Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 18

Article info re-deleted by user Jytdog

 * here is the content. fixed sectioning so it would fall under this subsection. sourcing is not useable or unreliable:

Controversy
The general discussion of conspiracy theory is itself a matter of some public contention. "Conspiracy theorists on the internet are often dismissed as a "fringe" group, but evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today—traversing ethnic, gender, education, occupation, and other divides—gives credence to certain conspiracy theories."

Distinguishing from institutional analysis
Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behavior of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, for example, scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals.

distinguishing from structuralism
The term can also be used to dismiss what are in fact substantial and well-evidenced accusations. The legitimacy of each such usage will therefore be a matter of some controversy. Michael Parenti, in his 1996 essay which examines the role of progressive media in the use of the term, "The JFK Assassination II: Conspiracy Phobia On The Left", states, ""It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a 'conspiracist' who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces.""

Complications occur for terms such as UFO, which literally means "unidentified flying object" but connotes alien spacecraft, a concept also associated with some conspiracy theories, and thus possessing a certain social stigma. Parenti gives an example of the use of the term which underscores the conflict in its use. He states, ""In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.""

for discussion of the above
What is "Harry G. West pp 4"? Why are you citing blogs like "questionsquestions.net"? zenasecureforums.net?? Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is the wholesale deletion of the material in the first place after it had been part of the article's stable version for probably 6 or 8 years. I agree if the sources are deficient and ref tags are added and then allowed to season and nobody ever comes up with better sources, then it WOULD BE appropriate to delete the material. Paavo273 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume the editor to whom you are referring in the previous section is LuckyLouie. There is nothing neutral or academic about Parenti's approach to this subject. The generalization of those with left-leaning viewpoints and the assertion that the CIA is inherently conspiratorial (i.e. causes or covers up, through secret planning and deliberate action, illegal or harmful events or situations ) fails WP:REDFLAG. - Location (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Church Committee investigation of 1974 established beyond question that the CIA was extensively involved in covert activities that were (1) harmful to American citizens (2) beyond the CIA's legal authorization (3) in violation of the US law (4) in violation of the civil rights of many Americans, and (5) in violation of the sovereignty of other nations. The reports produced by that committee are "exceptional sources" and are beyond question.  Reputable secondary sources and summaries of those reports would be very helpful and should be easy to find. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Parenti is not arguing your point that the CIA committed acts that were illegal or harmful. By asserting that the CIA is "an institutionalized conspiracy", he is arguing that the essence of the CIA is to covertly commit illegal and harmful acts. The definition of "conspiracy" includes "covert" and "illegal", but Parenti suggests that they are synonymous. Although "most" CIA operations may be covert, it is not verifiable that "most" CIA operations are illegal. - Location (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That would indeed be a very hard point to prove. Thanks! Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , Incidentally, "covert" is not an essential element of conspiracy. It certainly describes most covert activities, but secrecy is not essential.  The American Revolution was broadly described as a "conspiracy" by the British, even though very little of it was kept in secret. Conspiracy is an agreement among a plurality of actors to commit an evil or illegal act. Neither is "covert" an element of the criminal definition, and a moment's thought will indicate why. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The definition of conspiracy theory includes "secret" which in this context is synonymous with "covert". - Location (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . It doesn't, really. Neither civil conspiracy nor criminal conspiracy requires secrecy, though the plans are often made in secret. A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.  In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense.  Secrecy is a common, though not essential, element. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede currently states:
 * A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.
 * Is this what you are proposing?
 * A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.
 * - Location (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. "typically taken to be" is a circumlocutory distraction.  Also, the "accuses" sort of implies the conspirators are identified, when often they are not.  Consider this:"A conspiracy theory is an hypothesis that two or more persons, a group, or an organization caused or covered up, through deliberate cooperation, a destructive, harmful, or illegal act."A bit simpler.  What do you think? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Eliminating "secret" or "covert" is fine if that is what reliable sources state, however, the article's second reference, for example, states: "a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organization made up of individuals or groups was or is acting covertly to achieve a malevolent end." As another, Knight et al, state: "A straightforward definition of a conspiracy is when a small group of powerful people combine together in secret to plan and carry out an illegal or improper, particularly one that alters the course of events." (p. 15). Emphasis mine. - Location (talk)
 * The epistemology is the question. Here is the Black's Law Dictionary definition -- still secrecy is not required. Even when we speak of a conspiracy theory, obviously the conspiracy is not a secret to everyone: The conspirators must know of the plot.  In that respect, is just like any crime.  If X is a house prowler, check forger, criminal hacker, poisoner, mercenary assassin, pilferer, shoplifter, child molester, serial rapist, cannibal -- X must keep his activities unknown to the police in order to continue, else he will be arrested and stopped. If we got careless, we might define secrecy as part of all of those crimes, but that would be misplaced. Now in the term conspiracy theory, we are usually dealing with an hypothesis that is difficult or impossible to prove by the person who holds the hypothesis -- hence it is "secret" from the point of view of the person who holds the theory.However, since we have RS who have done exactly that displacement, their definitions should be included.  But the definitions should stand side by side, not replacing each other. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, as this source indicates on the bottom of page 33, there is a difference between the meaning of conspiracy in a legal context and the meaning of conspiracy in the context of conspiracy theories. Perhaps this difference should be mentioned in the article. Incidentally, their definition of conspiracy theory on page 32 again refers to secrecy. - Location (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that definition is not correct. The "secrecy" part of a conspiracy theory is inherent in the "theory" word, not the conspiracy word.  I don't know whether it is true because I can't know whether it is true, but I have a theory that there is a conspiracy ... If I could know it was true, it wouldn't be just a theory, it would be a fact, but it would still be a conspiracy. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper, this article is about the subject of "conspiracy theory ". Are you proposing to change the lede? - Location (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, Glenn D. Walters cites Webster's Third New International Dictionary and states that the "three principal components" to the definition of "conspiracy" are "group, secrecy, and malevolence". I don't think this means we should pick and choose one academic over another, but rather expand discussion of the definition and cite various academics. - Location (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "the assertion that the CIA is inherently conspiratorial (i.e. causes or covers up, through secret planning and deliberate action, illegal or harmful events or situations)"
 * Eh why is this an exceptional claim? It's an intelligence agency. The CIA was involved in hundreds of operations where secrecy was obvious. And as for the conspirational, the Rockefeller Commission was set up for that. The harmful part seems obvious but reminds me of Operation Northwoods. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy is a plan to commit either a harmful OR illegal act, but harm and illegality should be synonymous in a democracy. The Church Committee examined a number of the CIA's secret programs and confirmed that many operations were illegal. The CIA got way out of hand as most secret programs do, and is still way out of hand, as confirmed by the recent court decision that the Patriot Act did not authorize warrantless surveillance on the general population of the United States. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bataaf van Oranje, this discussion revolves around a quote from Michael Parenti:
 * In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.
 * As Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper has pointed out, the definition of "conspiracy" in this context includes "harmful" or "illegal". When Parenti states that covert operations - such as those conducted by the CIA - are conspiracies, he has falsely constructed the idea that covert operations must be harmful or illegal. I understand that Parenti may want to highlight the misgivings of the CIA, but there is very little relevance to the subject of "conspiracy theory". As far as I can tell, the passage was in a section entitled "Controversy" that by title and content was a heavy mix of WP:SYNTH. - Location (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since its inception, the CIA has conducted a number of both harmful and illegal activities. The Church Committee investigated, denounced, and terminated many such in 1974. The Rockefeller Committee fingered more in about 1976.  The recent Project Echelon has been found illegal in court.  The programs included experimenting with illegal drugs on unknowing US citizens to illegal domestic spying and circumventing the FISA court -- and many things in between. I do not have the Michael Parenti text to confirm, but I speculate we will find much of that in greater detail with sources and references in that text -- or in others of better quality.  The problem here is merely not the best, or insufficient, selection from RS. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see the point he is trying to make though. When an effort is made to spread falsehoods about a major political event, it would arguably be a conspiracy. Compare the 1953 Iranian coup. This is basically the purpose of the agency, and unless I misunderstand he makes a valid point. But I don't agree with the somewhat bizarre part: "It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a 'conspiracist' who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces." Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you stating the purpose of the CIA is to commit harmful or illegal acts? - Location (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. As tempting as it may be to really dig into this debate, let us refrain. We deal only with the documented fact that in its short history, the CIA has engaged in many harmful and illegal acts and programs (conspiracies) that have been denounced by Congressional committees, courts of law, and international bodies(?). Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course this is not a forum, but you brought up what appears to be Parenti's premise: the CIA has engaged in harmful and illegal acts and that is proof that their purpose is commit harmful or illegal acts. That's an opinion that is not relevant to this article. - Location (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The CIA does it, and that is proves the CIA's purpose is to do it? I don't think that is logical.  Many lawyers lie in court, but we are far from proving that lying in court is the purpose of lawyering. Our interest in Wikipedia is only the facts, not in arguments that might be drawn from the facts. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sound like we are in agreement. - Location (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of this talk page reads like a bunch of old women (or men) or first year law students bickering over minutiae. Or even NOTHING. It's irrelevant what editor broke WP's fundamental editing rules.  The problem is that it HAPPENED AND KEEPS HAPPENING.  The example I gave was the improper removal of uncontroversial sourceable material attributable to Chomsky, without the courtesy and without following the WP guideline of placing a cite tag.
 * Sofixit definitely applies here, too. How many of the arguers ad infinitum have actually contributed new material to this article?  That would be a good start to building an encyclopaedia, as opposed to deleting sourced or easily-sourceable material you don't like.  Someone, in this thread I think, said we're interested in FACTS.  IMHO, what would be even more germane is CONTRIBUTING SOURCED FACTS to the article.  After doing actual research.  There seems 2B if not consensus at least some sort of agreement that the CIA engages in A LOT of conspiracies and has for most of its existence.  There's LOTS of scholarly sources on point.
 * I agree with whoever said IT'S NOT A FORUM. If you have NEW sourced info to add, please do.  Otherwise leave the article alone.
 * As with a lot of controversial article topics on WP, there always seem to be editors who love to hijack an article according to their own POV, just because they can. Without actually contributing meaningful content. Paavo273 (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You state that others are "bickering over minutiae" yet here you are. Regarding Chomsky, Jytdog already addressed your inquiry and you appeared to agree that the "sources are deficient". - Location (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Deficient sources or even MISSING sources are not a license to delete. That's what God made cite tags for. (Please see link above.) Only if the material is unsourceABLE should it be deleted.  AFAICT, it probably was not ignorance of WP rules that led to the deletion, however.   Paavo273 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of ignorance of WP rules, there are various policy-based reasons to remove material, including violations of WP:V which states that material must come from reliable sources. There are a plethora of academic sources discussing "conspiracy theory", so the only reason to be this discouraged with the removal of these sources is if they don't fit your particular POV. - Location (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Locating the rule is a good start! What would be even more helpful to an editor's contributions is READING AND UNDERSTANDING the rule (AGFing as WP says we must).  A good starting place after the intro would be the first main section of the rule you cite, especially the third paragraph: Responsibility for providing citations.  And this is not directed mainly at you personally (other than to the extent that you brought it up/cited it).  There's a lot of disregard of the verifiability rule.  And a lot of cherry-picking from the rule.  And a lot of ignorance of the rules overall.  Across the project. Paavo273 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100604093513/http://www.america.gov/conspiracy_theories.html to http://www.america.gov/conspiracy_theories.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Influence of critical theory
