Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 16

Definitions of conspiracy theory
"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)

"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category.  We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)

"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)

"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

This POV pushing by certain editors that ignores these definitions needs to stop.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For Dummies, tertiary source, we should not rely on it if we have secondary sources.
 * Conspiracy theories in American history, tertiary source, we should not rely on it if we have secondary sources, also not a definition of conspiracy theory--Watergate is a proven conspiracy that serves to validate conspiracy theories, but the latter is not defined.
 * Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings.
 * Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom, asks a question regarding conventional wisdom, but it's not a definition of the term by Pidgen, he appears to be quoting someone else. Posing a question in this way is not defining the term.
 * Cody's good.
 * Now, I presented a long list of definitions, too. We have lots of definitions, and endlessly repeating the same ones over and over does us no good. We know what the term means. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pirdgen is not "quoting someone else" which you would have known if you had actually read the thing which is very easy since the entire "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom: article is online thanks to something called Project MUSE; Scholarly Journals online Look at these quotes from Pirdgen:


 * "The conventional wisdom on conspiracy theories is that they ought not to be believed. To call something “a conspiracy theory” is to suggest that it is intellectually suspect; to call someone “a conspiracy theorist” is to suggest that he is irrational, paranoid or perverse.(For a detailed study of this polemical tactic see Husting and Orr (2007))"


 * "I advocate the alternative strategy of not dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand, simply because they are conspiracy theories, but of being prepared to investigate them and even to believe them if that is what the evidence indicates. Perhaps some conspiracy theories are too way out to be worthy of investigation, but this is not because they are conspiracy theories but because the specific conspiracies that they postulate are absurd or improbable." (pg 221)--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, so he acknowledges that the common meaning is pejorative, and he falls into the camp that wants to redefine the term to a non-pejorative meaning, and thus is a minority view, which we should not emphasize in the lede as if it were common usage. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the point he is trying to make is that some "crank" theories turn out to be true and that we should acknowledge this. I would agree - but only if we can find examples to list in the article. Personally, I can't think of any - unless you want to go back to Galileo Galilei - though his trouble with the church arose from his writings which appeared to attack the Pope and not from his heliocentric theory. Rklawton (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually a list of warrented conspiracy theories (some proven some not) can be hammered from the sources previously presented in the talk pages:


 * Business Plot (Knight pg 625)
 * CIA drug trafficking (Knight pg 237)
 * The Dreyfus Affair (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times)
 * General Motors streetcar conspiracy (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate)
 * Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location (Knight pg 319)
 * Iran-Contra Affair (Knight pg 349)
 * The Nazis set the Reichstag fire (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)
 * Operation Gladio (Knight pg 231)
 * Operation Mockingbird (Knight pg 486)
 * Operation Northwoods (Knight pg 117)
 * Project MKULTRA (Knight pg 490)
 * Sicilian Mafia (Knight pg 451)
 * Tuskegee syphilis experiment (Knight pg 38, 45, 538)
 * Watergate (Knight pg 725)


 * Knight, Peter Conspiracy theories in American history


 * It is very easy to see warrented conspiracy theories if one knows how to look. Unlike unwarrented conspiracy theories you don't need huge group with superhuman powers and-or abilities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus"
User:Mystylplx has inserted BruceGrubb's lede, arguing that consensus "doesn't exist". I would agree with him that consensus doesn't exist, in that consensus doesn't exist for inserting BruceGrubb's new lede. The only editors inserting it are, in fact, Mystylplx (twice ) and BruceGrubb (seven times ). In contrast, the insertion of BruceGrubb's new lede has been reverted by five editors: me (thrice ), User:Nuujinn (thrice ), User:PhGustaf (once ), User:Tom harrison (twice ), and User:Xenophrenic (twice ), and opposed by User:John Shandy` on the Talk: page.. The current lede is actually that of User:Black Kite, which was confirmed in this discussion. Can BruceGrubb or Mystylplx justify their continued attempts to edit-war in BruceGrubb's lede, despite their quite obviously being no consensus to do so? Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your math must be off. You've got myself and BruceG inserting it 9 times and having it reverted 11 times. And why are you accusing us of edit warring when you essentially admit you've been edit warring as well? If putting it in twice (myself) counts as edit warring then reverting it three times (yourself) certainly does as well. Mystylplx (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone also inserted it twice after logging out. Was that you? Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Was it you?Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't ask ridiculous questions. BruceGrubb, was it you? Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Flaying around by the desperate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the math, Jayjg's point is well taken. We had a discussion, the general consensus was for Black Kite's version, and there's been no change in consensus since then. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If that consensus existed once, obviously it no longer exists.Mystylplx (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * However, consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But in this case, it clearly hasn't changed - there are still only two editors trying to push in this new lead, against at least six who object to it. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I count four in favor in the discussion. Myself, BruceGrubb, mystichumwipe and Rklawton. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rklawton hasn't said much on the topic, and there are still only two editors willing to try to force this into the lede: you and BruceGrubb. In any event, there's still obviously no consensus to insert a new definition. Jayjg (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to keep score at least keep score accurately. You can't count everyone who has expressed an opinion on the talk page, whether they've reverted or not, as being opposed, but discount those who have expressed an opinion on the talk page in favor because they haven't reverted. Anyway, I thought it was the quality of the arguments, not a vote, that is supposed to count. Taken together near all the arguments presented favor BruceG's version, even, bizarrely, when they are arguing against it. Mystylplx (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're basing this on "the quality of the arguments" then it's quite obvious there's no consensus for BruceGrubb's new version, because his arguments have all been debunked, and you haven't really made any arguments (or defended against any). Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's been debunked that prior to the mid 60's the term meant a theory about a conspiracy, but after that point it came to mean an irrational fringe theory? If that's the case I haven't seen it (and I've looked.) Most of the arguments, quite frankly, don't seem to be very rational. I suspect there's a subtext here that I'm missing that possibly has something to do with other articles on specific conspiracy theories and editors there wanting this article to say conspiracy theories are irrational? The odd thing is this article doesn't say that right now and BruceG's version does. Mystylplx (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is time to WP:RFC Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard and get more community input but the general consensus is the referenced version is better but its wording needs work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's the "general consensus" of you and Mystyplx. Of course, the five editors who keep reverting your unilateral insertions appear to disagree. Jayjg (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He's right. I hadn't looked at the NPVN in a few days, and it's not getting much attention, but the few uninvolved editors who have commented are all in BruceG's favor. Mystylplx (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's misrepresented the NPVN discussion the way he has misrepresented the sources, then the actual consensus will undoubtedly be the exact opposite. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping you from seeing for yourself. He posted a link just above. Mystylplx (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is counting, I have made two comments above to explain that the attempts to use some quaint definition of conspiracy theory in the lead are misguided. While it might be interesting to ponder why some think the lead of an article should start with a definition that would mislead readers, this is not the forum to do so, and the matter should be dropped. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is counting I've pointed out that the current lead is exactly that "quaint" definition and is the one everyone keeps reverting back to. It should also be pointed out that BruceG's version contains both the "quaint" definition and the more modern definition while the current version contains only the "quaint" definition. Nor do I think the meaning of the term prior to the mid 60's and for most of the time the term has been used qualifies it as "quaint." It might be interesting to ponder why some insist on reverting an edit on grounds that are even more true for the version they keep reverting back to. Mystylplx (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * just for the record, I only accepted BlackKite's lead suggestion (which was an amended version of my own previous edit) purely as a temporary solution until we had something better. When BruceGrubb's lead came along I voted for that as an improvement on Black Kite's lead. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

human theory
It's an attempt to explain something that is happening, when you are unsure of what is going on.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.77.185 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Watergate
Nixons conspiracy wasn't a theory, it was undergoing investigation and proven. It therefore doesn't qualify as a 'conspiracy theory'. If theres no objection I'll amend the ext to reflect the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.10.50 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Take a look again at what is stated in the article: "A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis."JoelWhy (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words WP:DUCK applies. Nuff said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead
I must admit I'm a bit puzzled by this. Here's the lead as it stands"A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."Notice there's no mention of any pejorative meaning. That lede defines it as simply a "theory about a conspiracy." BruceGrubb's most recent attempt is this:"A conspiracy theory in its original more neutral usage is 'simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;'[1][2][3][4] but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[5]"Notice that his version does include the pejorative meaning. Yet it was instantly reverted by Jayjg and then Tom Harrison. But let's look at some of their comments in the discussion:"He's cherry-picked sources to support his attempts to rehabilitate conspiracy theories. The term is generally used to indicate theories that nefarious cabals are secretly controlling or guiding significant world events. BruceGrubb wants to 'normalize' the term and remove its negative connotations. Thus, he has attempted to find sources indicating that a 'conspiracy theory' is merely a theory about a conspiracy - and because there have been many real conspiracies throughout history, rehabilitating the term 'conspiracy theory' means that a conspiracy theory is no longer mere twaddle, but something that should be taken seriously. In reality, however, the vast majority of reliable sources, including those used in this article, view conspiracy theories as nonsense at best, and a symptom of mental illness at worst. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)""But we already know that BruceGrubb's lead doesn't summarize the entire article; the first and second sections, 'Usage' and 'Types', discuss the term in its common/negative/pejorative sense. So too do the fourth, fifth and sixth sections, 'Controversy', 'Conspiracism' and 'Political Use'. These five sections comprise over 95% of the article text. It is only the third section, 'Proven conspiracies and conspiracy theories' – the one inserted by BruceGrubb – that discusses the term in the way that BruceGrubb's lede does. Furthermore, BruceGrubb's lede cites five different sources which are not cited elsewhere in the article, so we know that the material in it is not found elsewhere in the article. So, the question remains, what exactly does BruceGrubb's lede summarize? It appears that it summarizes perhaps 5% of the text, and even then, uses different sources. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)""On contrary, I've read both leads, and BruceGrubb's starts by emphasizing the tiny-minority non-pejorative sense, and then provides the common use as a minority alternative. This is quite the opposite of both the article and reality; the article itself devotes 95% of the text to discussing the term in its common/negative/pejorative sense. Furthermore, BruceGrubb's lede cites 5 sources usednowhere else in the article. There is no consensus for this obviously inappropriate change; rather than making inaccurate comments about me, please address the actual issues raised in my posts.Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)""It's not the case that a conspiracy theory is any theory about a conspiracy. Conspiracy theory, both in popular understanding and in the academic literature, is a particular thing. Nuujinn's version better describes the consensus among academics and researchers. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)""I see those. That's what make it look like cherry picking. No reasonable person could survey the literature and conclude that 'conspiracy theory' was any theory involving a conspiracy. This looks like the result of searching for and then high-lighting references to support a pre-existing view. It has the effect of slanting the article and misinforming the reader. Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)"They appear to be arguing in favor of BruceGrubbs version, yet they keep reverting it. I can't help feel that maybe there's some personal animosity going on and it's the editor being reverted rather than the edit. The current lead is exactly what they say they don't want and BruceGrubbs is at least closer to what they say they do want, yet they just keep insistantly reverting him. Why? Mystylplx (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making unwarranted assumptions regarding motives, please stick to content, and please use diffs instead of quoting, as the latter makes it appear as if the editors you are quoting have just posted here. My take is that BruceGubb's version emphasizes the non-perjorative usage, since it was not in widespread use prior to the 1960s, and to juxtapose that with a strongly worded description of the pejorative creates undue weight. As I have said a number of times, we should focus on the article and when we're good there, work out the lede. I don't have a problem with others disagreeing with that approach, but insisting on including his version despite lack of consensus for it is not appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current version emphasizes the non-pejorative meaning by only including the non-pejorative meaning. I don't understand your point about undue weight, are you saying his description of the pejorative meaning is too strongly worded? As for waiting on the lede till were "good" in the article... this is Wikipedia. The article will never be "finished". There's no sense waiting for something that's never going to happen to get the lead better. Mystylplx (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree and IMHO this constant harping on waiting for something that will never happen comes off as a way to POV push the article; I saw this problem with the Jesus myth theory article and for much the same reason--failure by some editors to even acknowledge that there were different definitions even RS after RS was produced to show there were such differences.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is somehow part of an attempt to promote the 9/11 conspiracy theories, people should know that as a result of an arbitration case administrators can impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. I'd even dare to say what you are suggesting verges on a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that is a hoot look at Jayjg's efforts to shut me up.


 * I should point out several other relevant points in that an arbitration case:


 * "2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content."


 * "Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique."


 * "20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15 (presented at length above) clearly states "conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event."


 * Please note that this agrees with the broad and neutral definitions of Hodapp, Knight, Bratich, Pigden, and Coady. Note that Ayto says that "conspiracy theory" is often used in the derogatory manner not that its is nearly always or majorly used in that way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't attempted to "shut you up" - feel free to put whatever you like on the article Talk: page. However, I am putting an end to your weeks-long slow edit-war. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement, "this agrees with the broad and neutral definitions of ... Pigden, and Coady" is incorrect, and grossly misrepresents their position. You completely neglect that these individuals first, and most clearly in their writings, acknowledge that the common and accepted definition of "conspiracy theory" describes an irrational hypothesis.  In their attempted "defense" of conspiracy theories as a rational form of speculation, they have proposed the definitions you have mislabeled as "broad and neutral", but the authors themselves admit their proposed definitions are in the minority, out of the mainstream and even generally criticized by the masses.  Not "broad and neutral" at all.  Note: I don't have a problem with the body of the article including their minority view, but I disagree with using the lede of the article to inflate or misrepresent the legitimacy of those views, based on the sources provided. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the current lead describe an "irrational hypothesis?" The lead as it stands basically is exactly what you are objecting to in BruceG's version. The difference is BruceG's version also includes the more modern usage. It's hard to understand objecting to one version on grounds that apply even more strongly to the version you seem to prefer. Mystylplx (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reality is that "conspiracy theory" does not always describe an irrational hypothesis (the idea Nazis set the Reichstag fire is one such example). Claiming this when reliable sources say otherwise is itself irrational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus here, which reflects reality, is that the term is typically used to "describe an irrational hypothesis". In addition, please note Xenophrenic's comment above, which notes that even the sources you have used agree that the common and typical usage is "an irrational hypothesis" about a conspiracy. Note that Xenophrenic's other statements are also the consensus here: "I don't have a problem with the body of the article including their minority view, but I disagree with using the lede of the article to inflate or misrepresent the legitimacy of those views, based on the sources provided". You also continue to conflate actual conspiracies with conspiracy theories. And finally, I may not have been clear before, so I'll clarify now - trying to edit-war in your minority-view, non-representative of the literature, WP:UNDUE-weight lede is disruptive. You've been doing it for months, and the hope here after last month's attempt was that you had finally stopped. However, it appears you now plan to insert it once a month ad infinitum. Please realize that even once-a-month slow edit-warring is edit-warring, and that the next time you attempt to insert this lede without consensus, whether it is a day, week, month, or year from now, the issue will go straight to the appropriate notice-board for administrative action. I hope that's very clear. Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As Mystylplx pointed out if that consensus existed once, obviously it no longer exists. as the consensus over at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_28 was in favor of my version with some rewording (which I did) and the far older Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5 also acknowledges more neutral definition. My version acknowledges both definitions:


 * A conspiracy theory in its original more neutral usage is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;"(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017)(Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Pages 2, 140)(Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66)(Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94) but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.("20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.)


