
6.1 Anti-Semitism and scientific theories

Or what about if Evolution was like this:

1 Terminology
2 Evolutionism
3 Criticism of evolution
3.1 Testing the validity of evolution
3.1.1 The "Rationality Theorem"
3.2 Falsifiability
4 Controversy
4.1 Usage
4.1.1 Verified evolutionary theories
5 Study of evolutionary thinking
5.1 Psychological origins
5.1.1 Projection
5.1.2 Epistemic bias
5.1.3 Clinical psychology
5.2 Socio-political origins
5.2.1 Disillusionment
5.2.2 Media tropes
6 Political use of evolutionism
6.1 Anti-Semitism and evolutionism

Or about christianity:

1 Terminology
2 Foundamentalism
3 Criticism of Christianity
3.1 The validity of Christianity
3.2 Falsifiability
4 Controversy
5 Study of Christianity
5.1 Psychological origins
5.1.1 Projection
5.1.2 Epistemic bias
5.1.3 Clinical psychology
5.2 Socio-political origins
5.2.1 Disillusionment
5.2.2 Media tropes
6 Political use of Christianity
6.1 Anti-Semitism and Christianity

I hope this helps to make it more clear how the article structure is far from being NPOV--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand NPOV whatsoever. NPOV requires that Conspiracy theory and Science have a similar tone and structure if and only if reliable sources treat the two topics as roughly similar. If reliable sources treat them as completely different then of course our articles are going to be completely different. NPOV in fact requires that they be totally different, and if they were similar, that would be POV. NPOV does not mean that all points of view are treated equally. <eleland/talkedits> 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Reliable sources do not treat every "conspiracy theory" in the same way. There is nothing like "the way reliable source treat conspiracy theories".
  2. Reliable sources don't have WP:NPOV policy: when reliable source are not neutral we don't have to be non neutral too.
--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Your (1) is sophistic word games, and your (2) contradicts the introductory paragraphs of the very policy you're trying to cite. I'm not going to discuss this with you further. <eleland/talkedits> 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. A sophistic word game would be to speak about a (not existing) "way reliable source treat conspiracy theories".
  2. The paragraph you are talking about is:
    All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).
i suppose that "without bias" means that we have not to be biased if a source is biased, we just have to present its POV without assuming it ourselves.
--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The article structure isn't an issue, but the content. There's too much negative content and not enough positive. I changed the article structure because it was even more biased before, but obviously there is a need for new content to balance the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Conspiracy theory" and "political correctness"

Here's the trouble: First and foremost, the term "conspiracy theory" is used as an accusation -- indeed, a slur, a term of ridicule. It is far more often used as ridicule and derogation than as a neutral description of anything whatsoever. It has a lot in common, in that regard, with the term "political correctness" -- and unsurprisingly, that article has many of the same problems that this one does, not merely in content but in how it has been developed and treated.

In both articles, there is a substantial dispute over whether the term is meaningful at all, or whether it is nothing but a slur: whether there are actually any instances in the world that can be neutrally described as "political correctness" or "conspiracy theory". On Talk:Political correctness there has been an occasional dispute over whether there ever was an effort by leftists to impose politically correct language (in those terms) on others, or whether the term was purely invented by rightists as a slur on leftist concern about discriminatory language. Likewise here we have the concern that labeling something conspiracy theory associates it with mental instability and political unreliability, or something of the like.

We can have articles about slurs. We have articles about words like dork or nigger or Papist. But we do not accuse anyone of being a dork or a nigger or a Papist, because those terms are merely slurs and we're not in the business of doing that sort of thing.