This section is almost entirely made up. Latour's paper is a critique of critical theory and he simply uses conspiracy theories to illustrate how structurally similar conspiracy theory arguments are to critical theory arguments. But, there is no claim that critical theory has influenced conspiracy theories. The claims made in this section are not to be found in the paper cited. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
I don't see what the stuff I have reverted adds but I would like to hear reasons why it belongs. Per WP:BRD I have deleted it, twice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hostile, WP:DOREVERT, WP:DONTREVERT. anyhow, it expands on dismissive usage of the phrase, as quoted by the book, which by the way was already used as a resource for another statement in the article. the section is about that, isn't it? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement in question appears to be this: "Michael Parenti argues that Noam Chomsky uses 'conspiracy theory' as a dismissive label to silence political opponents and to deliberately set up for disparagement the perfectly legitimate investigations by linking them to motifs which have come to symbolize the irrationality of conspiracy theories." This article is not about Chomsky or Parenti's view of Chomsky. It doesn't belong here. - Location (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Other authors, like Rebecca Moore, are quoted.. so where's the difference? Why is Kennedy example justified, Nixon example justified, and Chomsky's usage for Kennedy investigations not justified? After all, Chomsky is well known expert on linguistics, language, and public discourse and Manufacturing Consent. In fact, Chomwky's opinion has a whole section in this article! Statement could be made shorter though... 178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Location has summed up my thoughts nicely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Upon close examination I find that Rebecca Moore is selectively quoted (or one might say cherry picked) to make it sound as if she condemns 'conspiracy theory' as an unfair and dismissive label, when she actually goes on to describe at length the paranoid irrational qualities of the vast bulk of conspiracy theories in general. The article does require a brief and reliably-sourced mention of the concept that "conspiracy theory" has occasionally been used unfairly. But this concept should not be given undue weight with selective or out-of-context quotes, especially ones from Michael Parenti. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you include sources only from 'institutional view' supporters, you will never get a source for dismissive usage, will you? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE and WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not WP:UNDUE, on contrary.. Both are notable for their work which is very much relevant to this article. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea of what you mean by "'institutional view' supporters", but there are various academic sources that discuss "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist", and the use of the terms as pejoratives. Moore, in fact, offers a general statement in which she alludes to the use of "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory" in two different contexts, and one of those contexts is as a pejorative. - Location (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If Moore uses the term with both connotations, citing only one (as though that were Moore's view) does not comport with WP:NPV. This whole page is tilted to discourage suspicion of politically powerful people, while the politically powerful people themselves accuse everyone else in the world of conspiring against THEM. Just to name a few of the oft-cited anti-power conspiracies appearing regularly in popular media, there are KKKristians, Muslim International This, Muslim Brotherhood That, Antisemitic So-and-sos, Mafia Nostras, Ultra-Whitewing Gunnits, Trade Unionists, the Gun Lobbyists, Central American Drug Gang, LLC., and Anonymous Hackers Inc.  It's all a little odd and off-balance. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You state that the "whole page is tilted to discourage suspicion of politically powerful people, while the politically powerful people themselves accuse everyone else in the world of conspiring against THEM", yet you want to remove an academic source that acknowledges that the term is at times used derogatorily. That is odd. - Location (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, you are confused between the remarks of different editors. I do not advocate removing any sources. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Awesome, than he will also reply to my reply instead of you... as I see you don't have one. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with his/her reasoning is all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So to argue Location's argument: This article is not about Chomsky or Parenti's view of Chomsky. It appears this article does have Chomsky's view on 'conspiracy theory', and views of other authors of people using 'conspiracy theory', and yet, somehow it should not have view of an author i provided on Chomsky's usage of 'conspiracy theory'!? Does this appear to be arbitrary and cherry picking? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The view that "conspiracy theory" is used dismissively as a pejorative is not unique to Parenti's or his view of Chomsky. Inserting that statement in the middle of a discussion about its use as a pejorative is not necessary. The reader is left to wonder why the article is switches gears to talk about Parenti's views of Chomsky, then switches back to discuss the pejorative use of the term. In other words, the insertion of that material is what is arbitrary. - Location (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This statement is not only about its pejorative usage, but about its deliberate use to dismiss political opponents, which is another and stronger usage. It expands on Rebeca's view, and also is relevant as later section talks about Chomsky's view. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And how is that unique to Chomsky (e.g. )? A more thorough discussion of that point can be found in various academic sources (e.g. ). One other thing. You wrote:
 * " Michael Parenti argues that Noam Chomsky uses 'conspiracy theory' as a dismissive label to silence political opponents and to deliberately set up for disparagement the perfectly legitimate investigations by linking them to motifs which have come to symbolize the irrationality of conspiracy theories."
 * And this is what Byford wrote:
 * "Parenti argued that Chomsky uses 'conspiracy theory' as a dismissive label to silence political opponents, and that he deliberately sets up for disparagement the perfectly legitimate investigations into the plot to assassinate Kennedy by linking them to motifs which have come to symbolize the irrationality of conspiracy theories."
 * This is both a copyright violation and a misrepresentation of the original quote. - Location (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I wrote above statement should be even shorter.. not a copyright violation as it is not under quotes, and also not a misrepresentation, as JFK was mentioned in previous sentence. It is not unique to Chomsky, but Chomsky is renowned scholar, Hillary Clinton is just a (lying) polititian. Parenti seems to be just as academic as Coady, judging by google scholar citations. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, not using quotation marks for copied material is still a copyright violation. Dropping a phrase from the quotation only misrepresents the quote; it doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation. Second, if you truly wish to make the point that "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss political opponents (not just Chomsky), then Coady or some other academic source would be a much better source. - Location (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Section currently writes: ... in the aftermath of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, it has acquired a derogatory meaning,.. and somehow you think citing an example of the reason why that specific conspiracy theory is used in derogatory way is irrelevant? I don't understand why you think Michael Parenti is not a scholar? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, we have a reliable secondary source (Byford) that shows there is at least some independent awareness of Parenti's "I believe JFK was killed by a government conspiracy so don't dismiss all conspiracy theories" assertion ....but only as part of a larger discussion by Byford regarding the epistemic threshold between real and bogus conspiracies. Extracting only Parenti's POV from Byford's narrative would be misrepresenting the source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's another one but not sure why it would be any more valid than above? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Who has made the argument that it would be less valid? I cannot access the full article, but it appears to be written by two academics at Boise State. - Location (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This dissertation has a good list of resources at the end, grouped by official vs 'conspiracy theory' view.. not that those articles lack resources.. they have hundreds of them!. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait. Are we trying to use this article as a platform for discussing the JFK assassination? - Location (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * nope, there's separate article for that. JFK was onset of term usage, and that's why it is mentioned in the article.. you were mentioning other scholars, i thought i found a decent resource.. 89.216.22.102 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not usable here, though. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This RS seems to have the credentials. What is your objection, Guy? Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sure opponents have double-checked every statement in the article the way they are scrutinizing the one I proposed. :) 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I will admit that I stopped reading after the first sentence: "Despite growing evidence to the contrary over the last fifty years, the mainstream media in America have stubbornly clung to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and was himself murdered there two days later by Jack Ruby, who also was acting alone." - Location (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC) - Location (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I know how it is. The soul simply revolts at such heresy. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, conspiracies are only in our heads. I stopped reading after  in a Central Intelligence Agency “benign cover-up” .. no way CIA would cover up anything.. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the article, we should not be adding material that's sympathetic to the fringe backlash against the use of the term "conspiracy theory". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks for the link, it is very informative, especially the video! I wondered why people here resist to alternative info, maybe they are subscribers to NSA checks as well :P But wait, are you opposing global research as a source (nobody provided it) or Cass Sunstein as a credible author ? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The question here is definition. Do you call such sources "fringe" because they lack credentials, or are they "fringe" because they oppose the Comintern Pentagon? Please explain. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit I was puzzled by what JFK and the CIA have to do with conspiracy theory as a term -- until I read the link, which makes it clear that fringers believe the CIA launched a program to discredit conspiracy theorists after the JFK assassination by actively demeaning the phrase "conspiracy theory" with the help of mainstream media, corrupt politicians, etc. I don't think we even need to discuss why stuff such as this qualifies as WP:FRINGE under Wikipedia's editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read WP:FRINGE. It doesn't suggest what you propose. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The objection is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source, we rarely include dissertations as sources in articles, especially when so many other sources are already cited. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right, Sunstein's paper, which by the way supports a 'fringe' view that CT's should be taxed, and similar nonsense, gets the whole paragraph in this article, and yet a common perception among CTer's which I cited is more 'fringe'? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you did not get it right. The Sunstein/Vermeule article does not support the view that the government should tax those who disseminate conspiracy theories. Their answer is the more nefarious sounding "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups". How the government should respond to conspiracy theories is a legitimate topic of discussion and should be expanded upon. This article certainly does not do it justice. Rather than use a quote that gives weight to the hypothetical responses in the introduction to their discussion about cognitive infiltration, perhaps this article should actually discuss what they had to say about cognitive infiltration.
 * Regarding the dissertation, I still haven't seen a specific argument for what material you would like to include. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable, but I agree with Guy that Wikipedia usually frowns on dissertations. You could always take this to WP:RSN, but again you will need to reference specific material. - Location (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you didn't read the article for this talk page then. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have, now stop being so vague. This is not a forum. Are you proposing to remove the material, add to the material, or leave it as is? - Location (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * i didn't link to dissertation for the sake of it, but for the sake of sources it provides on the bottom. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So there is nothing in particular that you want to cite to the dissertation, but rather you are just pointing out that the dissertation has a list of sources in its bibliography. Is that right? - Location (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you asked for more sources. I thought the one i provided was enough.. but you keep complaining about its merit just to avoid adding a sentence to the article. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't recall asking for more sources. What is the sentence that you wish to attribute to the dissertation? - Location (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My bad, it was LuckieLouie.. anyhow, this source from dissertation can further strenghten some points about political usage: Noam Chomsky, “On Historical Amnesia, Foreign Policy, and Iraq,” 178.148.10.191 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the content that was deleted was good material and i don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. ElectraGrrl (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You all people can sure talk a lot too. I think it's clear that Chomsky spoke about conspiracy theory and Parenti summarized Chomsky and that is about the topic what the article is about so it's relevant and i think when somebody says that's not relevant they need to explain themself better because there is reason to think it relevent. ElectraGrrl (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bob Blaskiewicz section undue
I think the Bob Blaskiewicz section is WP:UNDUE. I don't think that Blaskiewicz is an authoritative source who deserves the huge prominence of text in the article, including an indented quote:

