Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 12

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)


 * I disagree with the above sentence - and for sure it is not neutral but guess that it meant that the conspiracy groups hides the evidents and/or create them (vide the 9/11 passport [I don't want to argue was it fabricated - I mentioning that accorsing to some people it was fabricated]). Uzytkownik (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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&#39;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)
 * Threating the "Conspiracy theory" in such way implies that it cannot be clearly defined and/or it has no practical use. Conspiracies happened, happens and will happen. Obviously the Part will claim it invented the plane - if conspiracy won - and many will follow. Of course in many cases the people do not apply critical thinking to their hypothesis but it do not mean we should not apply critical thinking to the mainstream's ones. Uzytkownik (talk) 19:38, 7 July 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)

[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)


 * Many? I would go so far as to say "most". It is very difficult to find any independent research on this because if you Google "conspiracy theory" all you find are CT websites. No researchers seems to give the topic any time of day and the pro-ct websites far outweigh any non bias research of it. But any individual search through conspiracy websites and writings will demonstrate a common theme, and that involves a conspiracy involving a social elite with far reaching holds and most of these sites refer to this elite as the "new world order" and demonstrate its historical importance through time. The only exception is some of the older conspirators such as the JFK shooting. But the majority of modern and contemporary CT's stress the historical and pending future relevance of a behind the scenes elite, even a relevance to such a degree as wanting to take over the world. Bryanpeterson (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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. 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. &mdash; 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).”
 * Huh? Read for yourself what you just linked to. It discusses fringe psychology, and it doesn’t say anything about psychology at large being “often suspected” to be pseudoscience. And it goes on to use psychology to explain!
 * “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).”
 * Only because those theories don’t exist and you’re just trying to be ridiculous.
 * “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. &mdash; NRen2k5, 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For the controversy about psychology as a science you can see here.
 * Have you ever heard about WP:NPA before?
 * If you don't know something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist: read Psychology of religion and Sociology of religion.
 * 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)


 * Yes. Problem?
 * Yes. Problem?
 * So? Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true.
 * 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. &mdash; NRen2k5, 20:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that its mainly the conspiracy theorists on here who keep objecting to and removing sections of the article. I'm sure pretty soon they'll be saying Wikipedia itself is one big conspiracy. The fact is whether you agree with the psychological analyses or not, accredited and qualified psychologists have discussed and published possible psychological motivations for people becoming conspiracy theorists, and this is therefore duly reported in the article - the section should stay. These psychologists aren't necessarily suggesting that everybody who believes in conspiracy theories are mentally ill, only that there are psychological causes behind their desire to believe in anything that contradicts the bleeding obvious. Anonymous posters on here aren't in a position to make the arrogant claim that simply because psychology isn't an "exact" science the entire section should be deleted - otherwise those of us on here who aren't paranoid lunatics might as well trawl through Wikipedia deleting everything that's ever been suggested by David Icke and his band of nutty followers. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 10:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources do not treat every "conspiracy theory" in the same way. There is nothing like "the way reliable source treat conspiracy theories".
 * 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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 13:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A sophistic word game would be to speak about a (not existing) "way reliable source treat conspiracy theories".
 * 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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; NRen2k5, 18:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After considering it several months, I have come to the conclusion that the reason this article exists but "alleged coverup" does not is specifically that "conspiracy theory" is a slur. I think the article should discuss the difference between the connotative meaning and the denotative meaning, as well as the history of the term's metamorphosis into a slur and its use in propaganda.

The term ‘conspiracy theory’, is precisely that, a label, one that has been used as a means of dismissing the PM (Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model) without granting a minimal presentation of the model or a consideration of evidence.
 * From Jeffery Klaehn's | A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’" in the June, 2002 issue of the European Journal of Communication Dscotese (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"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. &mdash; 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.  &mdash; 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.  &mdash; 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)

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)
 * Do you mean that any conspiracy theory that has been verified is no longer a theory? What would you call it, and do you think that examples of such should not be here?  It seems to me that the "Verified Conspiracy Theories" section was intended to show that conspiracy theories often turn out to be true.  Granted, proof is in the eye of the beholder, so even in science, experiments aim to disprove theories, and even if all such experiments to date have failed to do so, many of the theories are still often referred to as theories. Dscotese (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 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&#39;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)

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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:08, 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.