So, can "conspiracy theory" be something other than a slur? It's possible, but we'd have to take it carefully. We can deal with it either as a term or as a subject matter, but we have to be careful which we're doing. If we want to look at the history of the term, we can go back to "the conspiracy theory of history" as opposed to individual allegations of conspiracies. If we want to treat it as a subject matter, then we have to be prepared to do so neutrally: to describe what kinds of things conspiracy theories are, without taking the side of those who insult them. --FOo (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

“Conspiracy theory” is not a slur. It is exactly what it describes: A theory that parties are conspiring; whether that be to achieve a certain goal, suppress some information or technology, or keep a certain activity secret, etc. — NRen2k5, 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, no, it isn't a slur in its literal meaning. The denotation is not negative in the least. However, it has successfully been made into a slur. I suspect that if you had some control over people and you were in a conspiracy and people started suspecting it, you would want their theory about your activities to be slurred, so you would use your control to promote whatever they call it as theory attributable to nutcases. And what do they call it? They call it a "conspiracy theory." I think any reasonable person would assume that some people who have control over others sometimes engage in conspiracies. It would be intellectually negligent to assume that such parties would never attempt to slur those who seek to bring such conspiracies to light. We all know that lots of movies, books, and TV shows provide nutcase characters with "conspiracy theories" so that whether or not it is intentional, the term has taken on negative connotations. An encyclopedia that ignores the connotations of terms is a piece of propaganda. Let's try to protect WP from that.Dscotese (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, no, “conspiracy theory” is not a slur. Any connotation is a matter of POV. I disagree that an encyclopedia that ignores the connotations of terms is a piece of propaganda. I think an encyclopedia that overemphasizes the connotations of terms would more easily become one. — NRen2k5, 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cleanup" of #Conspiracy theoriists

I've reverted the entire set of User:Calton's edits, both as to the hidden note that entries without sources here should be deleted, and the removal of noted conspriacy theorists, such as Alex Jones. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, you removed a lot of useful information about these conspiracy theorists which I have restored. If you are unable to find any sources labeling a particular individual as a conspiracy theorist, delete them individually. I found in most cases that the WP article to which they link is sufficient. Please be more careful when you are editing. Dscotese (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And Alex Jones WASN'T removed, so I don't know what he's on about. Blindly reverting? Not a good idea. --Calton | Talk 14:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So, where was he? It probably was a MediaWiki bug, but both the diff and the final version showed him missing, before I reverted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Where was he? EXACTLY where I left him. If there's a bug, it's not on my end, as a examination of the diffs would show. Perhaps it's a MediaWiki conspiracy. Oh, and nice use of sneer quotes around "cleanup", there. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
G. Edward Griffin may not be notable, but he clearly is a conspiracy theorist. Not all UFO believers and anti-globalists are conspiracy theorists, but Griffin is clearly one of the latter who is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
G. Edward Griffin is on the fast train to Deleteville, so there's no point in having him on the list. --Calton | Talk 15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf of Tonkin Incident

At one point, Gulf of Tonkin Incident was listed under "Verified Conspiracy Theories". I don't see any discussion on its removal. Shouldn't it be in the list? Dscotese (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, it should be listed under "Verified Conspiracy Theories." Please put it back. . I just added (with wikilinks) the Watergate Burglary and Coverup, in which individuals were actually convicted of conspiracy, the Iran Contra Affair, in which the President admitted to it, Operation Mockingbird and Operation Northwoods, all of which fit the definition. Wowest (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we still trying to muddy the waters and everyone's (including our own) thinking by cheerfully confusing conspiracy and conspiracy theory? "Convicted of conspiracy" is rather telling. 88.112.41.173 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some points for "Criticism of conspiracy theories" paragraph

I have some issues with this paragraph.

1. "Conspiracy theory has become a highly charged political term, and the subject of broad critique by academics, politicians, and the media."

I think a better opening sentence would be "Conspiracy theories are the subject of broad critique by academics, politicians, and the media."

This would be a short summary for the following paragraph and therefore, I think, not in need for a citation. The statement about the "highly charged political (ygh) term" should not be made in this paragraph (maybe in the next).

2. "Falsifiability - Is there any research demonstrating that specific claims of the theory are false?"

If there is any research demonstrating claims are false then falsifiability is not really an issue. I want to reword to "Is there any research possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false?".

3. "Some of these tests can have a downside as well. For instance, overeager application of "Occam's razor" can lead to acceptance of oversimplified views of history. Likewise, research that does disprove specific claims of a theory can lead to rejection of other claims which may be true."