Being a "scientific skeptic" essentially means that one calls oneself a "scientific skeptic" and belongs to a sort of club. It's not a title that one earns with a great amount of effort such as "physicist" or "legal scholar". It's kind of unchallengable. One needs only to blog on the topic, or to publish a single article in Skeptical Inquirer or some such thing. It doesn't qualify one as an authority on this topic to the degree that would warrant his opinions to be included, and certainly not at such length. That section of the article reads like "the Bob Blaskiewicz show". The article might as well have a subsection titled Bob Blaskiewicz as it reads now. SageRad (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At least this Shermer article is published in Scientific American, a publication with some respectability. If we're going to include the Skeptic&trade; position, that might be a better source for a brief section of content. I'm also concerned about the pervasive use of Barkun in the article at the expense of other points of view, in terms of WP:UNDUE. SageRad (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)=
 * I think Blaskiewicz is needed to explain the mainstream view with regard to "pejorative meaning" of the term. Here is a version of that section previous to the Blaskiewicz addition and related changes. As you can see, sources were limited to the Ayoto book and a "selectively quoted" Rebecca Moore. The result was undue weight on the idea that conspiracy theory is an unfair pejorative label...it was created in the mid 60s (supporting the deHaven-Smith fringe argument that the CIA created it)...and a real conspiracy like Watergate was never stigmatized or labeled with this pejorative phrase, etc. etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By "explain" do you mean "explain why it's wrong"? I question his expertise and the due-ness of such a long passage with a quote that seems polemic, like this article has become his soapbox. SageRad (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia's purposes, Skeptical Inquirer is generally considered an independent reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. And, to avoid using Wikipedia's voice, Blaskewitz comments are all attributed -- like Rebecca Moore, Brice Cummings, Frank Mintz -- and many others in the article. What part do you consider, undue, soapboxing, etc? What do you want to take out? What do you want to leave in? I'm curious how you envision the ideal Conspiracy theory section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Skeptical Inquirer deals in more than "fact." When it ventures into politics, philosophy, and religion, it is out of its domain of RS because the facts cannot be cross-checked with True/False so easily established. That is the crux of the argument about Skeptic® as a universal RS.  Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've lost me. Skeptical Inquirer's research of the term 'conspiracy theory' and its criticism of a 9/11 Truther is "out of its domain"??? And what is "Skeptic®" or "Skeptic™"?? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Louie - It's Trolling. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is quite an accusation. I'm an editor, commenting on an article, toward the goal of improving the article. Here's what i mean. There is a subculture of people who assume the title of Skeptic&trade; and this is what i mean by using the "&trade;" symbol. They appropriate the language of skepticism and self-declare an "expert" status on many topics about which they are not experts, but a sleight of dialogue in which their self-definition of being a "skeptic" makes them an expert on any topic about which they write. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia based on actual expertise in the form of reliable sources within the closest relevant field available. In the case of the subject of conspiracy theory, that would be subjects like linguistics, sociology, and psychology. There is no university degree in "skepticism" although there are some conferences and some related magazines, but it's more like a subculture like those people who dress up for Civil War reenactments, not a field of study like sociology or anthropology or physics. Therefore, i speak about this phenom in an effort to improve our understanding of reliable sourcing, to be sure that Wikipedia reflects the best sources, and not self-styled experts who are more like bloggers. Sorry for the length of this comment, but it's a serious accusation that needed addressing. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Blaskiewicz is Assistant Professor of Critical Thinking at Stockton University. I think it's reasonable to consider him an expert in the field. Since Ayoto is a single expert it is fair to counter his view with that of another single expert, especially since this is a core part of Blaskiewicz's curriculum, not just a side-specialty. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well the length given to his writings goes beyond that, and the indented quote reads to me like a soapbox given to him:
 * This quote is rhetoric, doesn't say much but says it fancy-like, and it has nothing to do with the disputed claim about an inflection point in the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory" in the 1960s. SageRad (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Concrete proposals:
 * At minimum, remove the indented quote, which is rhetoric and not on topic here.
 * Removed the title "scientific skeptic" from Bob's description, as that's not a professional title but a self-assumed title.
 * SageRad (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I corrected his institutional affiliation, left "skeptic" in as he's a co-host of a long-running skeptical webcast and has been a target of public attacks as a result of his skeptical activism especially over the egregious cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski, but removed the quote and part of the next para as superfluous. It is sufficient, I agree, to demonstrate that the claim of the pejorative origin is disputed, and that it is abused by cranks to try to legitimise conspiracist thinking. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It reads a lot tighter to me without the indented, off-topic quote. I removed the stray phrase "According to Blaskiewicz:" which was left hanging there. I still take issues with the use of "skeptic" as a title but at least it is phrased as "skeptical activist" which is better. In fact, the more i think about it, that phrase seems very accurate and good. It may help to reduce the tensions between those who want to use the term Skeptic as if it's a professional title, and those who want to delete that, as it seems to capture the reality of the situation -- it is a kind of activism and it's fair to state it like this. Thanks and big props for this turn of phrase. SageRad (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * LuckyLouie's reorganized it and it's looking better. Good cooperative editing for a change, feels alright. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * LuckyLouie's reorganized it and it's looking better. Good cooperative editing for a change, feels alright. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources and terminology
I have encountered a few good sources on conspiracy theories merit inclusion. Keeley uses the terms "warranted" and "unwarranted" for conspiracy theories that are rational and irrational, respectively. Parish uses the term "conspiracy theory" for irrational ones, and "theories about conspiracies" for rational ones. In both cases, these are genuinely notable commenters on the subject, and they both distinguish clearly among sound and unsound conspiracy theories. And lastly, a new study by Dr David Robert Grimes looks at numbers of participants who are "in" on the conspiracy, versus probability of it remaining secret for a given period of time. SageRad (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Confusing terminology: Lone wolf
I don't understand what the bolded sentence below is trying to say. It seems like a non sequitur to the preceding sentence, which makes it even more confusing IMHO. I get the impression that it would make sense to people who are familiar with Barkun's work, which I'm not. My hunch is that it will be equally confusing to anyone who isn't already familiar with his work. I could be wrong, so I'm commenting about it here to see if others cares to weigh in. TBH, it makes such little sense to me that I wouldn't even know how to reword it to make it more clear, so if someone familiar with Barkun cares to make a suggestion, that would also be helpful.


 * Conspiracy_theory: Barkun has adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become commonplace in mass media, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic or millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Barkun notes the occurrence of lone wolf conflicts with law enforcement threatening the established political powers.

Permstrump (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I reworded it. Hope I didn't do violence to the intended meaning. GangofOne (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

new content on "longevity"
The following was added in this dif. I am not sure the section header is appropriate. The sourcing with daily mail is not acceptable. Am not sure about WP:WEIGHT. Also, this work was not about how long a "conspiracy theory" could be kept secret, but rather an actual conspiracy.

In a 2016 open access article, physicist Dr David Robert Grimes at Oxford University suggested an equation for estimating how long conspiracy theories could realistically remain a secret using the estimated number of people involved in the conspiracy as a variable. The equation expressed the probability of a conspiracy being either deliberately uncovered by a whistle-blower, or inadvertently revealed by a bungler. To estimate the chances of a whistle-blower, Grimes used Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA Prism project as a base.
 * Longevity

Using this model and estimated how long some popular conspiracy theories could have remained a secret:
 * The moon landing (estimated 411,000 involved): 3 years, 8 months
 * Climate change fraud (estimated 405,000 involved): 3 years, 9 months
 * Vaccination conspiracy (estimated 22,000): 3 years, 2 months
 * Cancer cure conspiracy (estimated 736,000): 3 years, 3 months

Grimes generated a table estimating a maximum number of conspirators to stay below a threshold. Time frame, Maximum N:
 * 5 years, 2531
 * 10 years, 1257
 * 15 years, 838
 * 20 years, 628
 * 25 years, 502
 * 30 years, 418
 * 40 years, 313
 * 50 years, 251
 * 100 years, 125

-- What do folks think about WEIGHT here? better section title? Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC) (added dif i forgot Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC))
 * I made the addition but agree with some of what you write. Let's work on it in the article space. I reverted your removal, but incorporated some of your points. The Daily Mail article is based on, and refers to, the artile by Grimes. --Bensin (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find Grimes made an elementary mathematical error. Martin Robbins noted it here: . There are times when a primary source is good, I do not think this is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for link. I've reverted my edit until issue is resolved here. --Bensin (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is a better source than the dailymail, JuliaHunter (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Encyclopedia
I've added a link to Conspiracy Encyclopedia, recently promoted to Good Article quality status rating.

Have a great day,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

$1 bill conspiracy theory
IjonTichyIjonTichy: Per WP:BURDEN you have to provide source(s) for your claim before reverting my removal. You've written in you edit summary as such:it's a 'popular' conspiracy theory" and as we both know, we don't rely on popular things, rather we have to reflect verifiable texts here. So, I suggest you to avoid further reverts unless after you have provided reliable sources for your claim. --Mhhossein (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: Thanks for adding the sources. But one of the sources was clearly unreliable and I removed it while the book seems relaible enogh. However, I can't find the claim in the book. Can you help me? Mhhossein (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * page number for that ref and 2nd source added. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can verify it now. Mhhossein (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Voodoo histories
Anyone else here had a read of David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories? He offers a useful review of the links between conspiracy theorization and loss of control. I think there is a deeper layer of sociological analysis here that perhaps the article as it stands is lacking. Adhib (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Barkun and the Lead, still
As i see has been discussed before, here, the lead is really biased and speaks through one source, and one "side" of things. That's not good. There seem to be "sides" here unfortunately -- a class of sources whose general nature seems to be to destroy the validity of the concept of conspiracy theory as one element of explaining how the world works. There's a sort of polemic or slantedness in the article and it comes out in the current lead by the overly heavy reliance on Michael Barkun. It's also a very inept definition of the article's subject in the second para of the lead, sourced to Barkun. Seriously, "conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected" is simply false and absurd. These tropes are not the definition nor requirements for a conspiracy theory. That's a strange thing to have in the lead. It's an incorrect definition. We need to use a basic and accurate definition of the term and leave out editorializing from the lead. SageRad (talk)

