Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 20

Proposed lede
I've been re-reading the lede, it could do with a little tightening up to reduce redundancy, and also because it is actually rather short for the length and complexity of the article.

This version encompasses additional points in the sources presented here, including those presented by Autonova, with added extra brevity. I have pulled together what I hope is the essential core of Slatersteven's proposal, folded in redundancy from the section on Barkun and expanded the last paragraph to include additional sources I noted above.


 * A conspiracy theory is the fear or assumption of conspiracy by government or other powerful actors to carry out some illegal or nefarious purpose, when other explanations are more probable. Conspiracy theories are generally unfalsifiable and reinforced by circular reasoning - both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.


 * According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, 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.


 * Belief in conspiracy theories is often considered irrational, and sometimes harmful or pathological  - to describe something as a conspiracy theory is considered pejorative and implies that it is untrue, based on superstition, prejudice or at least insufficient evidence. On a psychological level, studies show Machiavellianism and paranoia are highly correlated with conspiratorial thinking.

Needless to say I don't think we're anywhere near ready for an RfC yet, as this discussion is still bringing new ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be a good, tight lede section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, this seems a good option.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Tom Harrison Talk 11:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a satisfying lede. It differentiates the concept "conspiracy theory" from the literal "theory about a conspiracy". I especially like the additions of "unfalsifiable" and "circular reasoning", which really seem to be the heart of the phenomena. Schazjmd (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This lead is an excellent improvement to the article. Thanks to Guy for his hard work and research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that this is an improvement. I'm wondering if "proof" in "faith rather than proof" is the ideal word (I also didn't check yet if the sources termed it this way).  The following is also my own synthesis which may not matter unless also supported by sources: the summary of Barkun's description strikes me as very similar to magical thinking principles...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any more sources to support the fear part besides the one cited? Having that as the opening statement seems to violate WP:DUE.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pipes' "fear" statement is referenced and echoed in Byford. Hofstadter says "[T]he fact that movements employing the paranoid style are not constant but come in successive episodic waves suggests that the paranoid disposition is mobilized into action chiefly by social conflicts that involve ultimate schemes of values and that bring fundamental fears and hatreds, rather than negotiable interests, into political action." Uscinski makes numerous references to fear as a motivator, especially around the "red menace" conspiracy theories of the 1950s. van Prooijen says "Evidence suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation, increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social situations". Basham contextualises conspiracist ideation as a response to fears, when discussing if such fears might be rational or not. Oliver and Wood open by saying that throughout history, "[o]ften these sentiments go beyond a general distrust of government and encapsulate fears of larger, secretive conspiracies." I don't think it's a particularly contentious view that belief in conspiracies would evoke fear. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fear is indeed an important factor. — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Every time I read a new version, I like it better than the last. In my view "A conspiracy theory is the fear" is incorrect and unsupported by the sources. "Fear" is an important factor, and an important motivator, per the sources. But that doesn't mean a conspiracy theory = fear. The sources provide for other possible motivators (uncertainty, the feeling of being out of control, hatred, distrust). Fear is an emotion; the RSes don't portray a conspiracy theory as being an emotion. It's an idea or an explanation–in short, a theory. Also, I disagree with name-dropping one of the sources in the lead as WP:UNDUE. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If grammar/wordsmithing is the only issue, there are many possible variations, such as:
 * A conspiracy theory is the fearful speculation or assumption of conspiracy...
 * A conspiracy theory is the fear-based belief or assumption of conspiracy...
 * A conspiracy theory is the fear-inspired construct or assumption of conspiracy...