I think I would like to remove these sentences. a. Do they have a good source? b. The wikipedia-definition of Occam's razor speaks of entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. I don't see how that can lead to oversimplified views of history. To make the point: if this results in a demonstrable oversimplified view of history the adding of entities would not be beyond necessity. c. The last sentence is not strictly untrue but hardly relevant. It does not follow from the four mentioned 'tests'.

Pukkie (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Verified conspiracies"

The "verified conspiracies" lists conspiracies, conspiracies, and conspiracies. Why is that section here? There exists the linguistic confusion caused by the English language associating the term "conspiracy theory" with "crime-committed-by-more-than-one-person". Conspiracy theorists actively want that confusion to spread in order to lend credence to their junk. But does an encyclopedia have to make such an obvious linguistic mistake? Any opinions on simply removing the section as WP:SOAP? Weregerbil (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What is exactly the mistake?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Confusing the concepts of "conspiracy theory" and "crime committed by more than one person" due to a linguistic feature of the English language. We don't discuss dog breeds in hot dog. A whole bunch of unsourced, weasel-worded, argumentative, unrelated to conspiracy theories stuff there. Weregerbil (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but each of the theories listed in "verified conspiracy" actually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations, as said by the definition given at the beginning of the article. The definition doesn't say that the theory must be false to be a "conspiracy theory".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theories prove true. What's the problem with including that simple fact, and even a few notable examples?Verklempt (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true, those should be listed, with proper attribution that shows how they were once thought to be conspiracy theories and have now been verified to be true. At this time, the "Proven conspiracies" section lists things that are not conspiracy theories, but instead are crimes committed by several people. By a linguistic accident, in the English language, the concept of "a crime committed by several people" is called a conspiracy. Please note carefully that the section is not called "verified conspiracy theories", it is called "verified conspiracies." The section is entirely based on a linguistic confusion. Conspiracy theorists, in particular 9/11 conspiracy theorists, use this confusion to vandalize your brain in order to lend fake credibility to their junk. As an encyclopedia, we must be smarter than them and not make such a mistake. Weregerbil (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You assume that a theory cannot be both true and also a conspiracy theory. Why not?Verklempt (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear editors: It appears that editors here may have some disagreement over the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory". This is perhaps a chronic, continuing problem here. To analyze this, I would first look at the verb "to conspire."
To conspire has been defined as "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 243 (G. & C. Merriam Company, 8th ed. 1976) (italics are mine).
When linguists look at all the different ways a word is used, they look at both denotative means and connotative meanings. This definition shows a little of both. Denotatively, to conspire simply means "to join in a secret agreement." There is, however, a separate connotation that ascribes to the term "conspiracy" the intent to do an "unlawful or wrongful act."
If my wife and I secretly (without telling anyone else) agree to go to the grocery store together, then, in a strict denotative sense, we have engaged in a conspiracy -- even though "going to the store" is not unlawful, etc.
Of course, that denotative sense of the term is not the sense in which many or most people use the term today. Many or most people use the term in its connotative sense -- to secretly agree to do something unlawful, etc.
Now, we have to look at the term "conspiracy theory." To some extent, you can argue that "conspiracy theory" is, denotatively, simply a "theory about the existence of a conspiracy" -- whether the conspiracy is a secret agreement to "go to the store" or a secret agreement to commit a crime.
The problem for us is that "conspiracy theory" has another meaning -- another connotative meaning, to be precise. For some people, "conspiracy theory" connotatively might mean, roughly, a "wacky theory that two or more persons have engaged or are engaged in some nefarious, evil or illegal plot, without conclusive evidence that the theory is true or without general public acceptance that the theory is true." (That's not a very good definition, actually, it's just one I'm throwing out here for purposes of discussion.) Another one would be "a wacky theory that is not true" or whatever. I'm sure my fellow editors can come up with better formulations than these -- but it's early on Sunday morning and I just woke up.
So, the problem here is, first, that we have both denotative and connotative senses, denotative and connotative meanings, floating around for both "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Second, we have more than one connotative meaning for "conspiracy theory." Third, we perhaps do not always have general agreement over which meaning we are using in the article.
Now, from a legal standpoint, you cannot sensibly talk about the definition of "conspiracy" without referring to the actual legal definition. That means you look at the actual statute and the actual case law. There is no "one" definition for "conspiracy" in legal matters. Editors should be careful to avoid generalizing about "the" legal "definition" of conspiracy, because there is no such thing as just one legal definition of conspiracy.