And on a similar topic, in the section about history of the term, Blaskiewicz' piece is pretty weak and polemic in regard to the weaponization (or not) of the term "conspiracy theory" and yet it's highly privileged in that section, whereas Lance deHaven-Smith’s book is mentioned but not cited, and is misrepresented as claiming that "the phrase conspiracy theory was invented in the 1960s by the CIA" whereas it does not say the CIA "invented" the term at all. SageRad (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please propose specific changes.Jytdog (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would eliminate the second para of the lead or totally rewrite it to present the panoply of views on the subject and not just Barkun's and not to have the implicit conclusion that conspiracy theory is inherently tin foil hat territory, as it currently does. I would actually cite Lance deHaven-Smith’s book and deprecate the prominence of Blaskiewicz' polemic in Skeptic. The article currently contains a strong slant of messaging that it's insane to think that conspiracies are part of how the world works. SageRad (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not recommend going down this road - we've covered these issues (many times) before. "Conspiracy theory" refers to a different phenomenon in the world to the term "Conspiracy". We can all agree that conspiracies happen, while also noting the existence of a category of story telling, "conspiracy theory", whose relationship to real life is arbitrary. This article is about the latter. Adhib (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason this issue comes up so many times is the lede is improperly and ambivalently written. A single line in the lede could clarify the whole matter: "This article refers not to the theory of conspiracy, legal or otherwise, but to the human error of seeking conspiratorial explanations for human events when there are none -- or when the government insists there are none."  That would solve it all.  In German during the Third Reich, the idea the Nazis burned the Reichstag would be a mere 'conspiracy theory'.  When the Germans were defeated in 1945, that insane conspiracy theory became historical fact.  Conspiracy theory is thereby seen to be a relativistic statement of the ideas a person is permitted to hold, given the viewpoint of the author and the milieu of the times.   Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 16:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. The angle you are proposing has been argued a hundred times here, previously, and has failed the test each time. Your point (and those of your predecessors) is that the term "conspiracy theory" ought to mean something that it does not currently mean. That is a legitimate political position, but not a legitimate editorial one. Adhib (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is not my point. As you state, many people disagree with the way this article is set up.  That should be a clue that the word usage here is out of agreement with the general populace.  My suggestion above, and reiterated here, is as follows: Since a special definition of the phrase is intended, let us announce that fact in the lede -- or even the article title.  Then we will stop confusing the general readers and the editors who would like to contribute. This is called disambiguation, and it is used in the Wiki all the time.  Camel (cigarette brand) is not an animal for touring the pyramids.  Mustang is not a car or a motorcycle.  In the same way, "Conspiracy theory" is about a derogatory phrase used to discount and dismiss ideas.  It is not the same as the "conspiracy theory" the Justice Department uses to prosecute racketeers, gangs, and terrorists. Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 17:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I provide a link in my post above to an instructive debate I had on this page with someone upholding your argument, over ten years ago. If you have something new to add that we didn't consider back then, please do so. If you want to repeat those arguments in ignorance of the history of this article, you're welcome, but please bear in mind it's not our responsibility to get you up to speed - it's yours. 149.254.58.82 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes lots of people who believe conspiracy theories are TrueTM are active online and come to this article all offended. The Infowars show is thataway.   WP is reality based. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Adhib, thanks for that trip down memory lane. I had forgotten about zen-master and his obsessive quest. If I recall correctly, his ultimate goal was to bolster 9/11 conspiracy theories, and he felt that if he could just rehabilitate the term "conspiracy theory", then that would somehow make the conspiracy theories themselves more plausible. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This article must be about what the world refers to as "conspiracy theory" and if there is a range to that, then the article must explain that range. Therefore, i continue to maintain that there is a serious problem with this article if it defines the term in a single way from a single point of view about the term. That is the very definition of bias. There is an issue with this article and the fact that there has been past discussion on this topic does not negate that. In fact, it highlights that others see the issue as well. Please refrain from insinuations and scornful accusations and keep comments to the content and not stereotypes about people who argue one way or the other. SageRad (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SageRad for the love of God, a "conspiracy theory" is stuff like the US government caused 9/11, and a "conspiracy" is an actual conspiracy, like iran-contra, watergate, or things that get prosecuted under RICO laws. This is not rocket science. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am breaking my self imposed one-way interaction ban between us Sage, to say, come on, get real. JD above is correct. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I third the motion. This is nuts.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog is indeed correct. It would be wonderful if English were so lexically precise that there was never any overlap in the words used in its terms. Unfortunately that is not the case, and as the reliable sources in the article itself point out, a "conspiracy theory" is something quite specific and limited in scope. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Jytdog, article titles should reflect common usage whenever possible. Over time, there have been numerous attempts to have the article lead argue that "conspiracy theory" is a prejudicial term that unfairly denigrates possibly real conspiracies...because RICO, Iran-Contra and Watergate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Language matters: A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. SageRad (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Watergate
Watergate is an example of a conspiracy, not an example of a 'conspiracy theory'. The article as it stands elides the two. If there is a better example of a 'conspiracy theory' that later proved to be closer to the truth than mainstream understanding, we should have that here. If there is no better example, we should remove the paragraph. Adhib (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Adhib (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. Was there a point in time when it was not known for a fact who did it? According to Watergate scandal, there seems to be an intervening time in which it would have been a conspiracy theory that then was proven to be correct. If that is the case, then perhaps it's quite useful in this article, and it illustrates the aspect of cover-up that is mentioned in the lede. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A 'conspiracy theory' that later proved to be closer to the truth than mainstream understanding? Well, some conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination was true. Look here: United States House Select Committee on Assassinations: The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy. Fer48 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We have some pretty good analysis in high quality sources, of Watergate as an example of a proven conspiracy, but the sources make it clear that Watergate doesn't necessarily define the epistemic threshold between real and bogus conspiracy theories or lend credibility to conspiracy theories in general. @Sagerad: IIRC, there was never a question of "who did it". The question was more like "how far up the command chain in the Nixon White House did the planning and authorization go?" It was a different world in 1972 with a different news cycle, a limited number of print and TV outlets, and no social media. Although the White House did respond on one occasion by calling Woodward and Bernstein's allegations a 'conspiracy theory', the term got zero traction at the time, with the most commonly used term for the affair being "scandal". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, very interesting. Thank you, LuckyLouie. SageRad (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Conversely, the suffix -gate is now mostly attached to events that are better characterized as scandals than conspiracy theories.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  20:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. That's a neologism from Watergate.
 * Coincidentally, i just came across mention of Watergate in Keeley (1999) as follows:
 * I'm not saying this is the best example of a "warranted conspiracy theory" but it's sourced there. SageRad (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The point here is to distinguish between items of the type 'conspiracy' (which, as above, are real phenomena that actually happen) and items of the type 'conspiracy theory' (a narrative form that may be more or less connected to real phenomena). In the case of Watergate, I see no evidence of the latter item existing. Woodward & Bernstein were applying a systematic investigative approach to a possible scandal, based on direct sources and professional standards of evidence, and said little to anyone until they had well demonstrated proofs to share. That they were testing a hypothesis that a conspiracy had taken place is far from being the same thing as their having held to a 'conspiracy theory' that was then proven. To suggest they're equivalent is to grant credence to 'conspiracy theory' by association with a type of narrative that deservedly carries more authority, because of the professional standards and accountabilities it comes with. Adhib (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the 5th Century BC, Anaxagoras proposed that the moon's light was merely reflected light from the sun -- but the proof for his theory did not come for thousands of years. In the same way, many people observe and hypothesize the causes and machinations of society without being able to prove them.  Hypothesis is a part of the scientific method, and the mechanics of human society and history are no less appropriate to the Method than any other realm.  Thus, the distinction above is without merit.  There is no shame in proposing a "conspiracy theory" -- proved and unproved conspiracy theories of human society are the path of human knowledge, no less than proved and unproved hypotheses of science. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, hypothesis only becomes part of the scientific method when it is sufficiently well-crafted as to be testable. That's what separates hypothesis from folklore and fantasy. While it's interesting to me that we keep seeing these partisan attempts to elide two distinct categories of narrative - one deserving of respect, the other not - I am certain such elisions do not belong in any encyclopedia. Adhib (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where or in what way, Adhib, do you see "partisan" attempts to suppress, delete, omit or abridge two categories of narrative? (Those are the possible meanings of "elide"...) Which two categories are being suppressed (etc.)? And how long have you been aware of this covert effort, whose intended evil outcome you clearly disapprove? Can you identify these individuals, or is it indeed a secret effort? And how do you propose to test your thesis that this is what is taking place? I mean, won't you have to get inside the heads of the alleged perpetrators? --IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite funny. I indulged in at least one wry smile at your post. Though it was somewhat marred by the sense of 'elision' you've overlooked: which is that sense in which two abstract concepts are treated as if they were interchangeable, without the necessary synthesis being provided, or the need for a synthesis acknowledged. Pointing out elision in philosophy is to ask "do you even abstract?". In ten years of tracking this page, I've come to notice the types of people who attempt to elide these separate phenomena. I have no interest in doxxing them, they clearly have enough challenges of their own to sort out, poor little dears. Adhib (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quite funny. I indulged in at least one wry smile at your post. Though it was somewhat marred by the sense of 'elision' you've overlooked: which is that sense in which two abstract concepts are treated as if they were interchangeable, without the necessary synthesis being provided, or the need for a synthesis acknowledged. Pointing out elision in philosophy is to ask "do you even abstract?". In ten years of tracking this page, I've come to notice the types of people who attempt to elide these separate phenomena. I have no interest in doxxing them, they clearly have enough challenges of their own to sort out, poor little dears. Adhib (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibility and probability of conspiracy theories being true
I want to mention here, that I find it problematic, that the possibility of big "Conspiracy theories" sometimes being true is hardly visible in this Wikipedia-entry. Instead, this article seems heavily focused on explanations through paranoia and other psychological phenomena and biases. Since big conspiracies are not impossible, one may want to consider e.g. mathematical or game-theory related models that attempt to analyze these possibilities or impossibilities, as well as consider true and false historical examples, and how the advancement of civilisation and technology (social-/media, transparency, surveillance, ...) could influence the probabilities for better or worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.113.196.15 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is heavily slanted in that direction. Orthodoxy is still a human obsession, and the accusation of "paranoia" is the modern version of the "heresy" accusation from earlier times. Grammar's Li'l Helper  Talk 17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

iraq
Would the conspiracy to start the war against Saddam Hussein by claiming he had WMDs qualify as example. Here the "conspiracy theorists" were proven right in that there were no WMDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.206.4 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We follow reliable sources - we don't create classifications here because that is WP:OR and we don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what's interesting about this case is that I recall the UK government spokesman may have attempted to paint critics of HMG's dodgy dossier as conspiracy theorists (and that argument really took off after David Kelly's unconventional and tragic death triggered the tinfoil hat brigade). However, in this case, there weren't really any conspiracy theorists, only Hans Blix, the UN and the majority of the world's population who were sceptical of the Bush/Blair excuse for war for the very good reason that *we had stronger, better-sourced, neutral evidence* to the contrary. Adhib (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

new content
The content below was added in this dif with edit note: "I added my research findings "Conspiracy Theories", edited by Paul McCaffrey. I added a simple overview to the begining of conspiracy theories and how they can be supported or distorted by evidence"; I reverted here with edit note "unclear why we should promote the views of Micah Issit)" and Rjensen reverted [ here] with edit note:

I am posting the content here for discussion. This content gives a lot of WEIGHT to this Issit person's views; perhaps it can stay but am also sure about WEIGHT.