 * Do you contest the accuracy of how those references are presented?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever Mystylplx might have claimed, there's certainly no consensus to insert your lede. In addition, the comments at the NPOV board of a couple of IP editors (one with exactly two edits, both at the thread in question, the other undoubtedly you) does not indicate any sort of "consensus" whatsoever "in favor of your version". Finally, several editors here have contested all sorts of things about your lede, including your highly selective use of brief passages in a very small number of sources to promote a WP:UNDUE POV, and the fact that your lede doesn't represent the contents of the actual article, thus failing WP:LEDE. How many more times will these points need to be repeated? Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. But do you contest the accuracy of how the references BruceGrubb pointed to are presented?
 * 2. Do you agree that length of time as an editor or numbers of edits at wikipedia is no indication of competence in any chosen subject and is therefore irrelevant?
 * 3. And do you agree that a number of editors have been (and still are in) consensus with BruceGrubb's lead and have also "contested all sorts of things about" the current lead?
 * 4. Jayjg wrote: "You also continue to conflate actual conspiracies with conspiracy theories."
 * So, does this mean that you deny that the example given (the theory that the Nazis were responsible for the Reichstag fire) was and still is a rational conspiracy theory?
 * To help move the discussion forward, can you perhaps just limit your answers to these recent points put to the talkpage. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb has not gained consensus for inserting his new lead, for the many reasons amply explained by several editors here. Has something changed since December? Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus should be decided upon the best argument not the most votes. The discussion can not move forward towards such a consensus if people will not answer simple questions and instead maintain a consensus based purely on slightly larger numbers of voters.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus here was based on the vastly superior arguments of the majority of editors here who did not agree with BruceGrubb's proposed new lede. Has something changed since December? Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a time limit for pursuing an improvement of an article?! :-o
 * The Reichstafg Fire is an example of a rational conspiracy theory. Do you agree or not? If it is, this shows that the argument presented against BruceGrubb's suggestion for a lead is a false one. You have just ignored the point. BruceGrubb has provided other references to try and demonstrate the superiority of his viewpoint . He has asked if you or anyone else with a different opinion "contests the accuracy of how those references are presented". Again you have failed to answer and have just ignored the point. How then can you claim a superior argument?
 * Mystylplx has asked: "The current lead is exactly what they say they don't want and BruceGrubbs is at least closer to what they say they do want, yet they just keep insistantly reverting him. Why?" He also got no answer to that specific point. I have now asked you four questions relating to this thread and you just ignore them. How is this a sign of what you describe as "superior arguments"? Its seems more a sign of having NO adequate reponse, and therefore claiming consensus by NOT engaging in discussion with contrary viewpoints?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, nothing has changed since December? Please keep in mind that many editors here made clear why they disagreed with the insertion of BruceGrubb's new lede. While you are under no obligation to agree with their reasoning, they are also under no obligation to keep repeating it. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To note, I share the objections raised in two interjections by Xenophrenic here in this thread and here in Archive 15 of this talk page. I still feel his objections to the lede proposed by BruceGrubb have yet to be satisfactorily addressed. This really does look like an attempt (even if in good faith) to replace mainstream views with minority views as to the meaning and usage of the phrase. I'm not really pleased with the present lede either. In fact, I favor this version. I'm open to improving the lede and as we can see it certainly needs it. Nevertheless, I oppose misguided pursuits of balance or unduly weighted neutrality that draw the phrase away from its established usage both by scholars and in pop culture to refer to what ultimately are characterized as fringe theories lacking testable, falsifiable claims and often (not always) coupled with paranoia.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 02:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current lede is terrible. I think the old lead you linked to has a couple of problems (i.e. Moon landing conspiracy seems to have been for propaganda purposes against the Russians, not typically viewed as necessarily malevolent by true believers, as far as I know.) However, it's still superior to what we currently have. The lede must make it clear that these are fringe ideas, frequently in directly contradiction to the known facts, and almost always rejected by virtually all professionals within the relevant field.JoelWhy (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. So, ...if I pursue this then the modus operandi is to suggest we go back to what we had before I ever got involved in the discussion. Viz. with the really partial lead definition that totally contradicted all contemporary dictionary definitions and even managed to summarise the main cited scholar incorrectly. Hmmm? Interesting. ;-) Only problem is the examples of rational,  non-fringe conspiracy theories that we thereby have to ignore (e.g. Reichstag Fire example that keeps getting ducked). Also we have to ignore this Wiki definition,  which contradicts this re-proposed lead definition. Plus... We've already been over this.  :-o I thought we are supposed to compromise and work towards a consensus solution. So in the interest of compromise can anybody who sees my point please adresss it, in  particular regarding the point about rational,  non-fringe conspiracy theories AND wiktionary's definition. Thanks. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The term 'conspiracy theory' is generally used in the context of fringe theories. People who recognize that the WTC towers were brought down by terrorists who hijacked several planes are clearly acknowledging the existence of a conspiracy. However, these people are not typically referred to as 'conspiracy theorists'. No one contends that there are no conspiracies, but the people who latch onto claimed conspiracies involving the Illuminati, FEMA death camps, and/or the cover up of E.T.'s crashing on earth are dubbed 'conspiracy theorists'. That's what this page is supposed to be discussing, not the existence of verified conspiracies (which, by definition, aren't 'conspiracy theories'; rather, they are confirmed conspiracies.)JoelWhy (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the context of science a theory remains a theory even when it's been overwhelmingly confirmed, but in common usage we usually stop calling it a theory once it's confirmed or even just generally accepted. Aside from that distinction I'm not sure what your point is. There are still conspiracy theories that are neither confirmed or generally accepted while still not being widely rejected or fringe. Mystichumwipe mentioned the Reichstag Fire around which there is a conspiracy theory which is one example of a CT which is neither widely accepted nor Fringe. It resides in a gray area between fringe conspiracy theories and accepted or confirmed conspiracies and certainly fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand what 'theory' means in the context of scientific theories. That's now what we're discussing here, though. In the context of a 'conspiracy theory', theory generally means a supposed event that is unsupported by the evidence (almost the polar opposite of a scientific theory!) I also would also not label something like the Reichstag Fire as a "conspiracy theory". Rather, there are historians who dispute what occurred (some claiming a conspiracy, others not.) Obvious, where we draw the line of what is or what is not a conspiracy theory may differ. I am fairly certain we could find 1,000 reliable sources explaining what a "conspiracy theory" is, and they are not necessarily going to agree with one another.JoelWhy (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are expressing exactly why I favor something like this--"A conspiracy theory in its broader usage is a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means; but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational fringe theories." Mystylplx (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support something like that, assuming we have an appropriate source to cite.JoelWhy (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I still don't think it addresses the weight issues raised by Xenophrenic.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to take a moment to note that I apologize in advance if it seems like I'm just being a contrarian and then trotting off. I do have some genuine concerns about the lede, but also a few ideas for it that I just haven't been able to find time to hammer down and present yet. I've been kind of busy and have had some of my WP focus devoted to other areas lately. Hopefully soon-ish I will propose a new version of the lede for dissection, but I am kind of preoccupied in real life at the moment.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 03:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Again the problem is this article does a real poor job of explaining the difference between a warrented conspiracy theory (or theory of conspiracy) and an unwarrented conspiracy theory (paranoid/borderline delusional/outlandish nonsense)

Take a look at this list of warrented conspiracy theories (some proven some not) that can be pulled from the sources previously presented:
 * Business Plot (Knight pg 625)
 * CIA drug trafficking (Knight pg 237)
 * The Dreyfus Affair (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times)
 * General Motors streetcar conspiracy (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate)
 * Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location (Knight pg 319)
 * Iran-Contra Affair (Knight pg 349)
 * The Nazis set the Reichstag fire (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)
 * Operation Gladio (Knight pg 231)
 * Operation Mockingbird (Knight pg 486)
 * Operation Northwoods (Knight pg 117)
 * Project MKULTRA (Knight pg 490)
 * Sicilian Mafia (Knight pg 451)
 * Tuskegee syphilis experiment (Knight pg 38, 45, 538)
 * Watergate (Knight pg 725)

Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history ABC-CLIO

Please note that Peter Knight's book is titled "Conspiracy theories in American history" and not "Conspiracies in American history" so logically all of the above are conspiracy theories not conspiracies.

The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler states that some serious scholars along with Communist propagandists are in support of the "Nazi conspiracy theory" ie the idea the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag Fire. This is supported by Storming to power Time Life Books pg 157: "Because the fire had been a godsend for Hitler, an entirely different conspiracy theory took root. According to this notion, which was assiduously promoted by the communists and widely believed outside of Germany, the Nazis had staged the whole affair and made a dupe of the young Dutchman."

Of course some of these warrented conspiracy theories have unwarrented counterparts (Silent Coup for Watergate for example). It certainly doesn't help that the unwarrented conspiracy theories get press seemingly in proportion to how out outlandish or off the wall they are giving the impression that all conspiracy theories are the domain of people hiding in their basements in fear that the black helicopters filled with men in black will make them disappear--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC).
 * This list of what you describe as "warrented conspiracy theories" has already been discussed - most of these are actual conspiracies, which is not the topic of this article. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I already addressed this with the fact that Knight's book is "Conspiracy theories in American history" and not "Conspiracies in American history" rendering the counterargument you raise moot. As mentioned by two of the other editors Reichstag Fire is specifically mentioned as a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy and it certainly doesn't require a huge group with superhuman powers and-or abilities nor is it irrational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what change to the article is being proposed. Is this still about the lead? Tom Harrison Talk 11:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the argument is not moot because you found a single book named "conspiracy theories". If something like Watergate is a conspiracy theory, than virtually every bad act by two or more people in the history of the world is a "conspiracy theory". It renders the term meaningless. Plus, it's rather nonsensical -- outside of the scientific method, a nearly universally excepted concept is not generally called a "theory". Historians don't say "one theory is that blacks with syphilis were left untreated as part of an experiment in Tuskegee." They correctly state that it actually occurred (and, perhaps, that the gov't conspired to keep it a secret.)JoelWhy (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the argument you are presenting is moot because there is more than one source for these.


 * "A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government." (Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)


 * "a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)


 * "As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)


 * "Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)


 * "There is no a priori method for distinguishing warranted conspiracy theories (say, those explaining Watergate) from those which are unwarranted (say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)" (Abstract)


 * "Conspiracy theories as a general category are not necessarily wrong. In fact as the cases of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair illustrate, small groups of powerful individuals do occasionally seek to effect the course of history, and with some non-trivial degree of success. Moreover, the available, competing explanations--both official and otherwise--occasionally represent dueling conspiracy theories, as we will see in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing." (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" The Journal of Philosophy published by Columbia University, Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126.)


 * "conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event." ("20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15)

Oxford University Press acknowledges the broader term, Wiley uses it, Knight via ABC-CLIO uses it, Keeley uses it in a Peer reviewed journal article, Bratich tells us the terms can be used both ways, and on the list goes. RS after RS shows that the broader definition does exist.

As for the "theory" thing, historians may not regularly use the term but they in general use the process as demonstrated by the Homeric Question, Historical basis for King Arthur, the debate regarding how historical Robin Hood is, varies ideas regarding William_Tell, the Quest for the historical Jesus, and so on.

Theories (both rational and off the wall) abound in both traditional and anthropological history as demonstrated by William S. Godfrey's "Vikings in America: Theories and Evidence" American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 57, No. 1, Part 1 (Feb., 1955), pp. 35-43.

Furthermore your position makes no distinction between "theory of conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" because both contain the word "theory" in them which my issue with the article as it currently stands.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazed at the omissions
Religious fear, paranoia, propaganda and fantasies as prime source of conspiracism

No mention of conspiracism seminal roots, prominent distributors and mass audience, especially in the United States, the Religious Right!

The Anti-Christ, Illuminati, Mark of the Beast, End Times, 666, End of the World-ism, Rapture-ism, Apocalypse, Millennialism, Prophecy, scheming Jews as Christ Killers, Christ vs. Satan, Israel, Christian Zionism, the rise of Babylon, Armageddon, Freemasons, Trutherism, Birtherism, Aliens, Technology, Science and so on and so forth.

These paranoid fantasies translated into political rhetoric such as anti-government, anti-secular, anti-modernist, anti-humanist and New World Order conspiracism.

The Religious Right conspiracy fantasist Tim LaHaye has sold tens of millions of conspiracy-oriented books to a religious audience addicted to conspiracy thinking. One could add Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sun Myung Moon and dozens more to the list.