Now, a word about "linguistic accidents." I am not trained as a linguist, but my understanding is that many or even most changes in the meanings of words over time are indeed "accidental"; language evolves over time. So there is nothing particularly unusual or incorrect about the fact that "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" have these multiple (and perhaps partially inconsistent) meanings. (Hint: Pull out a good collegiate English dictionary and look at all the meanings of the word "run.") What makes the use of a word "correct" in terms of its "meaning" is, roughly, its general acceptance of that meaning among the population.
I haven't read this article in a while, and I cannot say much more about this without having done so. At any rate, if the article has not already done so, the article should clearly define "conspiracy theory" (using either one or several definitions), should include citations for those meanings, by tying the meanings to reliable, previously published third party sources, and the article should always be clear about which meaning is being used in each area of the article. Famspear (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you define a conspiracy theory as something that is false then any example of conspiracy theory will need a proof of its falsity in order to be actually considered an example from the category.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is apparently more disruptive nonsense from the WP:FRINGE theory pushers. If you want a list of conspiracy theories which were discounted by mainstream sources but trumpeted by various fringe bloggers, self-published pseudoscientists, ranting AM radio hosts etc, and then subsequently found to be true, go ahead and insert that list. It's going to have zero entries, though. <eleland/talkedits> 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would insert such a list and I'm not sure why you would even suggest such a list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of discussing actual conspiracies in this article is to illustrate that accusations of conspiracy are not always paranoid bunkum, as the expression "conspiracy theory" is usually used to suggest. Moreover, many of the same subjects that are supposedly the focus of paranoid "conspiracy theories" have been the focus of proven conspiracies -- such as crime, government corruption, and mad science. --FOo (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If two guys plan a bank robbery, that is a conspiracy (crime). But saying that it is a "conspiracy theory" is nonsensical. (If you twist around enough, you could say that when the police suspect the guys they are creating a "theory about a conspiracy", and with some further fudging and confusion we could turn that into a "conspiracy theory". But that is not the usual meaning of the phrase. Such confused discussion is best kept out of an encyclopedia. It belongs here as much as discussion of dogs belongs in hot dog.)
This is not to say that there could be events that were once widely considered to be conspiracy theories, but have since been found to be factual descriptions of events. But e.g. mafia? Seriously, you really can't see the confusion there? Weregerbil (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again, Weregerbil.
The list is not one of "events once considered to be conspiracy theories. The list is a list of proven conspiracies. As the Tibetans say, "If there were no gold, there would be no fool's gold."
It appears, from the undocumented OR you just added to the article that you have figured this out now. There is no "linguistic confusion" here. A conspiracy theory is a theory (or, more properly, an hypothesis) attributing an event to a group of conspirators. This normally refers to a criminal conspiracy.
Perhaps three other lists should be added: untested conspiracy theories, FRINGE conspiracy theories and proven conspiracy theories not recognized by mainstream media.
Charles Manson was convicted of conspiracy.
Watergate burglars were convicted of conspiracy.
Since 1973, as someone has pointed out, a derogatory connotation has been added to American English as a meme -- a self-reinforcing mental virus. It's a two-word ad hominem argument -- something that was praised as a technique by Cicero. The people who introduced this connotation wanted the populace to dismiss certain ideas without thinking about them, so they created the idea that such thinking was a "mental illness," and we got the term "paranoid conspiracy theory" and the others. These days, if someone is caught with his pants down and his hand in the cookie jar, calling his critics "conspiracy theorists" is a standard rhetorical ploy. Then, you can't believe what his critics say because you're afraid someone will think you're crazy. O.K. -- then depending on how crazy, somewhere between 19 and 85 percent of the U.S. population is now crazy regarding 9/11, for example. Sorry, but paranoia is a comparatively rare medical diagnosis, and the historian who wrote the 1973 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" was not a psychiatrist.
You are correct, however. If a policeman develops a theory that two criminals engaged in a criminal conspiracy, the vulgar connotation would not normally be implied.
Wowest (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Try reading the book, Hofstadter was a historian, and he states clearly he is not making a medical diagnosis, but discussing a style of thought that appears throughout history. In sociaology, it would be discussed as either a frame or a narrative.--Cberlet (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the word was used for a reason and the title is cited for a reason, usually by other people who haven't read it. It should be obvious that a "conspiracy theory" requires a fairly rapid method of communication, whereas "conspiracies" themselves constitute a much older phenomenon. Most of the people promoting the phrase "conspiracy theory" around here are claiming that it's neutral, but using it in a derogatory sense. Wowest (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • sigh* I understand both where Wowest and Weregerbil are coming from, and I'm quite confused as to why my changes were reverted. There's way too many things listed and I think some are not legitimate to point out. Pointing out the Manson family murders and terrorist attacks is just silly. When people talk about conspiracy theories this is rarely the thing they're actually concerned about. There's also no need to have two separate lists, especially not such long lists. We have pages for lists of conspiracy theories and lists of various conspiracy subjects.