Conspiracy theories provide a unique view on an event that has occurred, or that is currently occurring. According to Micah Issit, “...conspiracy theories express a basic desire to uncover mysteries and secrets hidden within the generally accepted explanations of historical events” (Issit, p. 7).There are famous conspiracy theories that involve the attacks on September 11, 2001, the JFK assassination, the moon-landing as a hoax, etc. These theories suggest a mysterious angle behind the unfolding of the event. List of conspiracy theories While there is no set date to when conspiracy theories began, the development of conspiracy theories most likely emerged in the early 1800s. “During this time, popular historians spawned a number of theories that sought to explain many of history’s major events, including wars, genocide, and shifts in political power, in light of conspiracies enacted by secret societies” (Issit, p. 7). Whether or not these theories are true, they represent a perspective that critiques society during that time of the ‘conspiracy’. The Internet can be seen as a contributor to the spreading of conspiracy theories. The Internet allows for anybody to create and share information globally. When it comes to conspiracy theories, people are able to expand upon these claims and share it online, whether or not those claims are actually factual. “The more evidence presented to bolster the “official” version of events, the more suspicion mounts; the more the government reveals, the more it is assumed that it has something to hide” (Pinaire, p. 34). This statement reflects the way in which people view particular events. Anybody can write a claim online, which could later be shared and viewed as a “possible theory” that goes against the claim original event. Conspiracy theories, no matter how accurate or inaccurate they are, provide an interesting angle to events that occur in society.

--Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD should be a summary of all major points contained in the article. If these additions could be evaluated for sourcing and weight and cleaned up (poor grammar, non WP:MOS format, etc.) and stripped of valueless and unsourced opinions like "Conspiracy theories, no matter how accurate or inaccurate they are, provide an interesting angle to events that occur in society" they may have a place in the body of the article. However they do not belong in the lead, where they are being given massively undue weight. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * that is one issue yes; thanks for pointing that out. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Issitt is useful because he summarized the current scholarship in a major RS. So he's not controversial and instead is condensing material from RS. He is not used heavily and several new scholarly studies have been added from the mainline scholarly journals that give a historical perspective of 200+ years, from the 1800s to the Internet. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If Issitt is a reliable source, why do we need to mention him by name? Why do we need to quote him for something that is commonly accepted like "conspiracy theories express a basic desire to uncover mysteries and secrets hidden within the generally accepted explanations of historical events”?  You are restoring bad edits, and I cannot see why. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Issitt does not have to be mentioned by name in the text but he is quoted and the WP guideline recommends it:  Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. wp:QUOTE As for being too "commonly accepted" to need a cite, I think it's useful to have a RS talk about it. Where are you getting your notions anyway? Rjensen (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You chose to quote him. So "he is quoted" obscures that choice you made.  I am asking why there is need to quote something this well understood.   Also the added content citing Gordon Wood (ref at Jstor) was also incorrect.  The ref is great to bring but it was badly used to say that conspiracy theories arose in the 18th century driven by the Enlightenment.  In that ref the key paragraph is the first full paragraph on p 410 that begins: " During the early modern era conspiracy continued to be a common term of politics. Seventeenth-century England was filled with talk and fears of conspiracies of all kinds. There were French plots, Irish plots, Popish plots, Whig plots, Tory plots, Jacobite plots; there was even "the  Meal Tub Plot." Yet by this period many of the conspiracies had become very different from those depicted in earlier centuries of Western history."  Not 18th century, not really Englightment-driven. Please slow down; we need to work through this and figure out good content. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Voodoo histories
Not sure if sufficiently notable, this book, in the UK at least, is probably the most authoritative recent survey of the topic in general readership. Anyone else believe it would be a useful reference to offer in the article? Adhib (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

PLOS ONE estimate#3 needs revising
This is a sentence from Conspiracy_theory.
 * now: Vaccination conspiracy would require at least 22,000 people (without drug companies) and would fail in 3.15 years;
 * new: Vaccination conspiracy would fail in 3.15 years, assuming the drug companies were involved in keeping a conspiracy secret (in a corner case where a conspiracy was only known to the 22,000 people employed by the CDC and WHO and the government-funded organizations conspired to hide such a secret from both the private sector drug companies and the press, the expected time until failure would be 34.78 years, according to the assumptions made by Grimes about the hypothetical conspirators)

Currently we are mixing apples and oranges, or at least, mixing a five-pound bag of Granny Smith apples with a fifty-pound bag. Grimes calculated the "3.15 years" figure with the drug companies included, and in a separate calculation excluding them so that only 22k employees were involved, came up with the "34.78 years" estimate. Relevant bit from PBS is as follows: "The vaccination conspiracy would need people at the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and drug companies to keep mum, so according to Grimes’ formula, should have been exposed after 3.15 years. But it all comes down to numbers. For example, in the case of the vaccination subterfuge, if you remove the drug companies so it only involved the 22,000 folks at CDC and the WHO, it could have lasted a full 34.78 years, according to his equation." 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161114021711/http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/18/1948550611434786.full.pdf%2Bhtml to http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/18/1948550611434786.full.pdf%2Bhtml
 * Added tag to http://westminsterjournal.com/oldwjarchive/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=54
 * Added tag to http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0%2C1518%2C265160%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102075945/http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated/the-next-wave/483-a-conspiracy-so-immense.html to http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated/the-next-wave/483-a-conspiracy-so-immense.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.columbia.edu/~kw96/TopFive.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024062122/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html to http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017
Removal of the text, "that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy,". The word "unwarranted" is a predisposition that all conspiracy theories are invalid (historically untrue) and "conspiracy" is a circular reference to the term being defined (Conspiracy Theory). C4RL05JW (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't believe that's correct. The term has evolved to include a highly negative connotation that a conspiracy theory, by its nature, is arrived at without concrete evidence. If you had proof that a conspiracy theory is true, it would no longer be a theory.  City O f  Silver  19:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614060845/http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/annual-conferences-1999-2004/who-shot-the-president$.cfm to http://www.bps.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/releases$/annual-conferences-1999-2004/who-shot-the-president$.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Warrant
Conspiracy theory/theories/theorist are terms that are used pretty well exclusively as terms of abuse, in the context of events like 9/11 that obviously and incontestably involve conspiracy, to sneer at people who disagree with the propaganda of the powerful. This grovelling article declares that meaning as non-negotiable by saying that "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant". Excluding the empire's fairy tales and including rational explanations based on scientific evidence and engineering expertise, makes it clear that "without warrant" means not backed by orders from above, rather than unjustified and unjustifiable.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WP articles are based on reliable sources, not people's opinions. Please review the sources used there. If you better sources, please cite them here and describe why you think they are better (please review WP:RS first).  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It does not matter whether you are right or wrong. Policy requires that articles reflect expert opinion. If you do not like that, then argue your point on the policy pages.  TFD (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Alkhowarizmi,
 * 1) It is true that conspiracy theory is a derogatory term. This is pointed out in the article.
 * 2) 9/11 theories are indeed incontestable: this is what gives them the character of non-scientific unfalsifiability.
 * 3) This article does indeed grovel: to expert sources.
 * 4) The meaning of the term 'conspiracy theory' is indeed non-negotiable: it is a satisfactory term with which to refer to unsupported hypotheses which requires no adjustment today.
 * 5) It is not clear why Star Wars is relevant here.
 * 6) 'Without warrant' does indeed mean 'not backed by orders from above', if by 'orders from above' we mean 'the eternal and glorious necessity to cite evidence'. Cpaaoi (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Capaaoi, the way that conspiracy theory is defined in the introduction to the article is derogatory. To use the phrase "without warrant" examples the biased and opinionated tone of the article regardless of whether the article then goes on to mention that the term is generally used pejoratively or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore it's purpose is to educate, not indoctrinate. The word "unwarranted" means:"not having a good reason and therefore annoying or unfair:" or "lacking adequate or official support,unjustified." . If the article was unbiased the introduction would state that there are provable conspiracies and the link to the appropriate page would be in the first paragraph rather than merely added to the top where few people will see it.
 * The wikipedia disambiguation page defines a conspiracy theory thus, "A conspiracy theory alleges an event or events to be secretly influenced by a premeditated group or groups of powerful people or organizations working together." and further states that there is "a collection of the most popular unproven theories related but not limited to clandestine government plans, elaborate murder plots, suppression of secret technology and knowledge, and other supposed schemes behind certain political, cultural, and historical events" which are labelled as conspiracy theories and therefore I would like to suggest that the definition of a conspiracy theory ie "a unproven theory of conspiracy" has already been defined on wikipedia and that the introduction of this page, which cites no reference for its definition of conspiracy theory as "unwarranted" (perhaps because this opinion doesn't appear in any dictionary), is therefore not an instance of grovelling to "expert sources". You're quite correct when you say that "the meaning of the term 'conspiracy theory' is indeed non-negotiable" because according to dictionaries of the English language, compiled by experts in linguists and specifically lexicology, the term conspiracy theory means "a belief that an unpleasant event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people" and therefore I hope that the introduction can be rewritten in such a way as to be unburdened by the personal opinions of the writer. Iynx (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Except this article is about false (or at least unprovable) conspiracies.
 * unwarranted
 * adjective UK /ʌnˈwɒr.ən.tɪd/ US /ʌnˈwɔːr.ən.t̬ɪd/ formal


 * not having a good reason and therefore annoying or unfair:
 * Seems to me a pretty good definition of concentrically theories.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As an aside, Lynx, you are possibly confused about dictionaries. Most dictionaries today are descriptive, describing how words are used in practice. So Oxford says "Oxford Dictionaries focuses on current language and practical usage." But a lot of the time we don't use dictionary definitions but use other reliable sources that deal with the subject in more detail than a dictionary can. Doug Weller  talk 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a good example of a "warranted conspiracy", which according to this lede would not be subject of a "conspiracy theory"? Kortoso (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Watergate scandal jumps immediately to mind; there are plenty of others. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Watergate, Whitewater, Iran Contra, Russian Influence on U.S. Elections. I think if someone wanting to edit this article somehow doesn't understand that conspiracies are a real and constant issue they would do well to educate themselves regarding the history of the Grand Jury and Anti-trust laws, the latter existing almost entirely to deal with civil conspiracies. This article as it is, grossly misleads readers into believing that all conspiracy theories are, by definition, unwarranted, yet federal courts hand down conspiracy convictions on a regular basis, and certainly prosecutors must have some theory regarding the conspiracy to be able to successfully indict and convict. Even governments frequently publish conspiracy theories regarding the actions of other governments, criminal organizations, terrorist organizations and the like. Conspiracy theories are theories first and foremost, and the problem arises when we forget this and apply the label equally to tall tales, yarns, and other fictions (Bigfoot, Reptilian Aliens, etc) without any evidence of merit, but the fact that some people are to ignorant to distinguish between a theory and a fiction does not mean that all theories are fictions. It doesn't follow logically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:680:67F6:C5DE:DB5C:8621:C563 (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope, it doesn't deceive. It only disambiguates. See the top of the article with pointers to Conspiracy_(criminal) and Conspiracy_(civil). Also see List_of_political_conspiracies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018
From: "Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or [simple facts]."

To: "Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or [popular narratives]."

To say conspiracy theories often dispute "simple facts" is a derogatory generalization & an assumption on the part of the author.