Conspiracy Theory Addiction and Christian Fundamentalism http://theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/conspiracy-theory-addiction-and-christian-fundamentalism/

Obama, Assassination, and the Antichrist Conspiracy http://theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/obama-assassination-and-the-antichrist-conspiracy/

The Christian Reconstructionist Roots of ‘End the Fed’ http://theageofblasphemy.wordpress.com/tag/far-right/

Betrayal by Immoral Leaders as a Theme in Christian Biblical Prophesy http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton_networks/networks-05.html

How Apocalyptic and Millennialist Themes Influence Right Wing Scapegoating and Conspiracism http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_2.html

Hard Right Conspiracism & Apocalyptic Millennialism http://www.publiceye.org/media/hardrit.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.216.180 (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't list every CT here. There are individual pages for the prominent theories. However, if you have info you would like to add realated to right wing Christian ideology and its ties to CTs, feel free to do so.JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Publiceye is a legitimate source. Wordpress is not. Please don't add anything cited to a Wordpress page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

“Conspiracy theory” versus “Theory of conspiracy” (again)
Ok this IMHO is where this article has the biggest problem. We just don't have anything that separates lunatic Conspiracy theories (the Moon landing was hoaxed) from “Theory of conspiracy” (the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag fire or the Mod killed Hoffa and buried him somewhere) and there are several sources that call both "Conspiracy theories". Until this is address this article will remain a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "conspiracy theory" almost always refers to the former, not the latter. This has been discussed many times before on this talk page. The article cannot "remain" something that it is not currently. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't writing "almost always" (which without supporting evidence appears to be expressing a personal opinion) ironically confirming BruceGrubb's point. I.e. if it is NOT "always" then your (Jayjg's) statement acknowledges that there IS a distinction. Therefore shouldn't we be seeking to clarify/explain that distinction rather than instead seeking to deny it exists. Otherwise the article is unbalanced and misleading. Which is a point that ALSO "has been discussed many times before on this talk page". So I would be interested to read a short re-explanation and justification from those who still feel a resistance to remedying this omission. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already a section on this extreme minority usage in the article, so there's no "omission". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet haven't you repeatedly argued that the lead should reflect the article. So therefore if that's in the article shouldn't we include it in the lead? Its one of only two basic definitions of the term so in order to maintain NPOV why keep it out of the intro?! :-0. If your answer is undue and "extreme minority usage"!? Says who? You and others here appear to have decided that and therefore you are keeping out sources from the article that disagree. Which seems to me to be a very self-fulfilling and circular argument. The article should not appear to reflect a personal opinion and certainly not a biased one. You appear to me to be just ignoring all arguments that contradict your own which you force through without any supporting reference. Whereas BruceGrubb has produced reams of supporting 2ndary sources for the argument that contradicts this.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede is currently just one sentence, so any mention of this tiny minority usage would be WP:UNDUE. If the lede were a full four paragraphs, then we could examine what, if any, of it, could be devoted to that tiny minority usage. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to have this same stupid argument every few months. "Conspiracy theory" is virtually always used in the context of a fringe belief. Period, end of story. If you disagree, please present evidence to the contrary.JoelWhy (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is also relevant here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No we don't have to. Just fix this in a spirit of friendly co-operation. A great detail of "evidence to the contrary" has been present and detailed by BruceGrubb. Er... haven't you seen that? Or are you just ignoring it? We can just as easily argue back with the same degree of imperviousness to rational discussion. E.g "'Conspiracy theory' is virtually always used" etc., etc. is a point of view that has been shown to be wrong repeatedly. Period, end of story. If you disagree, please present evidence to the contrary."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that, regarding this issue, there is nothing here that needs be "fixed", and that the "problem" is persistent attempts to rehabilitate the term "conspiracy theory" so that specific conspiracy theories are less stigmatized by the term. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Er.. No you are wrong. BruceGrubb, Mystylplx and I have repeatedly shown you are wrong. Period, end of story. If you disagree, please present evidence to the contrary. ;-}
 * Seriously, merely ignoring presented evidence & counter argument is NOT a consensus. That's just ignoring the evidence, no matter how many people are doing it. Or is wiki content to be based soley on just a numbers voting system regardless of the accuracy of a counter argument? "Ideally, consensus occurs with an absence of objections" Consensus here would require a compromise "that would satisfy ALL concerned." "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", etc. etc.
 * It would be very easy to compromise and include the suggestions of myself BrucGrubb and Mystylplx. The only objection I can see for being so uncompromising in the face of so much evidence and source material is an unneutral personal preference to the ascendancy of the term ONLY as a form of derogatory put-down.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I don't recall seeing anything but a few isolated incidents of the term being used to mean anything other than a fringe theory. Can you please point me again to the evidence you speak of?JoelWhy (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well... just scroll back (up) a bit. (And then there is the stuff recently archived.)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "stuff" in the archives indicates a strong consensus that the article should focus on the common understanding of the term "conspiracy theory", not the tiny minority usage - which wasn't actually even a usage, but more a proposal by authors that the term should be used in a broader way. And constantly bringing this up, and repeating refuted arguments, is not really "repeatedly show[ing] you are wrong", but rather proof by assertion (and more recently argumentum ad nauseam). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But Jayjg, the arguments haven't been refuted, just persistently ignored. As you did again with your reply. What you claim "wasn't actually even a usage" is easily demonstrated as false by the simple FACT that it not only "was" but still is at present included in the current wiktionary definition of this term: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conspiracy_theory. A fact which has been pointed out before and which has been completely ignored. If what you recently wrote is correct how do you explain this contradiction with your alleged 'consensus' view here? This wiktionary definition, in my opinion, does therefore seem to demonstrate that this article is being too heavily slanted in one direction. Could it be that is because it is influenced by editors who claim consensus as justification for pushing one point of view regardless of all reasoning,  regardless of all attempts at co-operation and in disregard of all provision of source material supporting the wider and less pejorative definition. As I wrote before:
 * ...merely ignoring presented evidence & counter argument is NOT a consensus. That's just ignoring the evidence, no matter how many people are doing it. Or is wiki content to be based soley on just a numbers voting system regardless of the accuracy of a counter argument? "Ideally, consensus occurs with an absence of objections" Consensus here would require a compromise "that would satisfy ALL concerned." "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", etc. etc.
 * It would be very easy to compromise and include the suggestions of myself BrucGrubb and Mystylplx. The only objection I can see for being so uncompromising in the face of so much evidence and source material is an unneutral personal preference for the ascendancy of the term 'conspiracy theory' used ONLY as a form of derogatory put-down.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's precisely where the conflict rests. The "less pejorative definition" you describe does not actually seem to be more widely used. It's broader in its scope, but not necessarily in its usage among scholars. Anyway, I am still working on some stuff for this lede here and there; diving into these sources is kind of time consuming, especially as so many of them are full-fledged books. Also, I still think that your side of the argument has not at all addressed the weight issues raised by Xenophrenic that I pointed to in February. Also, while I appreciate Wiktionary just the same as any Wikimedia project, I don't think we should pivot around what Wiktionary does. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article about conspiracy theory, and so we are charged with a bit more than regurgitating the most inclusive and generic meaning/usage of the descriptive phrase, especially when we have a preponderance of reliable sources demonstrating a particular usage to be prevalent.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice you wrote "seems" and "not necessarily". As in, (1.) "... does not actually seem to be more widely used." And (2.) "It's broader in its scope, but not necessarily in its usage among scholars." We all agree that personal opinion should not be a factor, so I hope you can see that the reason why I pointed to the wiktionary definition (and incidentally most all current dictionary definitions) is precisely because that demonstrates that both your points are above are incorrect. Point one, we aren't arguing about breadth of usage but that we should be following secondary sources. Dictionary definitions DO reflect contemporary isage and meaning don't they? Or is that still being debated ??!! :-o  And point two, my understanding is that this wiki article should NOT be about ONLY "scholarly usage". Do you think it should? Thus my/(our?) concern that the article concentrates too much on only a partial definition and usage and this would be easy to correct if there was a spirit of compromise. Finally, I also do not think that "we should pivot around what Wiktionary does". I only point to that as it demonstrates the falseness of view (and the unreasonable obstinacy regarding discussion or compromise) demonstrated by Jayjg's quote:"the tiny minority usage - which wasn't actually even a usage"). He is clearly wrong there, but won't admit it nor discuss reasonably. I'm just trying to address what I see as a unbalanced bias in the article generally but the lead in particular towards only one of the two current meanings, viz. the relatively recent pejorative one. Words and their usage are not static nor fixed and this article should reflect that fact. "All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." (Friedrich Nietzche)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The broader definition of Conspiracy Theory
As I pointed out before in Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_28 there is no conflict if the reliable sources regarding the broader definition of the term below Conspiracy Theory are acknowledged:


 * Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9


 * Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" The Journal of Philosophy Columbia University, Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126.


 * Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17


 * Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6


 * "20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15

It is really pathetic that the Rationalwiki version (which has no NPOV requirements) of Conspiracy_theory is MORE NPOV regarding the scope and rationality and does a better job of trying to distinguish warranted (ie rational) conspiracy theories (like those that Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre) from those which are unwarranted (boarderline irrational ie like the idea of extraterrestrials abducting humans) then what is done with this article.

It is WAY past time to accept that Conspiracy Theory has TWO definitions as outline by Bratich above so this article can move forward.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lede as written does a poor job of explaining conspiracy theory, especially since it only gives weight to a generic and inclusive definition, and also since it ignores the further steps taken by scholars to characterize conspiracy theories as beliefs that mostly appeal to unverifiable (if not irrational) speculation, that originate on the fringe and become politically/culturally significant among the mainstream. So far I count more scholars that have indeed gone so far in their characterizations/usage of the term, even among some of the ones who beforehand present a nuanced explanation of various definitions (such as those who Xenophrenic pointed out acknowledge that their own usage is not prevalent).


 * Keeley for example (the guy you've referred us to so often for his definition of the categories "unwarranted" and "warranted" conspiracy theories), says:


 * So, in the end, what do I think of conspiracy theories? My initial motivation was to present an analysis of conspiracy theories in the spirit of Hume's analysis of miracles. For Hume, miracles are by definition explanations that we are never warranted in believing. If my analysis here is correct, however, we cannot say the same thing about conspiracy theories. They are not by definition unwarranted. (A good thing given that we want to believe in at least some conspiracies - for example, Watergate and Iran-Contra.) Instead, I suggest that there is nothing straight-forwardly analytic that allows us to distinguish between good and bad conspiracy theories. We seem to be confronted with a spectrum of cases, ranging from the believable to the highly implausible. The best we can do is track the evaluation of given theories over time and come to some consensus as to when belief in the theory entails more skepticism than we can stomach. Also, I suspect that much of the intuitive "problem" with conspiracy theories is a problem with the theorists themselves, and not a feature of the theories they produce. Perhaps the problem is a psychological one of not recognizing when to stop searching for hidden causes. Nonetheless, I suggest that the study of conspiracy theories, even the crazy ones, is useful, if only because it forces us clearly to distinguish between our "good" explanations and their "bad" ones. Keeley (1999, p. 126) (Emphasis is Keeley's).


 * In other areas p. 116-122 & 199, Keeley ultimately expresses (and Goertzel 2010 cites Keeley in this regard as well) that most conspiracies fail and historical events are better explained without recourse to unverifiable speculation.


 * I don't think anyone here is arguing that there isn't a broader definition, but a broader scope does not mean a more common/popular usage. I have no problem incorporating content from the sources you provided, but I am wary of any attempt to marginalize the more prevalent usage - and whether they're pejorative or not has no bearing on their prevalence. Mystichumwipe has seemed hung-up on the pejorative undertone numerous times, as if that matters. Most of the scholars we have cited here on the talk page already note a pejorative connotation, but they do not themselves use the phrase pejoratively to disparage the conspiracy theorists they are studying and writing about (though they do extensively characterize conspiracy theories beyond the dictionary definition, and in numerous cases "fringe" is a compatible descriptor for paraphrasing).


 * I really wanted to wait and refine this more before sharing it on the talk page, because I'm not anywhere near done and have dozens of more sources downloaded that I need to comb through and the citations are just messy author-year cites and not in any kind of order (will order & wikify them later), but I've been so busy that it might take me an eternity... Anyway, below is my very unfinished draft of a lede paragraph that would mostly alleviate my concerns. As I said, it is unfinished and I am not yet satisfied with its completeness or coverage. I do intend to bring more content in from some of the sources we have had controversy over, but my time has been limited lately and I don't yet have the full-text of some of the sources referred to on this talk page (e.g. Ayto, Bratich, and a couple of other less-mentioned sources referred to in the archives).




 * Feedback welcome, but I can't stress enough how rough that is and how much more I would like to work on it if time permits.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for the sake of clarity, may I say I do not think that I am hung up on the 'perjorative' aspect of this. My argument is more that there EXIST TWO usages and definitions that I and others feel are not being clearly and fairly presented here (and even denied, as Jayjg has repeatedly stated falsely there is ONLY one usage). I have used that 'p' word to more easily distinguish between the two. Please feel free to pick some other distinction if you have a 'hang up' about that word ;-)
 * As regards your suggestion above, here is my 'rough' response;-) The first sentence I think concentrates on unhelpful hyperbole, i.e. a conspiracy does NOT of necessity of definition need to be perpetrated by "unnaturally powerful" or "cunning" conspirators, nor does it have to be to achieve a "malevolent end". (E.g. Or else how do Bible 'conspiracy theories' [] such as ones that Jesus really had a wife and children which info has been suppressed, etc., fit under this definition of malevolent end, etc? )
 * This rough definition AGAIN makes absolutely no allowance for conspiracy theories that can and have been based upon credible, non-fringe speculations and which are not irrational and which have turned out to be genuine 'conspiracies'? In other words how does this definition allow for what Kelley wrote in the quote you provided : "...conspiracy theories... are not by definition unwarranted. (A good thing given that we want to believe in at least some conspiracies - for example, Watergate and Iran-Contra."
 * We need a definition that encompasses both usages fairly and accurately.
 * Summary of objection: this suggestion as it is now, explains only the more extreme end ('whacko', 'fringe') usage of this term as if that was the only usage and meaning.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any dispute that the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used in the pejorative sense? And, by "usually," I don't mean 60% -- more like 97% of the time. When the phrase is used, it's referring to grassy knoll/aliens at Roswell/New World Order type of "theories". Is there anyone who wants to argue against this? Assuming you don't, and that your complaint is that on rare occasion it is used by someone, somewhere to refer to a legitimate controversy, I just don't understand the problem here. Per the article "Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.[4] The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational.[5] A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[6][7]"


 * I think it's pretty clear that the term is sometimes used in a manner other than the way most people use it. Do we need to add another sentence saying that it continues to rarely be used in a non-pejorative sense? Is that the entire problem? If so, I'm fine with adding something to that effect.