 * ...Etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I Strongly oppose replacing the current lead with seven characters  Oh... Wait. Never mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the suggestion is that it is the fear of a conspiracy or the assumption of a conspiracy. Either is plausible, both are supported in the literature. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem that immediately springs to mind is the use of "proof." I might try "both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for the conspiracy are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth." --tronvillain (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mark it up, let's have a look. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's good, Schazjmd (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly contentious view that belief in conspiracies would evoke fear. That's not what's being contended. What's being contended is it's placement in the very first statement of the lede. The view that ' firetrucks are red' is also not contentious, but that doesn't mean that firetrucks are red by definition. They aren't. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Firetrucks are red" is simply not an accurate statement, and can never be. "Most firetrucks are red" might be accurate, but would need support from reliable sources. "Many firetrucks are red" is a "sky is blue" truism and does not require referencing. Given this, it is not true that the statement "Firetrucks are red" is not contentious, so your analogy is false. "Firetrucks are red" is a contentious statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an idiosyncratic interpretation of what's written and what I said. Note the existence of the word "or" in the text. The example of the colour of fire appliances looks like a non-sequitur, unless you can show me a substantial literature dealing with the pathological psychology of belief in fire appliances. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the RSes support the view that a conspiracy theory is either a fear or an assumption. That dichotomy doesn't make sense to me, as some assumptions are based on fears, and some fears are based on assumptions, and I don't think any RS frames it as that kind of dichotomy (either a fear or an assumption). I think this is synth. A conspiracy theory is an "idea", an "explanation", a "theory". Fear is a motivating factor but it shouldn't be the word that follows "a conspiracy theory is" IMO. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an exclusive or. It could be either or both. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the contrapositives? If it's not based on fear, or if it's not an assumption, but it otherwise has all the other criteria, is it still a conspiracy theory? What if it's based on hatred or ignorance instead of fear? What if it's a "deduction" or a "hypothesis" instead of an "assumption"? I don't think any RS says it has to either be based on fear or be an assumption, or otherwise it's not a conspiracy theory. Echoing the above, just because fire trucks are red doesn't mean that "a fire truck is a red truck"; just because conspiracy theories are often based in fear or assumptions doesn't mean a conspiracy is a fear or an assumption... it could be something else. Leviv&thinsp;ich 01:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. The proposed lede sums up the psychological/pathological aspects well, but the literature is in sharp agreement on the definition. To give two definitions which disagree with 18 is a clear example of undue weight. Autonova (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find sources that say otherwise, Levivich, but Autonova's comment tells you all you need to know about where support for that view comes from. Wikipedia is not about protecting the feels of people who are wrong. I've listed a number of sources that explicitly discuss fear as a motivator, and show that it is historically important in the growth of conspiracist ideation - it's specifically referenced in relation to the "red menace", Jewish bankers and civil rights, to name but three, but consider also the Sandy Hook "truthers" who are afraid that Obama is coming for their guns. There are many documented instances where conspiracy theories are very clearly a response to fear of an out group or enemy. In fact that's a pretty normal part of any paranoid worldview, and the sources establish a strong interrelationship between paranoia and conspiracist ideation.
 * Autonova, it doesn't matter how often you claim that "two definitions" "disagree with" your "18", as I ave clearly shown, the very sources you cite also support the current and proposed lede. Your interpretation requires use of a linguistic scalpel, removing text, treating it in isolation, and then claiming that further content in the very same source is "undue" because it contradicts your preferred reading. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no subjectivity or opinion or interpretation when the sources are explicit. Per wp:synth, “do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source”. Pathology and psychology is real with CTs and important to mention and I have no problem with that because the sources are explicit. The sources are also explicit when it comes to the definition. Autonova (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is actually the synthesis, but in reverse: you are surgically excising sections of text with which you agree, and using it to repudiate in some cases text in the very same paragraph, or higher up, in the overview or summary, that contradicts you. I'm not the only one who is reading the sources and concluding that this proposed lead is fine. In effect you are arguing that a source that does not say "fire engines are usually red" in a single sentence is a countervailing source to the fact that fire engines are usually red. Most of us have no agenda here: this is not a situation where there are two competing sides, in which aliens shooting JFK from the grassy knoll is a valid alternative to Lee Harvey Oswald having shot him for the book depository. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds good. I think it should also say that the conspirators are seen as superhumanly powerful, all-knowing and evil. TFD (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, Arbcom. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed replacement of Proof.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd go with "fear-based assumption", because "fear" alone may be doing too much work. --Calton &#124; Talk 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To allude to Levivich's point, if it's not a "fear-based assumption" it's not a CT? That may be popular with many editors here, but it's incorrect per a host of sources. Also ironic that such a narrow definition would put some of your own edits into question. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fear or assumption is correct. Some sources say fear, some say assumption, some say assumption based on fear. Historically fear was more common, now assumption is. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're dodging the question: if a theory about a conspiracy is neither based on fear nor an assumption, is it still a conspiracy theory, per the sources? I think the answer is yes. What do you think? It seems under your proposed language, as it stands, someone with a hypothesis based in hatred (like Jews control the banks) would be able to say it's not a conspiracy theory based on WP's article because it's not an assumption and based in hatred instead of fear. Therefore one of your own goals (not giving room to POV pushers) would be thwarted. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this debate about fear about some hypothetical conspiracy theory, or can anyone provide an example of a conspiracy theory not based upon fear or provide a source that contradicts the idea that all conspiracy theories are based upon fear?Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this debate about the color of some hypothetical firetruck, or can anyone provide an example of a firetruck that's not red or provide a source that contradicts the idea that all firetrucks are red? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any source says that all conspiracy theories are based upon fear. They say most, etc., and they give other possible bases. Here are some examples from the extensive discussion and quoting in the walls of text above:
 * Pipes: the paranoid disposition is mobilized into action chiefly by social conflicts that involve ultimate schemes of values and that bring fundamental fears and hatreds, rather than negotiable interests, into political action ("chiefly" ≠ "always")
 * Oliver and Wood: [o]ften these sentiments go beyond a general distrust of government and encapsulate fears of larger, secretive conspiracies ("often" ≠ "always")
 * van Prooijen: [the] relationship between societal crisis situations and belief in conspiracy theories is attributable to feelings of fear, uncertainty, and being out of control ("fear, uncertainty and being out of control" ≠ just "fear", and "the relationship between" X and "belief in conspiracy theories" ≠ "conspiracy theories")
 * van Prooijen again: Evidence suggests that the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis—fear, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control—stimulate a motivation to make sense of the situation, increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies in social situations ("the aversive feelings that people experience when in crisis" ≠ "fear", and "increasing the likelihood of perceiving conspiracies" ≠ "all conspiracy theories are based upon fear")
 * My whole point, and the point of other editors, is that we shouldn't say or imply "always" when the sources say "usually" or "often" or "generally", etc. etc. It's synth. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said my "whole" point, as another of my sticking points is that we're describing a conspiracy theory as a "fear or assumption" instead of as an idea, explanation, or something similar, as I said in another comment above. Leviv&thinsp;ich 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, do any sources excpliclty say that all are based upon fear?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am hardly dodging any question, since I have answered it directly. Two questions for you though: (1) do you understand the significance of the word or in the phrase "a conspiracy theory is the fear or assumption of conspiracy by government or other powerful actors"; (2) how many of the sources I have discussed above, have you obtained and read? Guy (Help!) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and none. If you won’t answer my question, maybe you’ll answer Slater’s. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so you agree that the or is non-exclusive and does not imply that fear is a necessary component, only that it is, as numerous sources identify, one potential defining component, as with the 1950s "red menace". As for the rest, I suggest you read the sources before disputing them based on the word of a fringe believer. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If 5 sources say "fear" and 5 sources say "assumption" and you combine that into "fear or assumption", that's straight-up, textbook WP:SYNTH and you know it, you've been doing this a lot longer than me. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and irrelevant. Wrong because by that argument we could not use either despite the number of sources that identify each, and irrelevant because Oliver and Pipes discuss both. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is just looking for a fear counterexample, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories doesn't involve fear. It does, however involve "the fear or assumption of conspiracy by government or other powerful actors". I can't think of a conspiracy theory that doesn't fit that definition. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, "fear" is incorrect. I like more the Oxford Dictionary definition: "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties". Yes, these theories are generally wrong (and that must be emphasized), but it does not mean they are 100% wrong simply by definition. Sometimes, they are signs of significant controversies. For example, speaking about the John F. Kennedy assassination, Ion Mihai Pacepa tells that Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact directed by the KGB, possibly as a "patsy", and Pacepa is definitely an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, don't confuse criminal conspiracies with conspiracy theories. Please go back through the entire discussion we just had about that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let's review. Here's one source that was already discussed:
 * To which the response was:
 * I'd emphasize the last bit, "Our job is to reflect the world as it is, not as we wish it to be". No matter how much we wish it to be, no source actually comes out and says explicitly that all conspiracies are 100% false, or 100% born of fear or an assumption, etc., which is why we shouldn't say or imply as much in our lead. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And the proposed text does not say that all conspiracy theories are 100% false. What it says is that (a) conspiracy theories assume a conspiracy when other, more probable explanations exist, and (b) the commonly understood delimiter between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy, is the existence of credible evidence. Nobody describes Watergate as a conspiracy theory, because the theory was true - it's known, instead, as a conspiracy. But it was called a conspiracy theory at some points up until the evidence became compelling. The term conspiracy theory is generally understood to be an irrational belief unsupported by credible evidence, which is implicitly untrue. Pro-CT sources are completely clear about this: they spend a lot of time arguing that this understanding should be overturned because maybe JFK was murdered by the illuminati after all. Nothing provided to date contradicts the lead, it's just that one conspiracy theorist thinks we should ixnay on the alsefay, and pretty much everyone else disagrees with that apart from you, for some unaccountable reason. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you were OK with changing the lead to, "A conspiracy theory is generally understood to be an irrational belief unsupported by credible evidence," I would agree with you. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would we do that? The current proposal is much more comprehensive and nuanced. Oh, wait: to appease a Truther. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, as explained by the sources analyzed in this discussion, some conspiracy theories are neither a "fear" nor an "assumption". The example given in several sources discussed above is Watergate. When Woodward and Bernstein were investigating Watergate, before they proved it true, it was–as the sources describe it–a conspiracy theory. Not based in fear. Not an assumption, but a deduction. Not false, but true. After it was proven true, nobody called it a conspiracy theory anymore. It was "upgraded", as it were, to being called just a "conspiracy", because it's very true that "a conspiracy theory is generally understood to be an irrational belief unsupported by credible evidence" as you put it. That doesn't mean that before it became a "conspiracy" it wasn't a "conspiracy theory" or that it was "fear" or "assumption" or "false" before proven and then suddenly became something different after being proven. It was none of those things, yet it was still a "conspiracy theory" before it was proven to be an actual conspiracy. That's why the current lead fails the contrapositive test I linked to above, and why I think it should be changed. If you disagree, that's fine; if you're happy with your proposed lead despite the subsequent discussion, I'm not asking you to change it or even to agree to its being changed. I'll include your version in the RfC of course (both of them if you'd like). Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Watergate was not a conspiracy theory. It was a very specific crime that was published, fact checked and found true in a very short amount of time. Conspiracy theories have persisted for decades with no corroboration whatsoever. The "everything's a conspiracy theory until the evidence comes out" is bunk. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually,, all conspiracy theories are either a fear or an assumption. The only other thing they could be based on is fact, and if they are a fact, they are, by definition, no longer a conspiracy theory. Watergate was called a conspiracy theory until evidence came to light, after which time it was identified as a conspiracy. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but before it was proven true, it was called a conspiracy theory. Do you see what I'm saying? I kinda think you do because it's the point that Uscinski harps about here and here (which I have read) and also here (admittedly haven't read the whole thing). That first link seems like a pretty good survey of the leading literature. He addresses almost every source you've put forward. This isn't a FRINGE or batshit crazy idea; Uscinski's POV should be represented. (And Bigfoot himself can come here and start arguing in favor it, it wouldn't matter, because Uscinski, Parent, and others like him are still legit RSes.) Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I lived through Watergate. It was never a "conspiracy theory" and was never called a "conspiracy theory", except perhaps by those attempting to downplay it -- although I don't really recall that usage.  