}} Bon Martin (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that we are talking about (for example) Pizagate, which did in fact ignore simple facts. Or the whole birther movement.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed change; I happen to be a philosopher with numerous articles on the topic (see my PhilPapers page: https://philpeople.org/profiles/matthew-dentith) and the idea that conspiracy theories often contradict simple facts goes against the long history of actual warranted conspiracy theories (Watergate; the Moscow Show Trials; the Gulf of Tonkin Incident). It makes no sense to start this Wikipedia entry with a claim which is not supported by the actual research into these things called "conspiracy theories." MRXDentith (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPS for why we're never going to use your philpeople page. See WP:NOTPROMO for why you shouldn't link to it again.
 * Things called conspiracy theories include a variety of claims that go out of their way to ignore significant, totally proven, and often obvious facts. For example, Holocaust denial, reptilian humanoids, Satanic ritual abuse, Fomenko's chronology...
 * Events like Watergate are not conspiracy theories, they were conspiracies. Conspiracy theories aren't actually history.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well that goes against quite a lot of the recent literature; see:

Basham, Lee (in press), “Joining the Conspiracy”, Argumenta.

— (2001), “Living With The Conspiracy”, The Philosophical Forum, XXXII, 3, pp. 265- 280.

— (2011), “Conspiracy Theory and Rationality”, in Beyond Rationality, ed. by Carl Jensen and Rom Harré, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle on Tyne, chap. 4, pp. 49-87.

Buenting, Joel and Jason Taylor (2010), “Conspiracy Theories and Fortuitous Data”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 40, 4, pp. 567-578, doi:10.1177/0048393109350750.

Coady, David (2006), “Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories”, in Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate, ed. by David Coady, Ashgate, Hampshire, England, chap. 9, pp. 115-128.

— (2012),What to believe now: applying epistemology to contemporary issues, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex.

Dentith, Matthew R. X. (in press), “The Problem of Conspiracism”, Argumenta.

— (2014), The Philosophy of Conspiracy T heories, Palgrave Macmillan, isbn: 978-1-137-36315-2, doi: 10.1057/9781137363169.

— (2016), “When inferring to a conspiracy might be the best explanation”, Social Epistemology, 30 (5-6 2016), pp. 572-591, doi: 10.1080/02691728.2016.1172362.

Dentith, Matthew R. X. and Martin Orr (2017), “Secrecy and Conspiracy”, Episteme, doi: 10.1017/epi.2017.9.

Keeley, Brian L. (1999), “Of Conspiracy Theories”, The Journal of Philosophy, 96, 3, pp. 109-126.

— (2007), “God as the Ultimate Conspiracy Theorist”, Episteme, 4, 2, pp. 135-49.

Pigden, Charles (1995), “Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 25, 1 (Mar. 1995), pp. 3-34, doi:10.1177/004839319502500101.

Pigden, Charles R. (in press), “Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom Revisited”, in Secrets and Conspiracies, ed. by Olli Loukola, Rodopi, in press.

— (2016), “Are Conspiracy Theorists Epistemically Vicious?”, in Blackwell Companion to Applied Philosophy, ed. by David Coady, Kimberley Brownlee, and Kasper Lipper-Rasmussen, Wiley-Blackwell, chap. 9, pp. 120-132, isbn: 978-1118869130, doi: 10.1002/9781118869109.ch9.

for analysis of why the claim conspiracy theories cannot be official theories/stories or history is just bunk. Long story short: there are numerous examples of theories pejoratively labelled as "conspiracy theories" which have turned out to be warranted (the Moscow Trials; Watergate; the Gulf of Tonkin Affair), and the argument that this makes them retroactively not conspiracy theories ends up causing huge issues. If the entry was not locked it would be possible for subject experts (like myself) to improve the page with reference to such current academic material. MRXDentith (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are probably some "proven" conspiracy theories out there. But Watergate is not one of them. (For the reasons I detail in the section below.) The Gulf of Tonkin isn't much of a conspiracy theory either: the Vietnamese themselves admit the first attack happened. It's the second one that is in question. The Moscow Trials? Not sure how exactly that ever was a conspiracy theory. In most cases, it's pretty rare for a complex theory (with a lot of moving parts) to turn out to be correct. The cops certainly guess correctly at theories of crimes. But there isn't a whole lot of mystery/intrigue to the average liquor store hold up or domestic murder.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"In most cases, it's pretty rare for a complex theory (with a lot of moving parts) to turn out to be correct."

And this is where the debate gets interesting, because you seem to be operating with a definition of conspiracy theory which automatically makes such a theory suspicious. If you read the literature I pointed at, you would see that this kind of suspicion of conspiracy theories generally is, as academic Charles Pigden terms it, a "modern superstition." Indeed, I have a forthcoming chapter in the forthcoming Joe Uscinski edited volume "Conspiracy Theories and the people who believe them" (Oxford University Press) which dissects the variety of ways in which people define conspiracy theories, and how this then affects their attitudes towards them as a phenomena.

But back to the main point: you deny that Watergate, Tonkin and the Moscow Trials are conspiracy theories, despite the fact that a) they have been labelled as such in political discourse, and b) they have the features of being examples of which people conspiracy theorised about. The (second) Tonkin incident was covered up (as to what really happened), and cover ups are not just conspiracies but given people suspected the cover-up, it became a conspiracy theory. The denial that the Moscow Trials were a conspiracy theory, however, is just historical nonsense; the Soviets literally invented the term "disinformation" to attack the findings of the Dewey Commission which said the trials were a sham. The members were called conspiracy theorists, and the official story until 1956 was that the Dewey Commissions findings were just some conspiracy theory. It wasn't until Kruschev took over in the USSR that the truth came out.

MRXDentith (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I am a little surprised that any academic would be welcoming of conspiracy theories. If anything, they've poisoned modern political discourse. (Whether we are talking about Birthers or 9/11 nuts.) There has been just as much literature criticizing conspiracies theories. (See the books by Rob Brotherton, Michael Shermer, Vincent Bugliosi, etc.) Saying one of Stalin's purges was a sham isn't my idea (and most other sane people's) of a "conspiracy theory". If North Korea knocks off a bunch of "traitors" tomorrow....would the speculation that they are innocent really be called a conspiracy theory? Sounds silly to me. I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone (until now) call the Moscow Trials a conspiracy theory. The Gulf of Tonkin was more of a distortion of the facts than a theory. (And again: there is no denying the first attack happened.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Watergate
The article says this about Watergate:

"Theories involving multiple conspirators that are proven to be correct, such as the Watergate scandal,[27] are usually referred to as "investigative journalism" or "historical analysis" rather than conspiracy theory. By contrast, the term "Watergate conspiracy theory" is used to refer to a variety of hypotheses in which those convicted in the conspiracy were in fact the victims of a deeper conspiracy.[28]"

At the risk of beating a dead horse (since I know this has been brought up before by looking at the archives, but I don't think anyone hit the nail on the head): Watergate was never a theory.....and ergo it can't be called a conspiracy theory that was "proven to be correct". (To me, the passage above isn't 100% clear on that point.) To get more precise: I don't recall anyone (early on) saying that this was a group (organized at the highest levels of the White House) originally organized to go around and plug "leaks". Yes, there was a lot of speculation that this went high up the ladder. (Speculation that was more political than factual. Recall that this happened in a campaign.) But the entirety of the plan (including the purpose of the break in) was never correctly called by anyone prior to investigation. In fact, their exact purpose (for the June, 1972 break in) is still unknown.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, although Watergate was a conspiracy, it was never just an unproven theory, and our text is rather unclear on the matter. Examining the source cited, it discusses modern interpretations of Watergate and how it has evolved to become known as a "proven conspiracy theory" used to lend credence to modern conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This seems to blur the distinction between rational suspicions and conspiracy theories. Since that is not the intention in the source, it is probably best to omit the text. TFD (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

United States section
This is about this edit

The previous phrasing was "Numerous authors have suggested that conspiracy theory maintains considerable popularity in America due to a history of a number of prominent verified conspiracies." After looking at the sources, this is accurate, but it still seemed too vague. I'm not really confident of the changes I've made, however, as I'm concerned they are granting undue legitimacy to fringe perspectives. There is a laundry-list of scandals that have been identified as influencing conspiracist thinking. They have been specifically documented as scandals, however, and comparing scandals to the nebulous, all-encompassing theories described by sources is a mismatch, to put it mildly.

I dunno. I'm not sure if I'm describing the problem well or not. Per the above discussion, the sources do support that Watergate is a large influence on US conspiracy theorists, so that's something at least. Grayfell (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, also, I removed this source: I don't have access to it, and could not verify what it said in order to use it with the changes I made. This isn't a comment on its reliability. Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whitfield, Stephen J. (2004) A companion to 20th-century America Wiley-Blackwell ISBN 978-0-631-21100-6 p. 136.


 * Good edits, much needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Probable mistake (Latour's Fairy position and fact position swapped)
I'm 90% sure this article has the "fact position" and "fairy position" of Latour backward.

1. Source article by Latour. Here he says "The fairy position is very well known and is used over and over again by many social scientists who associate criticism with antifetishism." Paraphrasing further parts of this article, he says those who take the fairy position decry objects of belief. As in 'Your precious fashion, sports, religion, art, etc. are not really real and are not making you do things. You should (like me) stop believing in them and be free.' Latour further says the fact position tries to explain behavior "by the powerful effects of indisputable matters of fact... by forces you are not conscious of." These include "economic infrastructure,... race, class, and gender, maybe throwing in some neurobiology, evolutionary psychology...." Oh-ho, you're not free after all, because you can't change how you were born, so believe (like me) in economics or neurobiology or sociology.

2. Wikipedia article Bruno Latour has it the way I describe in #1 above. In brief: Fairy position is anti-fetishist, whereas fact position argues that individuals are dominated... by external forces, e.g. economics, gender.

I'm going to make this edit to the current article (Conspiracy theory), but I wanted to leave a comment here, as it affects the meaning in a pretty big way, and sociology and critique/critical theory are not my fields.

--Officiallyover (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

'Chain conspiracy', 'hub-and-spoke conspiracy'
Hub-and-spoke conspiracy and its relative or subtype chain conspiracy should be briefly described and linked under Types of conspiracy theory. How much knowledge each actor is required to have of the conspiracy is not yet addressed in the article. Humanengr (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You need sources about conspiracy theories that mention this. I agree though that most major conspiracy theories do not posit that every conspirator knows everything. TFD (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These appear to be legal concepts rather than the type of conspiracy theories of this article. — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The linked articles are specific to legal definitions and don’t apply to this article.-LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lede sentence: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors." Humanengr (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018
The Big Stop Government alien conspiracy The Big Homie 445 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 01:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation and lede
The disambiguation page linked at the top of the article reads "A conspiracy theory alleges an event or events to be secretly influenced by a premeditated group or groups of powerful people or organizations working together" which links back to the current article. The first Wiktionary entry linked from that page also speaks in terms of 'alleged': "A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. [1960s]"

In contrast, The lede sentence here reads "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors."