 * Of course, if you're argument is that it is routinely used in a non-pejorative sense, well, I'm sorry, but that's just preposterous.JoelWhy (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mystichumwipe, we have plenty of sources that support "unnaturally powerful" or "omnipotent" (being omnipotent is after all unnatural), and that support malice/deception/malevolent end/nefarious end, etc.
 * Fenster: ...which I will define simply here as the conviction that a secret, omnipotent individual or group covertly controls the political and social order or some part thereof...;
 * Birchall: In its simples terms, conspiracy theory refers to a narrative that has been constructed in an attempt to explain an event or series of events to be the result of a group of people working in secret to a nefarious end.;
 * Sunstein & Vermeule: Conspiracy theories generally attribute extraordinary powers to certain agents - to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and so forth.
 * an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.;
 * Barkun: The essence of conspiracy beliefs lies in attempts to delineate and explain evil. At their broadest, conspiracy theories "view history as controlled by massive, demonic forces." The locus of this evil lies outside the true community, in some "Other, defined as foreign or barbarian, though often...disguised as innocent and upright." The result is a worldview characterized by a sharp division between the realms of good and evil.
 * For our purposes, a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organization made up of individuals or groups was or is acting covertly to achieve some malevolent end.
 * Oxford English Dictionary: an agreement between two or more persons to do something criminal, illegal or reprehensible.


 * Many of the other sources we have (that I didn't also use to cite that first line) support that line. Plus, built into the term conspiracy theory is the term conspiracy, for which we also have sources defining that as A conspiracy involves multiple agents, working together in secret in order to realise hidden goals that are malevolent or unlawful. (Darwin, Neave, & Holmes; Zonis & Joseph). Nevertheless, I am okay with replacing "unnaturally powerful" with something synonymous, but malevolence is well-supported and accurate. With regard for your Bible conspiracy theories example - why couldn't deception be the malevolent end there? Or, as extreme antitheists might have it, why couldn't suppressing info to sustain a perceived control over people by organized religion be the malevolent end there? I'm no theologian and am not up to date on Bible conspiracy theories, but I don't see a contradiction with malevolence there.


 * Further, what Keeley says must be taken in full context, which is why I provided much more of his remarks than we have previously seen referenced by BruceGrubb. Just because conspiracy theories aren't by definition irrational/unverifiable/fringe speculation doesn't change the fact that scholars have most often characterized them as such. Keeley says Instead, I suggest that there is nothing straight-forwardly analytic that allows us to distinguish between good and bad conspiracy theories., then explains the spectrum of them, then discusses theories versus theorists and that theorists may have a problem of not knowing when to stop looking for hidden causes, and then says Nonetheless, I suggest that the study of conspiracy theories, even the crazy ones, is useful, if only because it forces us clearly to distinguish between our "good" explanations and their "bad" ones. Plus, as I noted earlier, Keeley supports the notion that historical events are better explained absent unverifiable speculation found in conspiracy theories, and is cited in this regard by Goertzel. It's possible for something to have a good rationale and yet be completely speculative and unverifiable, so I don't see a contradiction there. On a side note, when I was a little kid and riding in the car on vacations, I'd see distant refineries with smoke or steam towers out of which giant plumes of white smoke or steam would be rising; I concluded that those refineries were cloud machines responsible for producing all of the white puffy clouds I saw in the sky around them. I had a pretty decent rationale for having limited information (only what I could see) and bounded rationality, but my theory to explain the nature of clouds and the purpose of those refineries was ultimately unverifiable speculation, however rational for a 5 or 6 year old.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The rub as I tried to point way back in Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_14 defined by whom? As I said back then "Alex Jones InfoWars list www.infowarscom/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/ “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True”] (referenced in the NYT article) shows the problem.  The list starts with The Dreyfus Affair, the Mafia, and MK-ULTRA (all genuinely proven conspiracy theories) and then goes off the rails by throwing in things like the Manhattan Project (not a conspiracy-theory by any definition I have seen) and tin foil stuff like The New World Order.  And yet they are all called "Conspiracy Theories"."

As I said before what we have ignores the examples of


 * the Dreyfus affair (as early as 1898 there were ideas that there had been some sort of conspiracy to frame Dreyfus)


 * Sicilian Mafia (G. Robert Blakey stated that when he became part of the Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section "They told me the Mob does not exist.")


 * MKULTRA (the hippy culture bragged how LSD came from the CIA)


 * Iran-Contra (where speculation ran riot on who all was involved in the mess)


 * Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT act alone (United States House Select Committee on Assassinations 1979)

and to that list I add


 * Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre


 * Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin.
 * Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location


 * The Nazis set the Reichstag fire


 * The Unites States Government is using the top secret nature of certain bases to cover up violations of health, safety, and dumping regulations occurring on those bases


 * Richard III of England was vilified via Black propaganda by the Tudor dynasty to justify their taking of his throne

I should point out that none of these require "unnaturally powerful" or "omnipotent" groups so that gives Fenster and Sunstein & Vermeule swift kicks to the head. Everyone of the above Conspiracy theories above is warranted ie plausible and some have been proven long after they were called Conspiracy theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative lead
Why can't we use that as the lead in? It addresses both definitions, it accepts that the negative version is more common today, and it is referenced out the wazoo. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If we changed "often" to "usually", I'm good with that definition.JoelWhy (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think often is the better and more accurate alternative. Who is guaging what is usual? And why the need to make that distinction? Why skew the article so that ALL conspiracy theories are "usually" loony fringe ones? That is clearly innaccurate and self-contradictory. We need a definition that encompasses both usages fairly and accurately and an article that reflects the 2ndary sources regarding that difference of usage fairly and neutrally. This article as it is now, not only concentrates on the more extreme ('whacko' and 'fringe') usage of this term, but it does so as if that was the only usage and meaning. That I see as the problem. So I don't think it helps nor is particularly relevant to insist on 'usually' distinctions. This article's slant as it is at the moment creates a problem of how within the article itself we describe non-fringe non whacko theories such as the conspiracy theory of _______, or the theory that ______, etc., etc., etc. (see above). That is the problem that concerns me and which keeps getting ignored (as are BruceGrubbs examples). I hope we agree that Wiki articles - for the sake and reputation of wikipedia - should not be written in a way that allows for the assumption that a deliberate selection and ignoring of secondary sources is being done out of any kind of political or other biased motivation. Thus the need to include BruceGrubbs research & examples. And also the relevance of the Nietzsche quote: "...whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with bias. I don't even understand what type of bias a person could possibly have pertaining to the definition of this phrase. This is simply a matter of standard usage; and standard usage of this phrase involves the 'tinfoil hats' type conspiracy theories. "Often" doesn't accurately reflect that. I could say that "in professional sports, the underdog often wins." In that context, "often" could mean 25% of the time. Here, I could find 3 dozen references to every one of your using the phrase as it is generally used. You wanted compromise, well I'm compromising. But, I believe you are taking things one step too far with your definition. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is primarily used to connote crazy conspiracies.JoelWhy (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What type of bias? :-o Holy moly! :-o How about the conspiracy theory that citizens of Saudia Arabia, and elsehwere conspired with people in Afghanistan and elsehwere, and who were all members of a group called Al Qaeda, succesfully conspired to attack the N.York twin towers and the Pentagon, etc. Is that 'whacko', 'loony', and 'fringe' enough for you to classify as a 'conspiracy theory'?
 * Huh? I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you, but I meant why are the editors opposed to this showing a bias. And, what you are describing is a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory, as the term is generally used.JoelWhy (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So Mystichumwipe, still trying to label the official account of 9/11 as a conspiracy theory? Perhaps so you can make this edit again on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article?  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 16:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol...well, that explains a lot. And, it actually brings up an excellent point -- why don't some of you editors try to add the phrase "conspiracy theory" to the September 11 attacks page. You'll notice that the text includes statements such as "e Spanish high court sentenced Abu Dahdah to 27 years in prison for conspiracy on the 9/11 attacks" and "Moussaoui...was convicted for the lesser role of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism and air piracy." (Emphasis added) It then goes on to state "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." So, please go on to the page and see if you can incorporate the term "conspiracy theory" in reference to the documented events of 9/11. Then,come back here and tell me how well accepted this was by other editors (who, I am sure will see no problem with it, since this is the manner in which the phrase "conspiracy theory" is commonly used.) Good luck with that...JoelWhy (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Balaban makes a distinction between conspiracy theory and conspiracy mentality which is the bridge that Bratich talks about. I should point out the "often" above is taken straight from the Oxford University Press reference:

Also regarding the malice/deception/malevolent end/nefarious end part, this kicks this in the head:

This word playing is getting really tiresome especially when the word I am using comes straight from Oxford University Press and Ashgate Publishing swift kicks part of the alternative version into the dustbin. Can we please use what I have provided and move this article forward? Please?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't 'kicked anything in the head.' Here's the publisher's description of the book you are referencing: "Conspiracy theories have a bad reputation. In the past, most philosophers have ignored the topic, vaguely supposing that conspiracy theories are obviously irrational and that they can be easily dismissed. The current philosophical interest in the subject results from a realisation that this is not so. Some philosophers have taken up the challenge of identifying and explaining the flaws of conspiracy theories. Other philosophers have argued that conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, and that conspiracy theorists do not deserve their reputation for irrationality. This book represents both sides of this important debate. Aimed at a broad philosophical community, including epistemologists, political philosophers, and philosophers of history, it represents a significant contribution to the growing interdisciplinary debate about conspiracy theories."


 * So, there you have it. Conspiracy theories have a bad reputation and most philosophers dismiss them as irrational. I take this one step further -- most people, period dismiss them as irrational, because as the phrase is used, it refers to nutty conspiracies. Unless you want to argue that most philosophers tend to dismiss all conspiracies as irrational, the book you are citing supports my inclusion. Your definition muddies the definition of how the phrase is primarily used.JoelWhy (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh that is not what it states.


 * "In the past, most philosophers have ignored the topic, vaguely supposing that conspiracy theories are obviously irrational and that they can be easily dismissed." Past tense and even then it was "vaguely supposing"


 * "The current philosophical interest in the subject results from a realization that this is not so." Present tense. This clearly states that the old past view is now seen as incorrect.


 * "Some philosophers have taken up the challenge of identifying and explaining the flaws of conspiracy theories. Other philosophers have argued that conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, and that conspiracy theorists do not deserve their reputation for irrationality." Again present tense.


 * So we are seeing philosophers waking up to the reality that "Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine massacre", "the Mob killed Hoffa and buried him someplace:, and the "Nazis set the Reichstag fire" are conspiracy theories proving that not all conspiracy theories are from the land of the irrational.


 * Furthermore I said the malice/deception/malevolent end/nefarious end part in John Shandy's version is what got kicked in the head not that is didn't have a bad rep. Remember the version I gave says "it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories."


 * Again I point to Knight's 2003 Conspiracy theories in American history ABC-CLIO where the Sicilian Mafia (pg 451) and Moon Hoax conspiracy theories are less then 50 pages from each other. Warranted (rational) and unwarranted (irrational) in the same book and both conspiracy theories.


 * I have to ask, are you guys actually reading what I actually post or what you think I am posting? There seems to be huge disconnect with some of your arguments.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can post dozens of articles discussing "conspiracy theories" exclusively as the term is ordinarily used. There are probably scores out there. You can become as entrenched as you like in your position, but trying to argue that the phrase is not primarily used to describe fringe theories is an untenable position.JoelWhy (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb, I don't see how that Coady cite kicks anything in the head; it is one source and Coady says often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose. (Emphasis mine.) There's no contradiction here with what most other scholars have said in covering the deceptive/nefarious/sinister aspect. The Ayto cite is good, but may I point out that it defines conspiracy theory as the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties? Then, what is a conspiracy? Is it a plot by interested parties to: commit a legal act, commit a nice gesture, commit a non-sinister act? People needn't conspire to do such things, so of course not. A conspiracy, in criminal or civil law contexts, is a plot to commit some illegal action or otherwise use legal action to reach illegal results, or in politics to usurp or overthrow governments or other establishments. From Merriam-Webster, conspire: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement. So, where is the contradiction here with malevolence/deceit/wrongfulness/nefariousness/sinister?  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, I have no idea what your position is.