It is so easy to notice only the conspiracy theories more ridiculous. Without mentioning the proven conspiracies. 85.57.150.81 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettparmer (talk • contribs)

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)

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.

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)


 * Not sure who removed the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but I agree with whoever it was. AFAIK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not a conspiracy and even if it was, it certainly hasn't been proven.  12.10.248.51 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The referenced document states: Beginning with the period of the crisis in early August, into the days of the inmmediate aftermath, and continuing into October 1964, SIGINT information was presented in such a manner as to preclude responsible decisionmakers in the Johnson administration from having the complete and objective narrative of events of 4 August 1964.

The document does state that this "was not done in a manner that can be construed as conspiratorial," but it explains that the meaning here is "with manufactured evidence and collusion at all levels." It later explains that "the handful of SIGINT reports which suggested that an attack had occurred contained severe analytic errors, unexplained translation changes, and the conjunction of two unrelated messages into one translation. This latter product would become the Johnson administration's main proof of the 4 August attack." The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Maybe we need a "Government Coverups" list if this isn't a "proven historical conspiracy"? Dscotese (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the fact that the cited reference specifically says it was not a conspiracy, it has no place in this list. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not here to support bias by limiting our use of terms the same way sources do. We must use the term "conspiracy" in a manner consistent with the mainstream use of it.  "The handful of SIGINT reports which suggested that an attack had occurred contained severe analytic errors, unexplained translation changes, and the conjunction of two unrelated messages into one translation.  This latter product would become the Johnson administration's main proof of the 4 August attack" fits the mainstream definition of "conspiracy". Dscotese (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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.  &mdash; 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.  &mdash; 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.  &mdash; 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)
 * So you've changed your mind?Verklempt (talk) 22:15, 17 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)
 * The problem is that this article is not about conspiracies, or even theories that there were conspiracies. This article is about theories that there were conspiracies that were covered up by governments or media.  The 9/11 conspiracy among the terrorists, like all pieces of history, started as a theory that terrorists conspired to attack America, so it does qualify as a theory that there was a conspiracy.  However, since the terrorist conspiracy is not being covered up by mainstream media or the government, it doesn't qualify for this article.  Mainstream media does not use the term "conspiracy theory" in the denotative sense, so neither do we. At least that is my understanding. Dscotese (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does covering up for the "Dancing Jews" who were sent to film the 9/11 attacks by Mossad count as a conspiracy? Michael Chertoff, who later became head of Homeland Defense, a Jew and suspected Mossad agent, had them spirited out of the country over FBI objections as the FBI wanted to know how much they knew about the attacks. The "Dancing Jews" appeared years later, on Israel TV and admitted that they were Mossad agents sent to NY to film the attacks.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

After several months, FBI and Justice Department "higher-ups" are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=228

The order to free them came from Michael Chertoff & Judge Michael Mukasey. An FBI investigator noted, “Leads were not fully investigated” due to pressure from “higher echelons.” 141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Proven historical conspiracies
Please do not add the Reichstag Fire to the list of 'proven' conspiracy theories. Historians do not agree whether it was a conspiracy by communists, a conspiracy by Nazis or if Marinus van der Lubbe acted alone and thus is not a proven conspiracy theory. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

testing the validity of conspiracy theory
this section has a statement:

Occam's razor - is the alternative story more complicated and therefore less probable than the mainstream story?

how does it follow that more complicated is less probable? Lakinekaki (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The usual paraphrase of Occam's razor is: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." "Best" is often interpreted as "most likely to be correct", but that may not be correct.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But Lakinekaki's point is valid. The statement ought to be qualified.  The flat-earth story is simpler but obviously not as probable as the round-earth story, and that is specifically because the round-earth one explains more.  In my opinion, a better statement would be:

Proposed: Occam's razor - does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence? Dscotese (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Operation Northwoods?
While it's been proven that some elements of the defense department suggested creating a false flag operation, the act was never carried through with. I'm wondering then what constitutes a 'proven historical conspiracy?' Northwoods was basically a suggested proposal that never happened. (Unless you're a 9/11 truther nut, but then it shouldn't go under 'proven' conspiracies.) --CptBuck (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point. You may be right. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you call 9/11 truthers "nuts?" You sir have to much pride, and not enough skepticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.252.58 (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But a conspiracy theory is not a theory that suggests that some conspirators carried out some plans. It's a theory that suggests that some people conspired to carry out some plans.  For example, a conspiracy to commit murder can exist even when the intended victim survives, and even when that victim was never actually attacked. Dscotese (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Panic Watch
Please consider the wisdom of including Panic Watch PanicWatch.org as an external link. I am not someone who can assess it's general quality, but it's page on climate change http://www.panicwatch.org/global_warming.html seems to try for a NPOV, but in fact gives legitimacy to sources that are transparently and flagrantly part of the Denier movement ie far from debunking the conspiracy theory they have bought into it, in complete disregard for the actual science which they do not reference at all "How we know we're not wrong about climate change" http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/Oreskes%20Presentation%20for%20Web.pdf

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfyre (talk • contribs) 12:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is only that, a theory. The other side that disproves the official recount is merely half of the whole truth. The other side, presented humorously, via Panic Watch is needed for a theory page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.224.187 (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Krugman article
The Paul Krugman article that cites "this page" as a source is no longer available on the New York Times website. I found it at another location: http://krugblog.wordpress.com/2006/05/08/whos-crazy-now/ Dscotese (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Richard Hoagland (born 1945) - American pseudoscientist"

 * Whether someone is a pseudo-scientist is objective. --Sabrown100 (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that claim? ;-) Dscotese (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

a doctor is a quack or a lawyer a shyster. The term violates WP:BLP Wowest (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether someone is a "pseudo scientist" is no more objective than whether

Alleged "unavailable" reference
http://ejc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/147

This is the abstract of the journal article in question The full article is readily available online for twenty dollar fee. If you have paid the fee and cannot download the PDF, you have an issue with the Sage webmaster. Wowest (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

COI edits
Please see talk:Patrick Haseldine where editor PJHaseldine reached an agreement with Administrators (after a serious of COI edits were uncovered) not to edit articles about himself.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   22:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correcting an obvious error in my entry as a conspiracy theorist and adding a reference do not amount to a COI edit. The premature edit by Socrates2008, which added an inappropriate template to this talk page, was reverted by Arthur Rubin on 16 September 2008.--PJHaseldine (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stick to the agreement you reached, then no-one will have any issue; alternatively, should you continue to test the boundaries of COI edits, this will inevitably lead to further adventures with the Administrators. Please re-read suggestions for COI compliance.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   13:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrator Arthur Rubin reverted the premature edit by Socrates2008 here. Obviously, this has put Socrates' nose out of joint!--PJHaseldine (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to a diversionary personal attack. As above, just stay away from COI edits, or you'll once again be featuring prominently on the COI Noticeboard.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben Stein as a Conspiracy Theorist
While his inclusion on the list is probably apt, the description goes beyond what is necessary, expecially compared to the other individuals. I'd like to see it shortened to something like this: "former Nixon speechwriter turned actor/game show host, whose movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed alleges a vast conspiracy among modern scientists to squelch evidence for creationism in order to promote atheism." But I'm open to suggestions.--Pnewhook (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Acualy most of his claims are true, though along par with Michal Moor's meathod of film making.

75.179.163.66 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Jade Rat

Proven historical conspiracies
There are two Catilinarian Conspiracies; the First Catilinarian Conspiracy and the Second Catilinarian Conspiracy. From reading the first one, it seems that it isn't proven at all and is likely to have not been a conspiracy or at the very least likely not to have been one by Lucius Sergius Catilina. Should the page be changed to reflect that its not the Catiline conspiracies that are proven but only the second Catiline conspiracy that is? As instructed (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The part on anti-semitism was pure bigotry and the link was unverifiable. Does not belong on an objective webpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.106.99 (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The one word phrase "obfuscation" is a more accurate description of the attempted deceptions within "conspiracy theories"
Do others have opinions on accurate descriptive phraseology issues? How about "They are attempting to obfuscate and the situations is very very+ et cetra+ complicated"? 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "hide" is more clear than "obfuscate". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "hide and/or obfuscate"? Conspiracy theories and/or attempted deception hypothesises might be very very+ complicated and/or significantly nuanced so the simple word "hide" would be inadequate and insufficient accurate description wise, right? 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like an attempt to obfuscate the definition. I really don't find it helpful.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like an attempt to recursively infinite loopify and misdirect analysis of the situations. Think outside the Wikipedia-ish boxishicles et cetra+ ad infinitum escape again et cetra+ ad infinitum; 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 18:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what you're doing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Submitted to WP:3O. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "you" as in "not me"? And the phrase "as in" actual definitions to "actual definition". 29 dot 21 dot 87 dot 7 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hi

I'd prefer "hide" as it's clearer and likely to be more widely known.