I would like to remind Weregerbil that all a conspiracy theory says is that one of the three types of conspiracies has been committed. While such theories tend to be about the political kind they also include the other kinds, unless you think a conspiracy to kill Princess Diana would not be criminal. So your argument is just stupid, especially your comparison to the difference between a hot dog and dogs. People who support conspiracy theories often do point to real world conspiracies as a way of deflecting the more simplistic arguments against them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for conversation

With the somewhat disingenuous explanation of:

23:10, 21 April 2008 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (52,038 bytes)  
(→Conspiracies vs. conspiracy theories:  rm uncited commentary) (undo)

a lot more than "uncited commentary" was removed, including both lists of actual conspiracies and the intervening commentary, which could be described as common sense commentary. I have restored the section, with the exception of the first paragraph, which was only recently added.

Although some of our editors insist that a conspiracy theory is simply any conversation that implies the existence of a conspiracy, the same group of editors seems committed to sprinkling every related article with the term "conspiracy theory," whether it fits grammatically or not. Yes, the denotation of "conspiracy theory" is a conversation that suggests the existence of a conspiracy, but, as noted by others more eloquent than I, the connotation, since approximately two years after the Kennedy assassination, has been that anyone holding such a theory is mentally ill. The meme "paranoid conspiracy theorist" could be cited as an example of mimetic engineering.

Listing of some actual, historical conspiracies seems highly appropriate here, for balance, although the lists could be cleaned up, ordered and combined. I'm not willing to get into much actual editing, anymore, as I've been accused of being "tendentious." However, if nobody objects, though, I'll try to combine the lists and source the intervening comments better, when I have time. I'm sixty years old now, and retired early with numerous disabilities, but I'll do what I can if nobody else does. Wowest (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Gerry Lower?

I see we quote Dr. Gerry Lower's claim that historians often use conspiracies as "actual theories". It's not clear to me that Lower is really referring to conspiracy theories like those discussed here and so the quotation may be misleading, but that's not my question.

My question is why are we quoting this guy? Is he a reliable source? He seems to be a prolific blogger and online pundit, but is he any sort of authority on what historians do? I googled a bit and couldn't find out why he has the "Dr." in front of his name. I also didn't see anything that suggested he has a broad expertise in how historians work. (I also confess that I have a bias here: whenever an academic insists on using the title "Dr." in non-academic settings, he appears to me to inflate his authority -- especially if his academic background is irrelevant.)

So, is this guy an RS? Thanks.Phiwum (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit more googling shows that he is a medical doctor:
Dr. Lower received his formal education at the University of Wisconsin in Madison from 1964 to 1971, when he joined the Faculty of the Department of Human Oncology at UW Medical School.
So my bias was misplaced. It's common for medical doctors to use their title in all sorts of situations (for reasons that aren't clear to me). But the (auto-?)biography I read doesn't lend support to his inclusion as a reliable source. See [4].