Kindly explain how the bolded part differs from what you are saying. If it doesn't differ then pray tell just what are you arguing for? This is a prime exmaple of the disconnect I was talking about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I stated earlier, I am fine with the definition, replacing the word "often" with "usually" or "primarily" (or something to that effect.)JoelWhy (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And as I stated the "often" comes straight from the Oxford University Press reference. Are you saying Oxford University Press doens't known what it is talking about?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Which I think neatly demonstrates the nature of this impasse: e.g. Joel you are ignoring all evidence counter to your own understanding, even when it exist in your own quote, and even when it comes from a reliable and authoritative cited source (Oxford University Press). So... Can we not just do as Brucegrubb has suggested and move on wuith his proposal. JoelWhy, your own quote actually demonstrates against your own argument, viz. it shows that there are some philosophers who have argued conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, nor deserve a reputation for irrationality and that there are two sides to this important debate. Therefore NPOV requires that this wiki article should reflect that and should  NOT be skewed to present ONLY one of these two current views as if it were the only correct one. JohnShandy and JoelWhy, you do appear to me to be arguing for that there is 'only one correct and current viewpoint'. You might not agree with this contradictory view, but we all know that our own personal opinions on all this should not trump reliable secondary sources, which is what I feel you perhaps unwittingly and persistently pushing for.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about my personal opinion. The definition provided just doesn't square with reality. Again, there are dozens of articles discussing "conspiracy theories" almost exclusively in the context of crazy theories. This is just a matter of standard usage. And, that is precisely why I am saying that the definition provided above only works if you say "usually" or "primarily".
 * Let's just try a real world example. On the current page for The Holocaust, the opening sentence states "The Holocaust...was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory." Please go to that page and try to change it to "The Holocaust...is a conspiracy theory regarding' the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory." If this phrase is routinely used to reference real conspiracies, you should have no trouble whatsoever incorporating the phrase into the article.
 * Or, if you want to apply this only to plausible theories, even likely theories, as opposed to fringe theories, try going to the Osama Bin Laden page and stating that "Conspiracy theorists note that on May 2, 2011, bin Laden was shot and killed inside a private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs and CIA operatives in a covert operation ordered by United States President Barack Obama."JoelWhy (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But Joel, what you or I "say" isn't relevant. That would be originial research. It's what the sources say that counts. And the Oxford Unniversity Press says "often". So your reason "why I am saying that the definition provided above only works if you say 'usually' or 'primarily'..." is fine as your opinion, but this isn't a debating society. Wiki editors must follow what reliable 2ndary sources say. Regarding your opinion of whether something "squares with reality" or not, “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth” WP:TRUE. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "let us not deceive ourselves in thinking that calling something a conspiracy theory is simply a neural description of a type of account. We know it also a term of derision, disqualification, and dismissal…[C]onspiracy theories…are mundane and pervasive. But defining conspiracy theories in this legalistic manner is both semiotically dissonant and highly selective. Conspiracy theories could have this meaning in a neutral marketplace of idea; they could be one kind of descriptive narrative among many. But this is not the case. Conspiracy theories exist as a category not just of description but of disqualification." (emphasis in original text)

This ignores context of Bratich which I gave way back on 27 August 2011 (Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_14):

"The question, What is a conspiracy theory? presupposes a stable object and assumes our term is merely descriptive." The reality is as Bratich points out is that you have several "synonyms" for conspiracy theory. First there are the various way of labeling the believer part of crackpot tin foil hat brigade: Paranoid style, Political paranoia, Conspiracism (pg 5). But you also have in order of increasing legitimacy the academic synonyms: Conspiracy research, Conspiratlology, and Conspiracy narratives/accounts (p 5).

"Besides its synonyms, conspiracy theory is a contested term within the conspiracy research community. While some do not mind calling their work a conspiracy theory others reject is as media buzzword that derides, ridicules, and even demonizes it referent (see Alan Cantwell, 1995, “Paranoid/ Paranoia: Media Buzzwords to Silence Politically Incorrect"; Michael Parenti, 1995, "Conspiracy Phobia)")" (Bratich pg 5)

"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognize that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich pg 6)

Put back into the larger context Bratich is not quite saying what the "let us not deceive ourselves..." passage implies he is saying. In context, Bratich makes it clear that Conspiracy theory has two meanings: the irrational seen in paranoid style, political paranoia, and conspiracism side and the rational academic side seen with onspiratology, conspiracy research, and conspiracy account. When one uses the term one is on the bridge between the rational and irrational.

Later on he even spells it out: "The definition of conspiracy theory, which inaugurates this book "on" conspiracy theory, is precisely part of the class of interpretive forces" (Bratich pg 6)

While not exactly reliable Robert Lockwood Mills' Conscience of a Conspiracy Theorist also goes into good and bad conspiracy theories.

Bratich acknowledges that some academics have no problems calling ideas like the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag fire "conspiracy theory" (see Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457 for an example)while others avoid the term like the plague because thanks to the media it is more often used to denote off the wall totally nuts ideas.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. He is unequivocally stating in the book that this is the generally understood meaning of the phrase. There's no way you can read his work and come away thinking otherwise.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As Mystichumwipe said above "you are ignoring all evidence counter to your own understanding" reading things into the passages that simple are not there. Kathryn S. Olmsted's Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 (also an Oxford University Press book) states:


 * "A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven. Scholars refer to the tendency to see conspiracies everywhere as conspiracism, and this tendency long ago spread from the margins into the main body of American political culture. Government officials, even presidents, sometimes propose conspiracy theories, giving official sanction to the paranoid interpretation of history."--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are cherry picking passages out and ignoring the larger context. The entire intro of the book is explaining how the phase is generally understood to be used in dismissing the claimed conspiracy. This isn't a few isolated passages; rather, it's strewn throughout. You kept harping on a dictionary definition that comports with your understanding of the term. I've brought you a scholarly work that delves into the depths of the term, and provides an understanding that virtually anyone you would meet on the street would recognize. This phrase is used again and again and again in the media, in films, in books, etc to refer to fringe theories. This is the primary meaning of the phrase. Trying to manipulate the phrase here to make it seem respectable to believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that JFK was killed by the aliens from Roswell isn't going to work.JoelWhy (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To JoelWhy, I don't think this is about "trying to... make it seem respectable. Its about trying to have an article that does not focus soley upon the extreme wacko usage of the term so exclusively AS IF that was the ONLY 'correct' usage. Instead we allow the article to acknowledge there was and still is a neutral usage also, one that we all agree has become largely superceded in popular culture, and acknowledges there are differences amongst philosophers and political scientists about this usage. I.e NPOV"


 * To John Shandy, you asked what was the contradiction between "an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement"  with the words 'malevolent', 'nefarious', and sinister'? The contradicion as I see it is that an unlawful act need not be malevolent nor nefarious. And the problem with that definition is that it doesn't cover theories of conspiracy that do not involve such extreme motivations. E.g. the consp. th. that "Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin," is neither nefarious nor malevolent (nor even unlawful?. In that case would it be just 'secret'?). The definition we have in the article must be able to include all examples of its usage. Which is why this article can be improved by NOT just concentrating upon sources which focus upon a definition alluding to only the most extreeeeeme examples of consp. theory, and discusses them as if that exaggerated definition were the only correct current usage. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Top-Secret Warplanes of Area 51 Popular Science shows warrentted Conspiracy theories about what goes on at Area 51 and fits Olmsted's definition. Can we move forward on this article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To JoelWhy and John Shandy  (and Jayjg?). As Area 51 IS the subject of conspiracy theories according to the wiki page on it, do you therefore acknowledge that this example is just one of many (see examples provided previously) that demonstrates the definition that you have argued for, and the subsection 'usage' of this article as it is at present does NOT allow for that?
 * In other words, do you agree that the Area 51 example contradicts the recent JohnShandy definition proposal and 2.) demonstrates the flaw of this article at present (viz. it focuses too much upon the derogatory definition/usage as if that was the only correct usage). --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The term is primarily used to refer to fringe theories. So, your area 51 example is irrelevant. (But, for the record, I don't recall hearing Area 51 being referred to as a CT other than in the context of aliensj/alien technology.) You want me to start listing CTs that deal with fringe theories, complete with references? You guys have dug around to find a small handfull used in a rare context. The term is used so frequently to refer to fringe theories, I could find you 50 in 10 minutes. And, again, I challenge you to try to slip the phrase into the Bin Laden page. If the term is used so often to refer to likely theories, you should have no trouble doing so.JoelWhy (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that answers my questions. Mentioning Area 51 is just taking one clear example to show a broader point. If you look at the Area 51 article you'll see it states there that it is "...the frequent subject of conspiracy theories". So how is that "irrelevant", as you claim?
 * To repeat: how do the Area 51 conspiracy theories fit under the definition of 'malevolent', 'nefarious', 'sinister', 'loony', and 'fringe', etc?


 * I don't see how it would help to compile competing lists of 'wacko, fringe' theories versus ' rational' accepted theories and see which is the longest list. I'm not arguing about some sort of contest of usage. I am a bit surprised that you haven't understood that yet? Its about about having an article that fairly and without bias describes and covers BOTH current definitions and usages and that accurately represents the usage of this term worldwide. No-one is arguing here about 'the breadth of usage' (JohnShandy) nor how "frequently of usage referring to fringe theories" (JoelWhy). Neither of you seem to be really engaging with what BruceG and myself are arguing for.  --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you really aren't making your point clear. Area 51 is the subject of a number of CTs involving government cover ups, aliens, etc. However, that the area is a government facility that is secretly used to test new technologies is not something I would consider a CT. Otherwise, you would label everything the government does in secret a CT. The definition I am arguing for would specify that the phrase is primarily used to refer to fringe and nefarious conspiracies, but also may be used to refer to more mundane/plausible/and perhaps likely conspiracies. That would be fair and w/o bias, and most importantly, accurate.JoelWhy (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, based on the following definitions I don't follow your logic:


 * "A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven." (Olmsted}


 * "A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or groups of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thug conspiring to stickup a liquor store..." (Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley)


 * "They (conspiracy theories) are sometime without foundation and at others beyond doubt." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg xi) Knight in fact spends about two full pages (15-17) noting how some people try to limit the definition of "conspiracy theory" but these definitions often fail to capture the full scope of the term.


 * A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories.((20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.)

No one is saying that the term conspiracy_theory is not "often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories" but rather that is not all it is used to denote.

Also your comment of "Otherwise, you would label everything the government does in secret a CT." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what conspiracy theories are--they are not the act itself but a theory to explain observed events. Some are well grounded in rationality and others are off the wall insane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To BruceGrubb: This sentence "...is not something I would consider a CT", also makes it clear why I do not think we are really engaged any longer in a genuine wiki article discussion, but instead against someone pushing their own personal point of view, which also - as you have shown  - is a faulty one ("...shows a fundamental misunderstanding"). As we do not need to fit this article around any editor's personal viewpoint, and as you (BruceGrubb) have now presented the same argument repeatedly with an increasingly impressive collection of reliable and authoritative secondary sources for it, I think you should go ahead and make the changes agreed upon, as I don't see  there being any genuine wiki arguments presented against them.


 * So, concerning the article: I would like to suggest we look at the USAGE subsection. What we seem to be in agreement over, needs to be clarified here, as at present the reader would think ALL conspiracy theories are ONLY paranoid, nutbar, malevolent, fringe theories. At present it isn't apparent until the article comes to the third and fourth subsections that there are STILL two definitions and usages with the perjorative one gaining precedence in popular culture since the sixties. If we can adress that with some changes maybe we can then delete the "worldwide view of the subject" tag at the beginning. What do you think?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going with WP:BOLD and go with the intro I provided as it captures the best information we have at this time--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way before reverting anything bring it to talk, first. Especially when you are reverting stuff backed up by such publishers as Oxford University Press Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell.  Because of this revert with no talk and the long debate regarding the NPOV of this article I have slapped a POV tag on it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good work. I think that is a great improvement.
 * I have made a few subtle changes as you had the same information repeated twice; once in the lead and then immediately again in the Usage section. Have a look and see what you think--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Making changes after failing to reach a consensus is not bold; it's just ignoring consensus to put things the way you like. I will review the changes tomorrow and make my changes based on how I feel they should read. If you're not happy with it, we'll go back to the status quo before you decided with these changes. Nice try, though...JoelWhy (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONS expressly states "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." The key word there is "legitimate".

Again WP:CON clearly states "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Quality not quantity determines Consensus and so far the arguments against these changes appear to have poor quality.

Note that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since Loremaster and Mystichumwipe (see []) did NOT disputed or revert my changes (but rather cleaned them up) this claim to consensus for the old version is demonstrably false.

The fact that as noted in the University of Missouri Press book The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler there are some scholars that have no problem with the idea that the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag fire being called or referred to as a "conspiracy theory" proves the term is not always used in a negative manner.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You have continually argued against a straw man. I have stated time and time again that the proper definition should say the term is primarily used to refer to fringe theories. I say that, because IT IS PRIMARILY USED TO REFER TO FRINGE THEORIES. I'm not sure how much planer I can state that -- and, I find the arguments against this fact to be patently ridiculous. When you hear the phrase "conspiracy theory" it is usually in the context of a fringe theory. You know it and I know it. Everyone knows it. I understand why 9/11 conspiracy theorists want to to pervert the definition so that they look less irrational, but I can't comprehend why anyone else is continuing with this line of nonsense.JoelWhy (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JoelWhy, your position is getting less understandable by the minute. The version I provided expressly stated "from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories" which Mystichumwipe changed to "It has also become a term used dismissively to refer to any speculation that is considered unworthy of serious consideration" to which I have restored the word "often" to.


 * AFAICT No one here is saying that conspiracy theory is NOT often used in a negative manner but rather that not is all it is used for. When you have things like a scaled down version of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy listed with with the New World Order (conspiracy theory) (as with Keeley 1999) you have to acknowledge that while the majority of conspiracy theories are off in the ozone NOT ALL OF THEM ARE.


 * Explain how per Olmsted, Hodapp, Knight, and Ayto the following are '''not conspiracy theories:


 * Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre


 * Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin.


 * Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location


 * The Nazis set the Reichstag fire


 * The Unites States Government is using the top secret nature of certain bases to cover up violations of health, safety, and dumping regulations occurring on those bases (one of the claims held against Area 51 I might add)


 * Richard III of England was vilified via Black propaganda by the Tudor dynasty to justify their taking of his throne.


 * All of these in one way or another fit the definitions given by Olmsted, Hodapp, Knight, and Ayto so how are they not conspiracy theories?


 * The efforts of Parish and Keeley show that current scholars are trying to come up with some way to separate the few "rational" conspiracy theories out there from the newsgrabbing generally irrational lot. Parish's solution is to call the former "Theories of Conspiracy" while Keeley adds the terms warranted and unwarranted to separate the two but as Keeley notes in his abstract "There is no a priori method for distinguishing warranted conspiracy theories (say, those explaining Watergate) from those which are unwarranted (say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)"--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My position is less understandable by the minute?! It appears the big problem here is that you're not actually reading any of my comments. The first comment I posted in response to this definition was "If we changed 'often' to 'usually', I'm good with that definition." I then wrote "I believe you are taking things one step too far with your definition. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is primarily used to connote crazy conspiracies." I later wrote "Your definition muddies the definition of how the phrase is primarily used." Starting to see a trend here? I could go on but maybe now you get the point. How can you possibly claim my arguments are weak and therefore you've formed a consensus when you clearly have not read any of my arguments!
 * In any case, there are 5 people who have actively been arguing related to this definition, two of whom are against it. THAT IS NOT A CONSENSUS. You've not being bold, you're engaging in disruptive editing.JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * JoelWhy, you have to cite sources for your argument. Your personal opinion (as with all of us) does not count. BruceGrubb and I have provided verfiable sources for his/our argument. Whereas you have been ignoring our points and repeatedly expressing your personal opinion about this topic as some kind of obvious absolute truth. You and JohnShandy have not even been adressing the disagreement but instead are arguing against a strawman of 'breadth/frequency of usage' which is NOT nor ever has been in disagreement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Below, I'm actually repeating one of the references I previously provided. And, breadth/frequency of usage is the only thing I've been arguing since we started this latest rendition of the conversation last Thursday. It's not a straw man -- it's the entire point of my argument! If it's not in dispute, than let's fix the article to reflect that matterJoelWhy (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The perspective in this article is a US one and does not represent a world view?
As a European, a big part of the problem with the slant of this page that I am pointing to in the previous discussion topics might well be that it concentrates too heavily on an American viewpoint. Barkun's book - which so heavily influenced/s the first part of the article and seems to form the basis for the viewpoint of JohnShandy and others - is an American.