The former two say 'alleged', the latter 'unwarranted'. Can someone explain or account for that inconsistency? (I see referred to the disambiguation page here.) Humanengr (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I imagine the lead is meant to contextualize our sources with common definitions. If you have a some specific suggestion for improvement, a "can we change X to Y?" structure would be best. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that by using the term ‘unwarranted’ the first sentence diverges from the common definitions, either change ‘unwarranted’ to ‘alleges’ or insert ‘unwarranted‘ at the start of the title and first sentence . [Going down that 2nd path would also require a number of other changes for consistency, so I'm withdrawing that.] Humanengr (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Higher fidelity re Ayto cite
Ayto’s original was, as has been noted: "“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."

The initial cite to Ayto in 2007 pared that to: "Originally a neutral term, the term from about the 1960's acquired its current and more specific meaning."

dropped the ‘often’, a construct with relevance to many discussions in later years. For clarity and to avoid future confusion, it should be reinserted.

Proposed first part of sentence: "According to John Ayto, the phrase conspiracy theory was “[o]riginally a neutral term but more recent usage (… from … the mid-1960s) is often somewhat derogatory”"

I’m less sensitive to the choice for the remainder of the sentence. The original “implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event” was changed in stages to “with an implication that the theorist is paranoid.” For those interested, the significant edits there were here, here, and here. Thoughts?Humanengr (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That version seems to rely a bit too much on ellipses in the parenthetical. I would, instead, rephrase it as:

"According to John Ayto, the phrase was originally a neutral term, but since around the 1960s, has become somewhat derogatory."
 * ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your remark on the ellipses can be directly remedied:
 * "According to John Ayto, the phrase conspiracy theory was “[o]riginally a neutral term but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory”"
 * Was your objection that ellipses were substituted for dating and around? More importantly, why do you want to change from “is often somewhat derogatory” to “has become somewhat derogatory“? Humanengr (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like quoting that much, to be honest. I would prefer to summarize whenever reasonable. I changed "is often" to "has become" simply because it reads much better in the context. ("is often X since TIME" is less grammatical than "has become X since TIME"). I don't have any issue with the word "often", I just don't know quite how to work it in. However, if you feel that the direct quote is better, I don't have any real objection beyond not preferring it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx for that elaborated rationale. Maybe then:
 * "According to John Ayto, the phrase was originally a neutral term, but since around the 1960s, has often been derogatory."
 * prioritizing ‘often’ for relevance; sacrificing ‘somewhat’ for readability. Humanengr (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you could still slot "somewhat" in there after "been", but I'm not married to it. In fact, I think adding "somewhat" is a bit of an understatement, and that Ayto made have done so only for the sake of not appearing to be too judgemental. Calling something a conspiracy theory is, even to conspiracy theorists, almost inevitably seen as completely dismissive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with including it, so I'll go ahead that way. [my misread] Since Ayto used that phrase, should we put "often somewhat derogatory" in quotes to show provenance? So that would be 'often been somewhat derogatory' without quotes. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect to me., :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for 'carried out by government or other powerful actors'
Uscinski (cited already in Further reading and in the skeptics.org pamphlet I mentioned above which extensively cites Uscinski and Parent's 2014 book but not for definition of ‘conspiracy theory’). In 2017, Uscinski wrote:

"By conspiracy theory, I mean an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good."

Aside from this being yet another cite defining 'conspiracy theory' without claiming they are definitionally false, this uses the adjective 'powerful', if we would like a source for that. Humanengr (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * are you trying to say that Uscinski is mistaken? Rjensen (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing
This article relies on a very mixed bag of sourcing. It is causing editors (and therefore readers too) to become confused, so we need to start removing the low-quality sources and writers who themselves have misunderstood.

I've started with this one: This was written by a philosopher who is arguing from first principles and who doesn't cite much of the literature. Therefore, he misinterprets what a conspiracy theory is (he seems to argue that it is just a claim that people conspired), and so ends up discussing the wrong thing. He talks a lot about Blair and the Iraq War.

We should try to focus on peer-reviewed papers by specialists in high-quality journals, university presses, etc, even if it means the article is shorter. SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pigden is an expert on conspiracy theories, according to his uni bio. I'm not convinced that this is a low quality source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * His opening is:"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. Often the suggestion seems to be that conspiracy theories are not just suspect, but utterly unbelievable, too silly to deserve the effort of a serious refutation." Seems like a pretty reasonable place in which to base the lede. The rest of the paper is essentially an argument that "if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy" then something shouldn't be disbelieved simply because someone has called it a conspiracy theory. It falls apart at the "if." --tronvillain (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the phrase "to suggest"? Humanengr (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that "if" is not actually in the paper. Pigden simply (and implicitly) takes "conspiracy theory" as a purely descriptive term; the postulate that a conspiracy explains something. While that's hardly unprecedented, it's not particularly useful to addressing the question of which definition we prefer. That should be decided by RSes that actually and explicitly give the definition. I would prefer one that says that a conspiracy theory is an unwarranted theory about a conspiracy and provides a term for or at least contrasts this with warranted theories about a conspiracy. But absent such a source, I want to be certain that we're not pushing past legitimate skepticism and into pseudoscepticism by dogmatically insisting that any explanation that invokes a conspiracy is automatically bunk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "If" is definitely in the paper - that's an exact quote. The entire sentence is: "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." After his first conclusion that repeats that sentence without the "but", he acknowledges that it's not a common position: "If I manage to convince the learned and the semi-learned worlds of this (not just academics, but journalists and the punditocracy) I shall not have lived in vain." --tronvillain (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, you got me there. But it doesn't change my point. Pigden talks about conspiracy theories in a way that's useful to this article as a whole, and is arguably an expert on them, so I don't see why we would need to exclude that source. But at the same time, I don't see how Pigden taking that position says anything about the definitions given in other sources, such as the OED or Ayto. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see a need to exclude the source either. It serves to establish the conventional definition as opposed to his personal preference. --tronvillain (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Check the source we use to define it, as well as other definitional sources: none of them actually say that a conspiracy theory is always unjustified. Humanengr went over this in the section above. So Pigden's not actually conflicting with the conventional definition, he's just treating the "usually" as a "sometimes", which is perfectly fine. What he's contrasting with is the usual approach to dealing with a conspiracy theory. He's essentially arguing that we should take them seriously, investigate and debunk them, because some may turn out to be true. And that's the proper position for a skeptic to take. Also see Pigden's followup paper for more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Kurtis Hagen Conspiracy Theories and Stylized Facts (in The Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 2011) introduces an additional aspect of note before citing Pigden:

Sunstein and Vermeule define a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)" (2009, 205). It is worth noting that by this definition Saddam Hussein's purported attempt to conceal the weapons of mass destruction he supposedly had counts as a conspiracy theory.[fn 5, below] (Were he and his supposed co-conspirators not powerful people?) But of course "conspiracy theory" is not typically employed to describe such official accusations.

fn 5 Sunstein and Verrneule acknowledge a similar conspiracy theory. They write, "[R]eal-world governments can themselves be purveyors of conspiracy theories, as when the Bush administration suggested that Saddam Hussein had conspired with Al Qaeda to support the 9/11 attacks" (2009, 219). But when accusations of conspiracy come from official stories they are not generally referred to with the dismissive term 'conspiracy theory." [emphasis added]

The text continues, citing Pigden:

"Sunstein and Vermeule's definition does not well capture the actual scope of this phrase in ordinary usage. Roughly following the philosopher Charles Pigden, I think a more accurate description of what is generally called a 'conspiracy theory' is: an interpretation of an historical event that runs counter to an 'official story,' and suggests that elements within a Western government have behaved in ways that seem particularly egregious. [emphasis added]" Humanengr (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the above, would you kindly revert your removal of the Pigden cite? Thank you, Humanengr (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@, I find your behavior here — of 1) making changes to a section while discussion is ongoing, and 2) not reverting on the issue in this section when the consensus here is against you — at minimum, inconsiderate. Kindly revert. Humanengr (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin has not edited this page since Aug 28, so I don't know what you're referring to. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant discussion cited above began with this post on Aug 20. Aug 28 is after Aug 20. Humanengr (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Might want to cut back on the snark. I pointed that out because you've been commenting since Aug 30, and are only now calling out Slimvirgin two weeks after they edited. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert Blaskiewicz
A third rate professor, from third rate university challenges expert in etymology John Ayto in word meaning with anecdotal evidence and it goes on here without any critical thinking. His word is taken as word of an expert, yet he has zero background in lexicography and origination and meaning of words, why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.23.61 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That "third rate professor" is an acknowledged expert on conspiracy theories, so yeah. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I will add that taking that kind of attitude is not going to win anyone over. I find it interwrtign you refer to one as a "A third rate professor" when the other is just a writer.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Im not here to win over anyone, im here to have discussion based on facts. Fact is that Robert is not expert in etymology and can not be used as authority in etymology section, when actual lexycographer has laid out the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.23.61 (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Blaskiewicz is an expert on conspiracy theories with a PhD in English and would be expected to know a great deal more more about the origin of the term than pretty much anyone else. Ayto is no slouch when it comes to credentials (he's worked on some very prestigious lexicography projects), but this attempt to hold him up as a higher authority than Blaskiewicz is almost laughably absurd. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You do understand that a lexycographer and an etymologist are not the same. John Ayto is not an etymologist either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Rob Blaskiewicz is Assistant Professor of Critical Thinking and First Year Studies at Stockton University, where he specializes in and teaches about World War II veterans’ writings, science and pseudoscience, extraordinary/paranormal claims and conspiracy theory. Im afraid lexicographer is still higher authority when it comes to words and their origin, Rob is not one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.23.61 (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A man who compiles dictionaries is a higher authority then man who specializes in the subject at a university? He may not be an expert on the origion of words (but then neither is a lexicographer) he is an expert in the history (and thus nature) of Conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Steven do you have trouble reading ? He is expert in limited field of history, field that in no way covers origin or meaning of words. How can I report you and who is supervising your work on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.23.61 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No I do not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Good, help me out and tell me who is supervising editors and where can I report you and insulting ignoramus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.23.61 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:77.243.23.61 If you think there is a problem, you can try WP:ANI. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMinersClick Here To Talk To Me! 15:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Left the same kind of message on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * IP, Your argument is a non starter. You do not seem to understand that lexicography is not the same subject as etymology. Your claim that it is a "higher authority" is purely nonsense; Lexicography has a huge area of focus (entire languages), compared to the much narrower focus of Blaskiewicz. Furthermore, Blaskiewicz does not "teach about World War II veterans' writings", he did his dissertation on that. He teaches courses on English composition, Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension, and his current subject of research is on "...the reception and rhetoric of extraordinary claims," and he is currently writing a textbook on the subject. You don't know enough about the subjects in question to even understand how ignorant you are, judging by your comments. I suggest you go back to doing research, because you still need a lot of work at that state before you progress to sharing knowledge with the world. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I do know enough and that is fact that he cant be held in higher authority than lexicographer on matter of word meaning or origin. You need to be striped of editorial rights, in fact all rights cause you seem to have penchant for regularly insulting users. And also seem to be particularly and emotionally invested in this subject, rendering you subjective and deluded.
 * I think you've repeated yourself and made enough empty insults. I'm going to archive this section unless someone has something constructive to say here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you should not have authority of any kind cause you are incompetent and emotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.23.61 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IP has filed a malformed edit warring noticeboard post ! -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 15:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can users please just report at ANI, and not sling insults around?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can users please just get over the drama and stop responding to it? Let the IP hurl insults. It's not hurting anyone, it's just digging their own grave. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then maybe we should lead by example.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved ed please close this as it has just degenerated into a series of PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out the sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of reverting a close, then posting to ask for a close, then arguing that the discussion is contentious in order to justify edit warring over a close. I would also point out the wikilawyering behind the claim, and the ignorance of failing to recognize that WP:CLOSE is not a policy page, and even if it were, it says "In uncontentious circumstances, even an involved editor may close a discussion." Uncontentious like two editors agreeing that a subject needs to be closed. But no, Slater has to make his pointy edits, no matter how often he's told to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As is invoking TPA whilst doing practically the exact opposite of what it says. It is contentious because the IP could well argue that you are closing this because he has insulted you), and not for an justifiable reason. This is precisely why involved eds should not close threads, to avoid appearances of a COI. We can hardly tell the IP he is not correct and should obey policy and guidelines of we ignore them. We have to lead by example, by doing as we say. I have said it before and I will keep saying it, we can only expect others to obey policy of we do, and we cannot demand others obey it if we do not. Yes I thinkk the thread should be closed (but not because of the actions of the IP), but I also think it must be closed by an uninvolved ed so as to ensure that this is all proper and above board, that there can be no appearance of gaming the system to win a dispute. I make no apologize for that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's TPG, and according to it: Yes, I can archive a discussion in which an IP insists upon hurling insults. And we all know you make no apologies because you've glued the WP:STICK to your hand. Go ahead and have the last word. Some of us have better things to do than this bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , were you trying to talk them into compliance? Blocked for disruption, obivously. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect quote of Lance deHaven-Smith
Article states- Lance deHaven-Smith has suggested that the term was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.[10] This origin is incorrect,[11][12]- But that is wrong,cause Lance does not talk about origin in that section that is quoted but everyday use of the term. Actual quote is - The term "conspiracy theory" did not exists as a phrase in everyday American conversation before 1964 - he also says it was year New York Times published 5 stories with usage of term. Link is already provided and quote can be find in Curios history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.42 (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note
I moved this here. I wanted to check if this diff was supported by the source, so I looked at the source. (It isn't in the sources btw)