Cheers, This flag once was red propagandadeeds 01:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy researcher vs conspiracy theorist
While there apparently exists a momentuous lobby which is mandated (or perhaps rather, feels compelled) to a priori dismissing, deriding and ridiculing *any* research into conspiracies as the compulsive endeavor of a paranoid personality, I find that the term conspiracy theorist in and of itself contributes to this fallacious perception. If we take a look at the Wiktionary definition of a theorist we see that it reads as the first definition: "someone who constructs theories, especially in the arts or sciences". By exclusively applying this term instead of reseacher I find that we are objectively placing a misrepresenting label on probably the majority of individuals who are involved in researching and/or propagating conspiracy theories, i.e. we are insinuating that people who are engaging themselves in already existing information are the its progenitors. For this reason I think that the term conspiracy researcher should be applied whenever appropriate in the article. Currently it is not used at all. __meco (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy
Ken McCarthy is not only a conspiracy theorist, he is also a major enabler of the propogation of conspiracy theories through his BrassCheckTV websites. He has been involved in major conspiracy theories almost since the dawn of the internet. Your removal of him (which was sourced) is confusing. Jettparmer (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * His article states he's a self-proclaimed 9/11 conspiracy theorist. There is no other mention of conspiracy theories there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * nb The article no longer states that, and it wasn't true. DaveApter (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fail to understand you distinction. In addition he is the author of numerous conspiracy theories (including San Francisco government involvement in Jonestown).  He is clearly not only a conspiracy theorist, but a major player in the promulgation of this type of thinking.Jettparmer (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's really known for conspiracy theories, more information should be in the article Ken McCarthy. As I said, the only thing in his article about conspiracy theories is that he claims to be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.  There's nothing there to indicate he's a major player even in 9/11 conspriacy theories.  Please update his article (with adequate sources), and we can discuss whether he belongs here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of source material on Ken McCarthy online regarding his views, his Brasscheck.com site and other involvements, going back to Jonestown. What is interesting is that amending his bio to include references to these fatual elements almost always results in deletions and post battles.  I think you are setting an unfair standard for Mr. McCarthy when the public record, not simply Wikipedia shows otherwise.Jettparmer (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not remove article linking factual issues regarding Ken McCarthy or his owned sites. It is well established that his Brasscheck and BrasscheckTV sites fall into the promotion of conspiracy theory sites. Jettparmer (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take on board what other editors say, and do not keep putting back the link to the Ken McCarthy page. This link would only be justified if the article itself stated that he was one. There is now no reference to conspiracy theories in that article at all, and quite rightly too (see my comments on its talk page. And incidentally, the ref you had here to the Alterati interview gave no substantiation of his being a conspiracy theorist. Please just leave it out unless you can find reliable secondary sources that identify him as being one. (Then you could put it into his bio page, and then a link from here would be justified). Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. Brasscheck.com is a conspiracy site, and it's his.  If people are improperly removing that sourced information from Ken McCarthy, that shouldn't affect the links from this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only is Brasscheck his site (now mostly archival), but so is Brasscheck TV, a video news aggregation site which also promotes conspiracy theories. Finally, his own writing, appearing here would support the assertion. Jettparmer (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the writings on Brasscheck.com are conspiracy theories or not is a matter of opinion. Unless you can cite some reliable sources that establish that they are such, Wikipedia is not the place to propagate this opinion. Whilst a small minority of the video clips on BrasscheckTV.com might qualify as such,  the site makes clear that it provides these for reference and does not claim to endorse their content.  On this basis, Youtube and Google would qualify as Conspiracy Theorists. DaveApter (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously YouTube and Google are not people. There are two academic sources referencing Ken's Jonestown writing as conspiracy theories.  Much of the content of BrasscheckTV is categorized as a conspiracy theory, including [WP].  If I propose that a group of individuals has conspired to artificually control oil prices globally, until I prove the causation, it remains a theory of a conspiracy.  I think you are too biased towards a negative interpretation. Jettparmer (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)