From a book review of his work 'A Culture of Conspiracy' this is written "a new style of conspiracy thinking has recently arisen, and how this phenomenon relates to larger changes in American culture. This book is the most comprehensive and authoritative examination of contemporary American conspiracism to date. "

If we make the adjustments that I and two other editors have been asking for, we could then perhaps remove the globalisation tag that states: "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.". Thoughts on that anyone?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree and Kathryn S. Olmsted's Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 (also an Oxford University Press book) touched on this special relationship on page 3.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view. Kudos to BruceGrubb! warshy<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources, while reliable, do not necessarily support the changes, which hinge on "rebalancing" the points of view (or rather, usages) of conspiracy theory, to portray the most generic and inclusive definition as the prevalent one (which is especially great if you're looking to make edits like this). BruceGrubb has talent for finding good sources and servicing us with selected quotes, but I find it interesting that when taken back into their context, as Xenophrenic pointed out, and as myself pointed out, do not support this "rebalancing" effort (which itself ignores GEVAL and UNDUE). They also ignore the malevolence of goals and power/cunningness of conspirators characterized by numerous scholars. Regarding the American systemic bias, Barkun might have great influence, but the majority of sources I have obtained that we've discussed on this talk page are written by American authors/scholars or deal with conspiracy theory in its American context. The sources often acknowledge that conspiracy theories are not exclusively an American phenomenon and touch on various aspects of them. Perhaps if these were cited more, the American-specific tag would either be senseless or otherwise alleviated.


 * Nevertheless, I think it is time to permanently bow out of this prolonged content dispute. I no longer understand how BruceGrubb is seeing support for giving more weight to the most generic and inclusive definition of conspiracy theory as the prevailing usage and characterization, and I can no longer assume good faith on the part of Mystichumwipe per his attempt to edit 9/11 conspiracy theories to label the official account of 9/11 a conspiracy theory followed by his proposed edits here as early as August or September that would legitimize such a labeling (and his expressed advocacy of such a fringe point of view here and elsewhere). I simply can't contribute anything further as it will be smothered with copy/pastes of the same contextless quotes and GEVALs. Plus, with real-life issues presently knocking at my door, it is right for me to bow out. I don't think the points of view expressed by most of the scholarly sources we've looked at are being appropriately channeled into this article, but the new consensus (of BruceGrubb and Mystichumwipe, and Mystylplx) seems to think they are, and so is moving forward anyway. So be it.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But what exactly was wrong with the academic study of Steven Sampson of Lund University, Sweden as a source? That reliable secondary source represents a European perspective! You appear to be shooting yourself in the foot. . "An ethical issue for anthropologists is whether we should accept [9.11 conspiracy theorists] as simply another "alternative" view, or try to criticize and counteract them in the name of science and reason."
 * And again who is "giving more weight" to anything?! :-o
 * The only problem as I see it is that you and Joel appear to want ONLY and exclusively to discuss the perjorative usage AS IF that was the ONLY one. Is that correct? If so that is unacceptable for the reasons (with sources) given over and over again.
 * If instead you merely think the article as it is now gives "more weight" to a neutral minority usage, please quote where it does so. I think it doesn't.
 * Just for the record, it is NOT my intent to make it do so despite your repeatedly suggesting so. This has NEVER been about making "...the most generic and inclusive definition as the prevalent one." That is a strawman which has repeatedly been explained to you (sadly to no avail).  The aim has been merely to acknowledges that there has and still DOES exist a minority neutral usage and to more clearly distinguish when the article is discussing which. Do you really have a problem with that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bring reverts to talk and stop removing the POV tag
Tom harrison and Calton, your reverts without any meaningful discussion on the talk pages with what appears to be a misunderstanding of consensus is annoying. Stop it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way Tom, that doesn't mean cluttering my personal talk page with your nonsense in an effort to get your way. I should note that I have used this article as examples to Jimbo Wales for needed clarification on VnT and consensus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It also doesn't mean to go crying to Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring in an effort to get your way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, you were engaging in edit warring and there was no consensus. That's not the way to go about improving an article. I recognize that you are editing in good faith. But, this isn't helping matters. (For the record, Bruce has been banned for 24 hours.)


 * In any case, I think we need to go back to square 1 and try to iron this out. I know my position is not so far from Bruce's, so I believe with a bit of compromise, we can get there. Also, as for the American-centric view, it's hard to say. The page should be English-centric, in the sense that we're dealing with a particular phrase, so I have no idea how the phrase "conspiracy theory" is viewed by those speaking Swahili (or, if it's even a phrase that exists in that language.) I have found one source that is dealing with CTs in the middle east, and contrasts that with by saying conspiracy theories are “the preserve of the alienated and the fringe” in the West. Well, "the West" covers all English speaking countries. But, we obviously shouldn't make any firm decisions until Bruce returns.JoelWhy (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What, if anything are your specific issues with the article as it now stands? As I see it the changes are totally in accordance with the vast amount of sources that BruceGrubb has collected and cited AND with the sources that already existed in the article. So I don't see any need for discord. The article now appears to me to be accord with everything that you have been arguing for PLUS it now also makes a clear difference between the two definitions and usages in accord with what I and two other editors have long been arguing for. So could you spell out what you see is problematical or contradictory in the changes that have been made? And can you do so in specific relation to ALL the sources cited. I think it would help if you do that without mentioning a personal opinion about what you personally think the usage and definition should be. I think it would help if we keep any further conversation very firmly grounded ONLY upon wiki criteria and their application. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC).


 * My problem from the get go has been that the definition we currently use implies that the term "conspiracy theory" is used as frequently to refer to "legitimate" theories as to crank ones. The reality is that the term is primarily used to refer to crank theories. It's a simple, yet important distinction. References:






 * (emphasis in original text)


 * I can get more references with the same understanding about how the phrase is primarily used.JoelWhy (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, regarding what you think is wrong with the definition and usage as it is now after the changes. I understand that you think the primary usage is of paramount importance and that is the crank/fringe usage. But your reply that the current changes "implies that the term 'conspiracy theory'  is used as frequently..." etc., doesn't seem to me to be warranted. Where is that implied? We have both told you that that has never been contested and I fail to see where the article (as it is now) disputes or misinform about that. If you think otherwise can you point to something in the article that you think gives a false impression about that?
 * Secondly, the definition I recently added to the lead I think now clearly refers to and explains ALL conspiracy theory definitions (as I think it should). It encompasses ALL usages of the term and it does so without making any distinction of either 'neutral' or 'perjorative' usages. If you disagree can you quote something specifically? It then makes clear in the second sentence the distinction that you are arguing for. So I don't see what is the problem with the lead? Can you explain please quoting what you see as problematical in the sentences?
 * Finally, the usage section now makes clear that there is a dual usage/meaning: a.) an original one that has a bad reputation and is less used and b.) the usage that you are arguing for. So can you explain exactly what is your problem with that? Is it that you think it shouldn't mention at all the neutral definition and should exclusively explain the perjorative usage? If so, then your argument is not acceptable because of the mass of sources that have been presented that prove that there is NOT ONLY ONE accepted current usage/definition, not now nor ever has been. And ironically I think all your citations actually support that argument that we have been making, viz.that there are TWO usages/definitions and the article should make that clear and distinguish between them. Which I think has succesfully now been done. Your first quote makes that clear but also states that there isn't a consensus worldwide. Which again supports the argument that you are pushing a largely American/Western viewpoint which seems unnecessary and goes against a  neutrality of viewpoint. And anyway, is a viewpoint - that to repeat again - is not nor ever has been disputed, not in the talkpage nor the article. So what is the problem? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out even after the ban no reverts to the version I reverted to happened Con states quite clearly "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."  In short per WP:CON the editor requesting the ban agreed with the changes I reverted to by doing nothing!--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but two different editors have voiced opposition to your changes on this talk page. I did you the courtesy of not reverting the page until your ban was complete so we could iron out the problems.    Joel Why?  talk  16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The current lead states "In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. It has also become a term often used dismissively to refer to any speculation that is considered unworthy of serious consideration." First of all, these two sentences should be merged, as they are interrelated. Secondly, my problem, as I've pointed out throughout this entire discussion, is with the definition stating "often". In football games, the underdog "often" wins. "Often" could mean 15% of the time in that context. The word "often" should be replaced with the word "primarily". I have provided citations for this. I have not argued for the complete exclusion of the far less-frequently used definition of this term, so I won't address those points you raise. I simply want to state as clearly as possible that the primary use is related to fringe beliefs. The alternative definition warrants a mention, but not a major focus of this article.

So, I would have the lead read like this: ''The term conspiracy theory refers to any hypothesis alleging members of a coordinated group worked secretly together to commit illegal, sinister or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. The term is primarily used to dismissively refer to fringe beliefs related to historical or current events which contradict the generally accepted explanation for the event. (We actually could leave off the part that says "which contradict the generally accepted explanation for the event.''", as it becomes redundant by the word "fringe".)

Obviously, we can play around with some of the language, but the 2 major points are extremely important: (1) The phrase is not usually used to refer to more accepted/plausible theories; and (2) the theories that are primarily referred to as CTs are fringe theories. The lead does not make that clear. 'Contradicting the mainstream explanation' is like saying 'using leaches contradicts mainstream medicine.' Yes, it's technically true, but it hardly captures the reality of what we're talking about.JoelWhy (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your previous reply was that the current changes "implies that the term 'conspiracy theory' is used as frequently..." etc., I explained that doesn't seem to me to be warranted and I asked you, where is that implied? You haven't answered this question. Please could you so so. Otherwise it again appears you are just arguing from some personal viewpoint that is detached from the actuality of the article.
 * Using "primarily" instead of "often" would contradict the Oxford University press (which is the first cited source), as has previously been explained to you. The Oxford University press represents a non-American perspective and is an extremely authoritative source on English language usage. Do you have an issue with using that as a source?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am not being sufficiently clear. To state this as simply as possible, "often" is too vague in this definition. "Often" could mean 20%, or 50%, or 95%. So, when it says CT "has also become a term often used dismissively," it does not provide the reader with sufficient context. The lead should clearly and succinctly explain that the the phrase is chiefly used to refer to fringe theories.


 * And, "primarily" instead of "often" does not contradict the Oxford definition; "Often" is a vague term. In this context, it could mean "primarily". It could mean a lot of things (as I explained above.) Primarily instead of often clarifies this point. I don't have an issue with using this dictionary definition as a source. But, there's no reason to use it as the only source. I have provided several citations which support the term "primarily". And, as you have stated repeatedly, no one is disputing this fact. Well, then no one should be arguing against this small, yet critical change.


 * Finally, with regard to the "American" issue, again, this is the English language Wiki dealing with a phrase used in English. There is no reason to explain how the phrase is interpreted in other languages. I am certain there are plenty of languages that have no phrase that parallels the phrase "conspiracy theory". I have seen zero evidence presented which states that this understanding of the meaning of the phrase is different in other English speaking nations. And, I have presented one citation which specifically states that the phrase is typically used to mean a fringe theory in the "West" (which covers all nations where English is the predominant language, I believe.) So, unless sources are provided which contradict this, I see this entire line of argument as an unnecessary distraction. However, if you have references which would point me to a different conclusion, I would be happy to review them.


 * You're making yourself perfectly clear. But the disagreement is about what is perceived as a slant you wish to impose, viz. that you want the article to reflect your personal viewpoint that conspiracy theories are loony fringe wacko theories and the 'correct' position is to regard them as such. That has been the slant of the article for months and no clear distinction was made between the two usages. In support of that Jayjg even denied twice that there were two usages. That distinction has now been clarified and that slant has now been corrected. You are attempting to revert that by repeatedly ignoring specific questions put to you. You are pushing the word 'primarily' in an attempt to contradict material backed up by such publishers as Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell, as has been pointed out to you previously. You have even provided a source IN ENGLISH which contradicts your own argument about usage world-wide in non-english speaking countries. You wish to ignore that by pedanctic arguments about wiki english. But... there is a reason to explain how the phrase is used in other languages if that is discussed in English sources. Which as you have demonstrated, is the case here. English is used worldwide now, due in part to the internet, and this term is used In English in non-english speaking European countries. Finally, if you really think that, "primarily" instead of "often" does not contradict the cited Oxford University Press source, then you appear to be in some form of denial. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm growing tired of explaining this to you. I can't tell if you're being purposefully obtuse or are simply not taking the time to carefully read my postings.JoelWhy (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actually reading your postings very thoroughly and carefully. And I think I am answering them quite clearly and specifically. The problem perhaps is that you just don't like the content of the reply. I can understand that. But please accept its not because I don't understand your viewpoint. Its because I disagree with it, for the reasons that I've tried to explain. PLUS you still have avoided the question that I have asked you now twice (any chance of an answer?).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which question have I "avoided"? And, I think you need to look up the definition of the word "contradicts" before you move on to trying to define "conspiracy theory".JoelWhy (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I ask you to consider that this is proof that it is in fact YOU yourself who are not reading other's posts properly. Here was the first time I asked you:. And here was the second time I asked you: "Your previous reply was that the current changes "implies that the term 'conspiracy theory' is used as frequently..." etc., I explained that doesn't seem to me to be warranted and I asked you, where is that implied? You haven't answered this question. Please could you so so. Otherwise it again appears you are just arguing from some personal viewpoint that is detached from the actuality of the article."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Bruce has now been banned for a week (and, there's good reason to think he will be permanently banned from editing this page altogether.) So, let's attempt to move forward. The major point of contention is regarding the use of the phrase CT to mean a fringe theory vs. a theory that just involves a conspiracy. I've provided several citations which support the understanding that the phrase is primarily used to reference fringe theories. I am fine with including the alternate definition so long as the article makes it clear how the phrase is primarily used. (And, as I pointed out earlier, my definition is in no way a contradiction to the Oxford definition; the substantive difference is replacing "often" with "primarily," as "often" is too vague a term.    Joel Why?  talk  17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that the Oxford Uni. Press uses the word 'often' instead of 'primarily'? What is your explanation for that? I'm serious. In light of your viewpoint how do you account for that--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, what difference does it make? We're not hear to discuss the the inner workings of lexicography. As I've pointed out, their definition is not incorrect. It's simply lacking the specific detail we need for this page. So, I've provided reliable sources which help to clarify what "often" means.    Joel Why?  talk  18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * John Shandy`'s is now above. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposal for the lead:


 * The term conspiracy theory refers to any hypothesis alleging members of a coordinated group have worked secretly together to commit illegal, sinister or wrongful acts, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. The term is primarily used to dismissively refer to fringe beliefs related to historical or current events.