The Westminster Journal piece says that it quotes the "5 New conditions" piece, but if you look at that piece, the quote is not there. I walked through all the saved versions of the "5 new conditions" piece, and the quote isn't in any of them. Conspiracy theories are mentioned in the description of "Gulf War Syndrome II" but they are not mentioned in the description of "Media Induced Post-traumatic Stress Disorder" which is where the Westminster piece says the quote comes from. So I've moved this here for now. I don't think we should use either ref.

For some individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove, or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or a combination of well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizotypal personality disorder, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.
 * Clinical psychology

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Online Conspiracy Theories: The WIRED Guide
Online Conspiracy Theories: The WIRED Guide. Everything you need to know about George Soros, Pizzagate, and the Berenstain Bears.

A good source. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

primary sources in the social pyschology literature
I trimmed a bunch of these. Papers in this field are at the core of the replication crisis and we should not be citing primary sources like that. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ayto
I worked out what's always bugged me about Ayto as a source for this. His book predates the 9/11 conspiracy literature. That event, and th3 conspiracy theories around it, plus recent Kennedy anniversaries and analysis of the conspiracy theory around the origin of the term conspiracy theory (meta!), have led to a substantial new literature on conspiracy theories which that older dictionary source cannot encompass. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, over the years, I have observed perennial efforts by various IPs and SPAs to add certain specific fringe notions to the article - 1. Some conspiracy theories are true. 2. The CIA invented the term in the 1960s to dismiss the reality of actual conspiracies. 3. Watergate is an example of a conspiracy theory proven correct. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, your first claim is true. I gave a source outlining 5 of them although it bears mentioning that one or two of those were arguably never conspiracy theories, just real conspiracies that -after being shown to exist- were frequently mentioned by conspiracy theories, and that the remainder might well represent the extents of the intersection of "conspiracy theory" and "truth". But yeah, the CIA claim is bunk, and the actual conspiracy behind Watergate was never, to my knowledge (and I am a former True Believer) a conspiracy theory. So it's a bit of a wedge strategy they have going there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you guys saying certain individuals from shadow are acting in coordinated manner in pushing certain agenda that is detrimental to common good but good for them and their cause (without verifiable evidence) ? (Plays X-files music) Cause that sound like conspiracy theory.MrStefanWolf (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Ever heard of a non sequitur? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then what are you saying? MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, exactly what I wrote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I dont know,looks to me like exactly what i wrote MrStefanWolf (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be you putting words into their mouth. Regardless, this is off topic. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Very much so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dunno about that, reason I say it is cause I have read that people believing in conspiracy theory of any kind should not be alowed to edit conspiracy theories pages. That is the reason I bring it up, just concerned. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are fucking trolling and if you don't knock it off I will introduce you to an admin who has... strong opinions about trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Better source than Blaskiewicz
this Humanengr (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? A Wordpress blog littered with grammatical errors as "better" than a published article by an academic specialising in the field? WP:CIR. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree Robert uses anecdotal evidence and takes it for granted that term was always derogatory when there are clear examples of it not actually used in that context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.42 (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not even an RS, let alone a better source than Blaskiewicz. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is serious problem with this, since we cant find actual quotes of magazines that ran stories (it was 19th century after all) we always must call on to higher authority which still proves nothing cause we dont have actual quotes and actual examples in original, and therefore cant link to them. He is right there are examples where Robert is wrong but you cant prove it so you need someone claiming it and his claim is good as his authority, its always second hand at best.Lance also does not think term was always derogatory, I think someone should put explanation with trouble sourcing actual material thats used and why there are links to some blogs and why there are so many conflicting opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.24.237 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I expect editors to add explanation in sourcing issues if they are gonna delete my explanation without saying a word. Rob is not infallible and chances are that he did not have access to every single mention of term conspiracy theory and it is still only his word without actual evidence, so its a matter of faith. As far as I know Wikipedia needs to based on facts, correct me if I am wrong. Mjolnirpants is really piece of work, he deletes my edit without any explanation and warning. He deletes it as unsourced yet he knows fully well that links is on this very discussion yet he does not wanna add it, he does not wanna even try to refute my arguments he did not even answer on my previous post where I raised issue. Someone should strip him of editing rights this person clearly does not have in mind making Wikipedia more informative place, he has in mind pushing his personal views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.39 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Funny how you claim I did it without any explanation then go on the bitch about the explanation I gave. And if it's so easy to source, why aren't you busy re-adding with with a source, instead of whining about getting reverted here? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only you are disingenuous you are also unable to read. I clearly said it is incredibly difficult to confirm any source since you can never see first hand document only quotes and excerpts from someone who also quoted it from someone. It is second hand at best, but probably way worse we are talking about 19th century and publications that dont exists anymore and should all be taken with grain of salt. I did add it but some smartypants said its personal comment and unrealible source. Well no kidding, ask Rob to bring you 19th century magazine and he wont be able either, you do not adress my issue with sourcing. But I will not waste a second here anymore, this entire site it pretty much beyond help with editors like you. Someone should also go on architectural timeline that is full of mistakes and puts some styles on wrong timeline (Art Deco) while completely ignoring some very important styles(Art Nouveau). How is that possible is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.39 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So now you admit that you can't source your edit. Then you never should have made it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No I sourced it but its removed as unreliable, buy same standard Robert should be removed. He did not link original 19th century quotes, from original publications.
 * We don't judge sources by the same standards we judge edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Relieved to hear that, cause that sounds like great idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.39 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually a very shitty idea. Blaskiewikcs is an acknowledged expert on conspiracy theories. You are some random person on the internet who likes to throw hissy fits on WP talk pages. If we extended the same trust you people like you that we extend to people like Blaskiewicz, we'd quickly find our servers filling up with numerous, contradictory and highly detailed descriptions of the lizard people that secretly control our lives. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Except you are again being disingenuous, source linked is as good as source used by Robert(he does not have originals). While talking about contradiction you should hop on architectural timeline that is in direct contradiction with what says on Wikipedia pages about those same styles quoted. How, I dont know, I am not editor.
 * Yeah, nobody really cares about your opinion of me, or your opinion about how we should source content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yea, facts not opinions facts. I know you dont that has been obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.39 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't speak Engrish. If you want to communicate something coherent, you'll have to try again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thx, for reopening; and appreciate your care in selective rehatting.
 * I was asked to withdraw the close, so I have done so in this same diff, and have hatted the bickering above. Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to the OP. What Guy said above. Per WP:SPS, An SPS like this is reliable only for the attributed opinion of the blogger, and whether inclusion of a given blogger is warranted is based on the reputation of the blogger as an expert in the field. I looked and found no evidence that "Shmaltz and Menudo" is an expert in conspiracy theories. The original post is incompetent.  And on top of that, on a page like this, folks should be looking to raise source quality, not drag Wikipedia into the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This cmt regards the quality of this particular Blaskiewicz cite, not his expertise re ‘conspiracy theory’.

Blaskiewicz titled that piece "Nope, It Was Always Already Wrong" and started the last para with "What is clear is that 'conspiracy theory' has always been a disparaging term." :The blog piece I offered notes “[T]here were instances where the phrase 'conspiracy theory' wasn’t really used to deride the person who pushed it.", citing two Google Books entries —The Conspiracy against Quay, 1890 and a review of Rhodes's History of the United States, 1895, followed by the comment "This is relatively tame, but there may have been a later push to make the term more derisive in the United States."

Both were digitized in 2011 and show in a Google Books search for <"conspiracy theory"> and so were available to Blaskiewicz.

Yet Blaskiewicz firmly asserted the term "has always been a disparaging term" omitting mention of this 'negative evidence'. This is particularly problematic given the Skeptics manifesto speaks of "extreme respect for, and attention to, negative evidence".

In these respects, which require no expertise in ‘conspiracy theory’, the blog I cited is better than this Blaskiewicz cite. Schmaltz and Menudo seems to have demonstrated and received accolades for work in tracking phrase origins — which is a relevant expertise here — and should be considered if only for critique.

Was Blaskiewicz's piece edited? 14:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Humanengr (talk)
 * Yes. And you are still pimping a blog as "rebuttal" toa published article by an academic specialising in the field. WP:STICK. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Humanengr. This thread is about whether the blog post is acceptable or not. You must provide sources for your assertion of their recognition; your assertion is not sufficient. If you respond with anything that is not about the use of the shmaltzandmenudo blog as a source in this article, I will reclose this thread. And see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see now I shouldn't have titled and started this thread as I did. shmaltzandmenudo was unnecessary to my argument as those Google finds can be cited to provide an NPOV (as I learned by asking on WP:RSN). Apologies for that misdirection.
 * Should I continue here or reopen a new thread? Humanengr (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)