[edit] 2 new verified conspiracies

Hello all, I would propose adding 2 new conspiracies to the list of verified conspiracies, namely: "Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident" and "CIA activities described in the Family Jewels." These are both well documented and topical. There is also a discussion above in which the question "why was the Gulf of Tonkin removed from the list" goes unanswered. de Bivort 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)



When God created 'the angels' they had the freedom to do what they wanted. The good became bad, we don't generalize.

Its called quality control.

In any organization, if one some part of it gets corrupted, well they can become their own agenda, far removed from the whole agenda. We should not generalize in our thinking. As the cliche goes, 'there are bad apples in every barrel"....

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 a verified conspiracy

Arthur Rubin has repeatedly deleted the 9/11 example. Why? This is a well-verified conspiracy. Explain your position.Verklempt (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a well-verified conspiracy in the generally understood, mainstream sense. RxS (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Islamic hijckers ran some planes into some buildings is not well-verified? But of course verification is really not the issue here, though. Everyone agrees that there was a conspiracy of some sort or another. Hence, the example fits the article perfectly, according to the lede.Verklempt (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope it's not, verification is not the issue. However what we call it is an issue, mainstream and reliable sources do not call the attacks a conspiracy theory. That's why we don't call it that. It may have been a conspiracy, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy theory in the sense this article is talking about. RxS (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand the topic of this article. Please read the article's lede.Verklempt (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're trying to claim that because the hijackers "conspired" to blow up the twin towers 9/11 was a conspiracy, without sources to verify this claim, you're breaking WP:NOR. Hut 8.5 08:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? Have you read a newspaper in the last seven years? Try this one from today's newswire: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says he welcomes death penalty for 9/11 attacks." Associated Press - June 5, 2008. Note that Mohammed is being tried as a "co-conspirator". For my next trick, I will cite you a source proving that grass is green.Verklempt (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't label anything as a "conspiracy theory" though. Hut 8.5 20:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's self evident that the prosecutors are advancing a conspiracy theory. There could not be a conspiracy charge against the defendants otherwise.Verklempt (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
No - you're interpreting the definition of conspiracy theory and interpreting this as meeting the requirements i.e. original research. If something is labelled as a "conspiracy theory" by reliable sources then it can be included here. (Note that under what you are proposing an account of any crime involving two or more people can be classed as a "conspiracy theory".) Hut 8.5 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(1) Your first requirement is an incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia policy. It is not necessary to cite a source in substantiation of a word definition. The meaning and application of the word "theory" is self evident. (2) Your second point is a straw man. The government prosecutors are labeling this a conspiracy, not me.Verklempt (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Takes about fifteen seconds to find a source saying the obvious: http://www.slate.com/id/2138487/. There are many more.Verklempt (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Slate source applies the term "conspiracy theory" regarding the 9/11 suspect. Case closed?--NYCJosh (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It can be a conspiracy theory related to 911 without being a 9/11 conspiracy theory. I object only to the wikilink, not to the content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps one could make such a fine distinction, but why would you want to? What does it mean?Verklempt (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I am objecting only to the linkage to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Others will probably continue to revert your addition. Why cause trouble by putting a link which clearly doesn't link to the correct article, even if you think the name is correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You're referring to the Wikipedia article link? Why do you think that link is incorrect?Verklempt (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't you see the difference between 9/11 conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories? While our article on the former is at its present, consensus status, there's a clear difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't think that the example in this article fits in the other article: "elements within the intelligence community committing a psychological warfare operation"? Why not?Verklempt (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the Slate piece referred to here is an opinion piece. Those are not generally accepted as reliable sources. RxS (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a magazine article, not an op ed. Such an extensive definition of opinion piece would exclude the vast majority of sources cited in this article, given that allegations of conspiracy are usually opinions.Verklempt (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between an opinion expressed as a matter of editorial policy and an opinion expressed by an individual in an opinion piece. RxS (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Slate article is an opinion piece. It is a magazine article by Slate's legal reporter. We have a legal reporter describing the prosecutors' conspiracy theory of the crime as such. This is something so obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the American system of criminal justice that it should not even require documentation. I'm astonished that this thread is even happening.Verklempt (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)