I am not married to this text, and welcome any changes for clarification, etc. Joel Why? talk  18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead in the tan box above ("A conspiracy theory explains...") is thorough and accurate. In general it seems like encyclopedia articles should be about things, not words, so it might be better to avoid anything like "XXX is a term...". Also "any hypothesis alleging members of a coordinated group have worked secretly together" is basically the idea that a conspiracy theory is any theory involving a conspiracy, which isn't really the case. Tom Harrison Talk 20:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. But, my problem with the proposed lead is that it's too convoluted. I would prefer something very clear and concise, putting the more substantive information in the body of the article. I really like the first half: "A conspiracy theory...despite apparent ideological divergence." The second half is a bit much, IMO. Or, it may still belong in the lead, but as a second paragraph. So, how about something like this? "Now incorporated above. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)" I think the sentence I tacked on at the end of the first paragraph (modified from my previous proposal) may read a bit awkward, so we can play around with that. I actively want to avoid creating a false-balance related to the use of the term, while still acknowledging that it is sometimes used for more mundane explanations regarding an event.    Joel Why?  talk  21:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only objection is that the word "unnaturally" might give the impression of aliens, demons, or suchlike. Now, there are conspiracy theories dealing with such ideas, but I don't think that they constitute a majority of them. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's the case that conspiracy theory is primarily dismissive/pejorative. When Barkun or another researcher says something is a conspiracy theory, and when journalists say so based on Barkun's conclusion, they aren't using it as a pejorative to dismiss the theory's claims. Barkun, Fenster, Melly, and others are describing a social/political/psychological phenomena. It's no more dismissive to say "12 Jew bankers" is a conspiracy theory than to say hearing voices in the shower is apophenia. Beyond that, we might say "unrealisticly" powerful instead of "unnaturally," per John Carter. I'd replace "are described by scholars as sharing" with "share." In the second paragraph after "political scientists characterize" and "historians and social scientists have approached" we might mention what people in the humanities say about CT as a narrative genre. Then maybe something about popular culture, where we can mention that CT is sometimes dismissive/pejorative. Tom Harrison Talk 11:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "unrealistically." Fair point about it being dismissed. But, I do think we need to include the word "fringe" (or something akin to this) in the lead. So, even if it's not being dismissed, it generally is being referred to as a "theory" that is pretty much established to be contrary to what actually occurred.    Joel Why?  talk  12:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Fringe" or something is fine for the lead. Tom Harrison Talk 22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed text is now modified per the above discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add-in the supporting source, to match the rest of the text. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. Any objections to replacing the lead with the above text? Speak now or forever hold your peace. As a side note, I think this page really needs an FAQ so that once we get a good lead, we don't have to then have this same discussion over again 3 months from now when some new editor jumps in demanding to know why we have the "wrong" definition of conspiracy theory.    Joel Why?  talk  13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it the text in the tan box we're talking about? Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. I mean, that's the text I've been talking about. lol, I hope it's the text we've all been talking about.    Joel Why?  talk  13:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I was talking about:-) just wanted to be sure. I support the text in the tan box above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me. This is a rather idiotic, sophomoric "definition" of a term that is just a cliche, a meme in American culture (since the publication of the conclusions of the Warren Commission in 1967 or thereabouts), and that really does not even need a Wikipedia page about it. Can someone explain to me what the sentence "world events are governed by purpose" means. What are world events governed by, according to the "scholars" proposing such a definition? This is a profound philosophical question that has been pondered by man since the beginning of time, I assume, certainly since the inception of Greek philosophy in the 8th or 9th century B.C.E., and a question for which only undobting religious faith seems to have definitive answers. warshy<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You really want to argue the term "conspiracy theory" lacks notability? Really? I'm not going to even bother refuting it since it's so patently ridiculous. As for "world events are governed by purpose," it is referencing that there's a proverbial Wizards of Oz behind the curtain, directing world events. I'm not sure how you're connecting that to esoteric Greek philosophy.    Joel Why?  talk  15:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any simple current Dictionary definition of the expression is better than the proposed one, and it already exists in dozens of dictionaries, including the wiki one. My arguing that the expression is just a cliche, a meme of American culture will not change anything here, where people are going to continue this useless discussion anyhow. But if "purpose" in your view refers to the "proverbial Wizards of Oz," than I very much was mistaken. The level here is below college level, it is at the level of Hollywood and "Entertainment Tonight." Have fun with it! warshy<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's right, you're the one who showed up previously only to sing the accolades of Bruce. Thank you, your input has been invaluable.    Joel Why?  talk  16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And, the reason this useless discussion will simply continue here ad nauseam is because more than just a cliche and meme, the expression is really an obsession of American culture since the Kennedy assassination. In current American culture parlance, it is just basically used to define your opponent in any mundane political discussion as 'crazy,' as in "well, you must be a 'conspiracist' then." The very term 'conspiracist' is even being unabashedly used in this below-par WP article. warshy<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While we do of course thank the above editor for his comments, including his apparently pointless and basically useless bashing of the United States, I think it is worth noting that there are at least 5 reference books here which deal substantially and in some cases exclusively with the subject of conpiracy theories. I myself agree with Peter Milligan in his work on Shade the Changing Man that the citizens of the US are perhaps uniquely concerned with this subject, particularly since the JFK assassination, as he points out, but I would have to believe that the reference works are sufficient to establish notability, even if the theories themselves are often rather silly. WP:NOTABILITY applies whether the subject is silly or not, basically, and 4 or 5 encyclopedias on the subject is I think more than enough to establish notability. His other complaints may have some validity, but, regretably, it is hard to differentiate between his own clearly biased opinions on the subject in general and any reasonable complaints he might have.John Carter (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear this complaint has little or nothing to do with content, and a lot to do with the events surrounding our dearly departed friend, Bruce. (Seriously, the guy came back an hour later to edit his comment, solely to add the phrase "below-par".) In any case, let's continue with the more "Entertainment Tonight"-level discussion below.    Joel Why?  talk  21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding whether Warshy's comment have anything to do with content or if they constitute "american bashing", may I ask editors to consider the following quotation. If editors agree that it is taken form a reliable secondary source and that it supports Warshy's above observations, then I hope we will agree that the article should reflect this. The following quote for me again demonstrates the partial and skewed content of this article's current definition and perspective which myself and Bruce were attempting to correct: "They [conspiracy theories] are sometimes without foundation and at others beyond doubt. Moreover, as many commentators agree, conspiracy theories have long been identified as a peculiarly American obession." Conspiracy Theories in American History - An Encyclopedia. Edited by Peter Knight, Associate Editors: Robert Alan Goldberg, Jeffrey L. Pasley Larry Schweikart .--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From this same book: "The label “conspiracy theory” usually suggests that the interpretation offered is wrong. In effect the phrase is often not a neutraldescription of a form of historical analysis, as if it were just another form of historical theory along-side, say, postcolonial theory or feminist theory.Instead it usually carries an implicit accusation:there are undoubtedly conspiracy facts (the suggestion is), but in this case your view is just a conspiracy theory, a misleading speculation, and even wooly-headed thinking that verges on the mentally disturbed. Usually what lies behind the accusation is either a specific criticism that in this particular case the theory is wrong (for example, contrary to some conspiracy theories, President Roosevelt did not know in advance about the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor), or that the view of history put forward by conspiracy theories is always necessarily wrong (history in this view is not the result of a concerted plot but, to cite two popular positions, the fairly random and unpredictable interaction of countless individuals, or the predictable interplay of vast, impersonal structural forces). Looked at the other way, a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example,that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis.
 * It goes on from there, further reinforcing the definition we have provided. As for the American angle, I'm fine with including something in the article that conspiracy theories are particularly prevalent in the U.S.    Joel Why?  talk  13:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "...conspiracy theories are particularly prevalent in the U.S." I don't think that's the case. The literature I've seen pretty clearly says conspiracy theories are endemic to the middle east. Tom Harrison Talk 17:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You actually make a fair point. The belief that Jews commit blood libel is widely accepted in many middle eastern countries. There are sources which indicate it's more prominent in the U.S. than elsewhere, but, as you've pointed out, I'm not sure how well thought out this claim is. Perhaps they meant that it's more prominent in the U.S. than in most developed' countries? Regardless, without a source, we couldn't state that anyhow. And, even if conspiracism is more'' prevalent in the U.S., it is obviously rather prevalent in parts of Europe, etc, as well. So, the whole "American" angle is just not sufficiently important to mention in the lead. Let's settle the lead first, and deal with the America issue separately.    Joel Why?  talk  17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to me to be merely ignoring information that contradicts your own point of view... again. Wiki, to be neutral, has to reflect ALL current points of view. Not just the one YOU favour. The quote I provided was not made up by me. It DID state: "moreover, as many commentators agree, conspiracy theories have long been identified as a peculiarly American obession." This demonstrates that the attack against warshy's observation was unwarranted and unfair. That you can find other quotes pointing out that "conspiracism is prevalent" in other countries shows that you are not really adressing or understanding the point. The source opined that no other country has had such an obsession with explaining events in terms of conspiracy theories as the US has. It gave examples from the Salem witch trials, through to McCarythyism, to the JFK assassinations, etc. That was the observation, and it IS from a reliable secondary source. One which you appear to have failed to understand. Whether you think that is inaccurate or "American bashing" is neither here nor there and your personal viewpoints should not dictate the content of this article. This should not be a popularity-of-viewpoint-amongst-wiki-editors contest. JoelWhy and Tom Harrison you demonstrate over and over again that you do not properly understand the subject matter that you are commenting upon, nor are able to answer clear and specific points put to you, nor even appear to understand how Wiki works. Yet you get to decide the content!? No wonder BruceGrubb resigned.
 * And your own quote has: "...usually suggests that the interpretation offered is wrong. In effect the phrase is often..." etc. Note the words used were "usually" and "often" (NOT "primarily". See that? This means that there IS a another usage and definition. The changes that I myself, Brucegrubb and others have been repeatedly arguing for is that this distinction should be made clear and the article should clearly distinguish between the two usages. Not, as at present, skew the article so that this perjorative usage is discussed as if it were the ONLY current usage. How many times does this distinction mneed to be pointed out before it gets through? AND that DOES not mean trying to rehabilitate the neutral definition, so please accept that that is a misunderstanding of intent and therefore a strawman argument. C'mon! Can't we have a proper discussion about this? JohnCarter, are you still here? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mystic, I have grown tired of discussing this with you. You seem to be incapable of carefully reading the postings of other editors, meaning the discussion goes nowhere. You cherry pick tidbits of information from sources, while ignoring the substantive context presented. And then there's the moving of goal posts...I, for one, have had enough of it. I frankly don't care how biased or ignorant you think we are. I'm not going to spend any more time picking your arguments apart, because any editor can go through the discussion, see the gaping holes in your postings, and understand why the rest of us have been forced to come to a consensus which you disagree with. (And, as a side note, the only reason Bruce hasn't been banned from this topic is because he retired. You and Warshy were his only defenders, while a slew of editors and admin who have zero connection to this article voted in favor of the topic ban. But, I guess they're all biased too, right?) Moving on...    Joel Why?  talk  12:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, here's a suggestion from a passing WikiGnome: I'd take the last sentence of paragraph #1, put it below paragraph #2, and expand upon it with a couple of sentences to make it clear that there's a spectrum here, as well as to bring in the nuance from Ayto 1999 that the concept gained its adverse connotation in the middle of the 20th century. (You can co-source both to page vii of ISBN 9780275994624.   cites Knight 2000 and Parish+Parker 2001.)  It's a shame that Emilia Bakola's  is only a doctoral thesis.  It makes the points, on pages 130 et seq., that the concept of a conspiracy theory has stigmata that mark it in comparison to "dominant ideologies of normalcy and rational behaviour", that the "overgeneralized use &#91;of the appellation&#93; can often mask the heterogenity that characterizes conspiracy, paranoia, and fetishism", and that "there are different types of fetishim, paranoia, and conspiracy theory". Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can some other editor comment on this please? Perhaps John Carter?
 * It seems a peculiar thing that questions and arguments can be ignored in this way. We are supposed to be here for resolving differences. JoelWhy's arguments have been clearly refuted. Again. And yet the response is that it is I who am not reading posts correctly?! :-o 1.) The use of often and usually over primarily  has now again been demonstrated from another reliable source. Yet this is ignored. 2.) no reply at all to the reliable source that clearly and specifically states that: "...many commentators agree, conspiracy theories have long been identified as a peculiarly American obsession."
 * This I think demonstrates the nature of discussion here: an ignoring of specific details, an ignoring of specific questions, but  still claiming to have the correct view without the specific supporting source material to demonstrate that. Just an appeal to unspecified "substantive context". Can this be addressed please? Otherwise how can this be said to be a reaching of consensus?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What is considered problematical with the current lead?
The lead/intro at present in my opinion accomadates all the views that have been expressed here on the talk page. It fixes the problems that myself an other editors had with the previous one, and it doesn't contradict the views of the editors who approved the old one. So what exactly needs reverting? I have repeatedly asked editors who have any problems with it to discuss them here. And I again invite that in a spirit of compromise. At present we only have had one specific complaint (with the requested quotation of the perceived problem) and that was about the word often instead of primarily. That has now been adjusted pending further discussion. So can editors express what if anything is considered problematical that still remains with the lead as it is now?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented above. Tom Harrison Talk 11:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could see a problem with the word "malevolent". It is rather clearly judgemental. I think there have been at least a few conspiracy theories which have apparently had as an objective something that might be perceived as the greater good. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, something like "self-serving" might work better. That word would apply even to those who think that what they are doing is in the greater good. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear John. If you think so can you then please comment upon the recently reverted definition/lead of mine which didn't have this problem and also was more in accord with virtually all current dictionary definions including wiktionary. I myself think the whole article now comes from that same 'judgemental' angle. It appears to me to be pushing the view that the derogatory use of this term is the only currently acceptable one. Which has been demonstrated to be false with a great deal of sourcing by BruceGrubb. The following quote I feel demonstrates the current lead and usage sections to be partial and therefore misleading (false). I would be interested in your comment:
 * "''Although often dismissed as the delusions of extremists, the possibility of a conspiracy has repeatedly been at center stage in U.S. politics and culture. From the Revolutionary leaders' suspicions about British plots to the Anti-Masonic Party of the 1830s, and from the anticommunism of the 1950s to the alien abduction narratives of the 1990s, ideas of conspiracy have made a vital contribution, for better or for worse, to the story of U.S. political life. In short, conspiracy theories are a popular explanation of the workings of power, responsibility, and causality in the unfolding of events." - Conspiracy Theories in American History - An Encyclopedia. Preface. Pg.xi.
 * N.B. Nothing there about malevolence nor use of other exagerrated terminology, plus please note also the acceptance that the term is NOT primarily derogatory nor refers to primarily nutbar, whacko fringe theories (i.e. the use of the word "often" there again and NOT "primarily" demontrates that Joel has been pushing a point of view in contradiction of authorative sources.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional topics to be included: depopulation conspiracy
One conspiracy that is fairly popular in Net discussion forum is the depopulation conspiracy. Summaries can be found on Population reduction conspiracy theory and Georgia Guidestones. This should probably be included in the main article. MaxPont (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracism
The link 'conspiracism' points back to Conspiracy theory', so it points back to itself. I'm removing it. 71.139.164.10 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good find. Conspiracism used to be a separate article and was merged into this one, so there's probably a few remnants like that throughout the wiki that'll be weeded out over time.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

bias
The link to right-wing conspiracy theories at the end of this page lead me to far-left wing website. that is not cool. could you people be more neutral ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.75.30.177 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "you people" would include you. If you think its a problem, remove it. Be Bold and all that what not. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As expected, this article is certainly bias against people who actually believe in conspiracies. Were the Holocaust and American Slavery not conspiracies? It seems as though no person can rationally and logically say those events were not conspired. This article assumes and insinuates that people only establish conspiracy theories due to the need for self-gain, because of psychological disorders , or sociological trends that they themselves are not consciously aware of. It dismisses the educated awareness of the freedom fighters of the American Revolution as paranoia from social unrest ; when in reality, most grand theories about anything come from smaller facts being pieced together , not from paranoid delusion. Several conspiracy theories throughout history have been proven as authentic factual conspiracies. Were those individuals or groups of theorists ever vindicated? Or is it just easier and more comfortable to continue to write them off as mentally unstable? This article SHOULD be a solid reference to what a conspiracy theory actually is. It is not always an injured Vietnam vet ranting about the general injustice, corruption, and evil in society. It's not always the pot smoking hippy who claims extra terrestrials are controlling our planet... (Christians say the same thing in different words, but we don't apply the same stigma to their theories).It's definitely not the homeless drug addicts with cardboard signs preaching the End Of Days. A conspiracy theory is just that. Literally: a theory that two or more people are conspiring toward a common goal. Much like scientific hypotheses in experiments, conspiracy theories are a means of coming to more accurate conclusions about reality, especially when numerous pieces of intelligence are proven to coincide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.139.241 (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

More broadly
In the opening paragraph there is a dubious sentence: "or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public" Where that broader definition has come from? What is the original source? Are there any references? Uikku (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In this instance, I think the lede functions as a summary of the cited information in the body of the article. I did not craft this sentence, but I think it is a good summary... although I would suggest changing "important" to "certain". What do you find troublesome with it? Location (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The trouble I found is simply this: Are there some credible sources that support that definition or is it original research, an idea that was constructed by the writer of that sentence? I could have put simply a fact tag there but instead I chose that dubious tag. So, where has that definition come from? That is the problem. Uikku (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition (i.e. the lede) is a summary of the of the cited information already in the body of the article. Per WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." There are many different sources in the article, so I guess we need to know if the challenge is with "broadly", "important", "political, social or economic events", "products of secret plots", or "largely unknown to the general public". If there is a sincere challenge to a particular aspect, it should be cited. In this case, obtaining a single, cited definition isn't terribly realistic in that it would force us to choose between definitions that are very slightly different. (Edit: The lede here is almost identical to the Dictionary.com/Random House definition: ) Location (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What is it actually called when it is true?
The controversy section has the following line "It's not a conspiracy theory if it's actually true" which pretty much sums up how the term is presented. But if a conspiracy actually exists then what IS it actually called? Courts have convicted the 5 only (at the time, currently only 4 remain) RAM manufacturers of conspiring to price fix and sell at a loss to eliminate an upstart called RAMBUS. Courts ruled that intel has conspired with OEMs to lock out AMD from selling their products. What are such things called then since they have been judged to be true? What of the countless people caught and convicted of conspiring to overthrow the government or assassinate a leader? What about the cases that didn't go to court like when a cabal of rich land owners in the colonies secretly conspired to revolt against the lawful rule of the ... Typically referred to as founding/independence/revolutionary war by residents of the USA, mexico, canada, india, and many nations in Africa? Taltamir (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I imagine that a conspiracy theory that is true is called a conspiracy, but content in Wikipedia requires verifiability. As this applies to the "Controversy" section, I have removed the following uncited material from the article:
 * The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the object of a type of conspiracy theory, which argues that those using the term are manipulating their audience to disregard the topic under discussion, either in a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth, or as dupes of more deliberate conspirators.[citation needed]
 * When conspiracy theories are offered as official claims (for example, originating from a governmental authority, such as an intelligence agency) they are not usually considered as conspiracy theories. For example, certain activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee may be considered to have been an official attempt to promote a conspiracy theory, yet its claims are seldom referred to as such.[citation needed]
 * Further difficulties arise from ambiguity regarding the term "theory". In popular usage, this term is often used to refer to unfounded or weakly based speculation, leading to the idea that "It's not a conspiracy theory if it's actually true".
 * I have no objection to placing this material back in the article if appropriate sourcing is found per WP:RS. - Location (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

By definition
Wiktionary defines "Conspiracy" (in part), as "The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal...".

So the knowledge of, or a belief that 2 or more persons, working secretly to obtain some goal(without factual proof), would by definition be a conspiracy theory.

There is no requirement for a government cover-up for a conspiracy theory to exist (or even to be true).

The term is often appplied pejoratively (negatively) to discredit the opinion of one, in favour of a popular theory (i.e. it is just conspiracy theory nonsense that a large petrochemical company exploits the the "greenies" to hide its activites).

I would liked to have seen this article a lot less negatively biased and in a less derisive sense than in which it is currently presented.

199.46.245.230 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear user at IP199.46.245.230: It would be helpful if you could identify specifically what language in the article you are having a problem with, and why you think it violates a Wikipedia rule. Famspear (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also feel the article has an excessively negative slant. I am going to "be bold" and edit the first sentence to try to address it. RVS (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What in particular do you find negative? Location (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate wikilink? (One of these doesn't belong)
The "Types" section talks about systematic conspiracies, such as the "alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists", linking to Judeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory, Masonic_conspiracy_theories Vatican_conspiracy_theories, Red_Scare, and Ruling_class respectively. One (possibly two) of these doesn't belong: the first three are all refer to alleged conspiracies by specific groups, but the concept a ruling class is not inherently related to conspiracy theories (and doesn't necessarily need capitalism either). (And the "Red Scare" for that matter involves more than just conspiracy theories). I'm not sure what "capitalism" should link to - maybe Crony capitalism if you want to refer generally to the more plausible conspiracies, Bilderberg Group/Trilateral_ Commission for real groups allegedly involved in conspiracies, or New World Order (conspiracy theory) for the more far-out alleged conspiracies. Iapetus (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is safe to remove the communism and capitalism wikilinks there. Another problem is that the information in the section is appropriately attributed to Michael Barkun, however, it is also 99% copied verbatim from his book. That also needs to be re-written/paraphrased appropriate, or placed in quotes. Location (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the lede
The current lede is "A conspiracy theory purports to explain an important social, political, or economic event as being caused or covered up by a covert group or organization."

Two problems:

1. Conspiracy theories are not limited to "important events." For example, Area 51 aliens are a conspiracy theory with no strong connection to an important historical event. 2. The lede should really make mention of the fact that the term is pejorative, and that calling something a conspiracy theory is as good as flatly denying its truth. 66.224.70.107 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed "important." We'll have to look at citations for adding 'pejorative,' but I tend to agree.    Joel Why? (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Various definitions of "conspiracy theory" have been proposed by academics and authors, but other academics and authors acknowledge that there is no universal definition (e.g., ). The lede may need to begin with the acknowledgement that there is no universally accepted definition. Location (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Content removed from article
I've removed these two sentences from the article page: the first is unsourced, and the second is sourced to a self-published site.
 * "The term is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at "stealing" power, money, or freedom, from "the people"."
 * "Conspiracy theories are based on the notion that complex plots are put into motion by powerful hidden forces."Daniel Pipes dot org  petrarchan47  t  c   06:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Proven conspiracies and conspiracy theories
This section is missing the information it purports to convey. Are there none? 85.241.21.184 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Granted there are. The issue comes in separating the more common use of "Conspiracy Theory" (e.g. Area 51, Aliens, etc.) from more literal definitions that are merely conspiracies (e.g. The Rosenbergs), because, due to the nature of conspiracy theories and the theorists behind them, there tend to be conspiracy theories for virtually every conceivable event (some more general than others, and not to mention people who are payed to think up the more believable varieties), and due to the Law of Large Numbers, at least a few happen to be right, regardless of whether they were widespread, notable, or even worthy if consideration beforehand. Therefore the problem arises in distinguishing an idle speculation that turned out to be right and became well-publicized and actual "conspiracy theories" (using the common sense here) proven correct. Deus Ex Logica (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * True and Rationalwiki's Conspiracy theory article tries to address the difference between "Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location" and "the US Government is hiding alien technology at Area 51" though it is debatable it is does any better job then this article does.--216.31.124.114 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement does not appear to reflect source material
Rel Psychological origins, it doesn't appear the negative statement, "a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another," is supported by the Goertzel article, so I am removing it. The first statement is clearly what the article is about. In reading the article, I don't see anything about the negative statement, however. That is a lot trickier to infer. If someone else sees that, please point to the place in the article that supports it when adding it back. I am also adding page numbers from the article that refer to the positive statement. Paavo273 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Micheal Barkan is not a neutral source
Micheal Barkan, the man who wrote the book "The Racist Right", is not a neutral scholar that Wikipedia should be quoting blindly as a credible source. Yes, he may be respected in many far-left circles, but his "science" is far too tainted by his ideology to be reliable. The whole paragraph about him should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.196 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean Barkun. When criticising someone, try to get their name right.
 * I disagree entirely. A scholar's political views, even if they have written in support of those views, are irrelevant to their usefulness as a source on unrelated matters. Barkun's views on the radical right are not the same as his views on conspiracism. A key skill in being a researcher is using the relevant parts of a source, and ignoring the irrelevant. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Barkun's views and his body of work overall are relevant. It doesn't necessarily mean his ideas should be tossed, but if what he stands for, especially including about conspiracy theory, is outside the mainstream of thought, it would be reasonable to include a discussion of his bias(es) that are connected to his views cited in the article, to qualify his ideas.  In this particular article, there is quite a diversity of thought; it doesn't appear that any one author, including Barkun, is coloring the content of the article to the point of violating WP:NPOV.  But I could be wrong.  Although I think 129.63.129.196's solution is precipitant, an investigation of the leanings or biases of all the authors would be good.  It's especially interesting in an emotion-fraught subject like this one when scholars attack one another as in, e.g., West and Sanders on Pipes. Paavo273 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Placement of material added to article--Walker (2013)
Thanks to the esteemed contributor for your added material. It appears (I did not personally check the source) that the added info meets or exceeds WP standards for inclusion in the article. The objection, however, is that it was added to the introduction of the article. This contribution clearly appears to parallel other ideas and theories about the article subject, rather than contemplate or encompass what follows in the body of the article. (This is a very common phenomenon on WP, and has happened before to this article.) I've cut and pasted the new contribution verbatim into its own section with its own heading in the body of the article. Paavo273 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Headings
Rather than get into an edit war, can we discuss the title length here? I'd like to add my voice to those who think they should be shorter rather than longer. For an encyclopedia, I'd try to keep them to 3-5 words at most unless there's good reason. Per MOS:SECTIONHEADING, which refers us back to the Article titles section, section headings should be nouns or noun phrases, not full-fledged descriptions. – RobinHood70 <sup style="line-height:0">talk 20:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The overall structure of the article needs improvement. This is where these long titles come from. There should be sections with sub sections. For example: We have 3 articles for "conspiracy", we could try to divide the content over those and see what is left. But thats just an example, I'm sure there are many ways to improve the structure of the article. When that happens we can also "summarize the content in the lead". 84.106.26.81 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)