Impossible as it may be to underatand now, Watergate was something that opened up bit by bit, and it was not clear until late in the process that there was a real honest-to-god conspiracy behind it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two ways of looking at it. One is the way favoured by conspiracy theorists: Watergate turned out to be real, therefore conspiracy theory should be a value-neutral term because maybe Elvis did shoot JFK from a grey alien spaceship. The other is the way sources talk about it, which is that conspiracy theories are understood to be false by definition, and cases like Watergate demonstrate that because they are no longer called conspiracy theories once the evidence starts piling up. Wikipedia always has and always should favour the latter, however much conspiracy theorists might prefer otherwise. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two examples of ideas explicitly referred to as conspiracy theories which then turned out to be true: Apple engaging in planned obsolescence (mention of conspiracy theory here, confirmation by Italian authorities here ); Jussie Smollett faked a hate crime attack (use of the term here , police have enough evidence to arrest him for doing exactly that here ). Autonova (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So all we have to do is wait until the reliable sources who publish research on conspiracy theories incorporate those two examples into their definitions. Then we can use those new definitions and source them to those reliable sources. Until then, the article will have to use the definitions that are used now. We cannot have a footnote saying "Source: Personal communication from User Autonova, using newspaper article [1] and [2] to derive this new definition." --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the Smollett case was never called a conspiracy theory and was blown open within a couple of days, and the Apple case was speculation in a vacuum, Apple confirmed what they had done and why pretty fast, again well before it could take on the independent life that's generally understood to define a conspiracy theory. Anything where the facts are out and essentially uncontended within a few days or weeks doesn't really cut it. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As Guy points out, your citation does not show that the conspiracy theory against Apple was true. It shows that Apple got fined for the slowdown they implemented to avoid phones with older batteries shutting down under heavy load. That's different from the conspiracy theory of planned obsolescence. And again why it's frustrating that people keep pulling the "but conspiracy theories turn out to be true!" bullshit. This kind of selective reading of the facts makes everyone wary of that exact line of thinking. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the Smollett case was never called a conspiracy theory.
 * Jussie Smollett hits back at conspiracy theories after attack
 * However, right-wing conspiracy theorists have attempted to discredit Smollett’s version of events, even accusing him of fabricating details incriminating Trump supporters.
 * Jussie Smollett conspiracy theory tweets ‘liked’ by Donald Trump Jr.
 * Smollett also explained why he had declined to hand over his phone to police, a detail that has been seized upon by conspiracy theorists
 * Are you blind? It's in the title, it's in the url, 'Conspiracy Theory' is even a tag for the article Autonova just posted. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, of course, in the literature. But it's too soon to be there and the thing blew open too quickly for it ever to be likely to do so. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Jussie Smollett hits back at conspiracy theories after attack
 * However, right-wing conspiracy theorists have attempted to discredit Smollett’s version of events, even accusing him of fabricating details incriminating Trump supporters.
 * Jussie Smollett conspiracy theory tweets ‘liked’ by Donald Trump Jr.
 * Smollett also explained why he had declined to hand over his phone to police, a detail that has been seized upon by conspiracy theorists
 * Are you blind? It's in the title, it's in the url, 'Conspiracy Theory' is even a tag for the article Autonova just posted. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, of course, in the literature. But it's too soon to be there and the thing blew open too quickly for it ever to be likely to do so. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This proposal is marginally better than the current lede, but we've established there are still some major due weight problems with it as well as logical problems. So when is this RfC gonna happen? --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nudge. I will post an updated roundup of language in the next 24hrs and we can see if anyone has anything to add/remove/change before taking the RfC live. Leviv&thinsp;ich 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What options do you think the RfC should include? Presumably the original and my proposal above, what else? Autonova's suggestion has already been rejected by a supermajority. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still working on it. Leviv&thinsp;ich 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You wrote "established" when you meant "asserted, to general disagreement". Guy (Help!) 22:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No I meant established. As the objections linked in my comment are supported with sources, reason, and WP policy and remain unanswered. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In which case, you are stating opinion as fact. No, you have not "established" any POV issue. We know of course that conspiracy believers think that any accurate lede has a POV problem, but that's their issue not ours. This version accurately reflects multiple sources. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy is correct in his assessment. 07:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This version accurately reflects multiple sources. So far I've seen only one source define CT as a "fear". If there's an source that defines CT as an "assumption" I must have missed it. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussed above with examples. "The red menace" was a fear-based conspiracy theory, for example. Note the text says "fear or" - not both. Are you contending that the sources contradict the idea that some conspiracy theorists believe in bullshit because they are afraid of the vast global conspiracy? A lot of the sources discuss this. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Does anyone have anything to add/remove/change? Thanks. Leviv&thinsp;ich 06:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The current lede is replaced by my proposal which is a minor edit of that but encompasses the rest of the lede. Most of your proposals do not include anything other than the opening para. Slatersteven's proposal is redundant as he has pronounced himself satisfied with the existing and by extension my proposal. The prior lede can be removed as everyone seems to agree that the current one is better. Autonova's has already been rejected so can be removed. And I will vote against yours as it gives undue weight to the conspiracists' pretence that conspiracy theories may be real. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My proposal hasn’t been rejected. It’s backed up by sources and deserves to be included, just as much as any of the other proposals. Autonova (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The prior lede can be removed as everyone seems to agree that the current one is better. This is patently untrue. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Autonova's proposal is accurate according to the literal definition of of the word and according to how all the major dictionaries define it. My problem with it, is that I think the "without credible evidence" is actually necessary given the common use of the word. but defining it as false goes way too far and the idea has already been debunked with counter examples. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Guy's latest proposal can replace the current lede. He's the author of both, so I don't think anyone would object to that. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy's criticism of Levivich's version being due weight is a bit ironic given the due weight problems of his proposals. He has a single source that defines CT as a "fear" and 0 sources that define it as an assumption and hasn't even denied this fact. The problem with Levivich's version is that it seems to contradict itself. It claims that CTs are perceptions, not realities and then later says it's up for debate. As noted above, the former sentiment has already been debunked. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback.
 * I struck Option B (current lead) and will not include it unless someone objects.
 * Courtesy ping to since he's been mentioned above.
 * I think it's awkward to RfC a whole 3-paragraph lead and would rather just include the first paragraph of Option E, but that's up to the proposer of Option E.
 * I'm very open to suggestions on my proposal, especially since this is the first anyone's seeing of it. To help with the internal contradiction, I'm thinking of changing the second sentence to: Unlike actual conspiracies, conspiracy theories are generally characterized as perceptions, not realities,[2] lacking in credible supporting evidence.[3] Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be an acceptable adjustment to your proposal imo. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I updated Option F. Thanks again. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind after further thought and put it back to the original. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 02:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Given how many editors use and link CT, perhaps we should add an option G: "Asking questions" ...okay I kid. Strike that from the record. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I would change most if it, it reads terribly. Sorry this is worse then we have at the current time. Too much dancing around to try and appease people.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D is all yours. Autonova (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought this was all about option F.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm all ears if you have any more specific/actionable suggestions about Option F; obviously I wouldn't go so far as to Option E, but I'm open to changing the language or incorporating additional sources that aren't listed–or we can go forward with the RfC if you don't think further wordsmithing would be useful. I respect your disagreement and don't want to take up a bunch of your time with extended argument, but at the same time I don't want to ignore your input.
 * I have none, it requires far too much work, when we have other options that address my concearns.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , keep Option D in the mix? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my support of other options rather renders it null and void.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Separately, Guy suggested above that your proposal (Option D) was redundant and that you would drop it in favor of his (Option E). I am happy to include anyone's proposal along with mine who wants to include one, so it's entirely up to you–just let me know if you are good with going forward with these options or if you want to change yours or remove it. Thanks. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option D stricken per above. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing fairly representing different sources with different views with "appeasing people". --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI I will not "go live" with the RfC until 5 March UTC to give time for additional input (unless someone asks me to wait longer). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I revised my proposal per comments above and archived the previous threads relating to this discussion. I will archive this thread and post the RfC shortly with options A, C, E, and F. Thanks everyone for your input through this process. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 06:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Such a silly thing conspiracy theories
In a world that has known the holocaust, the disappeared from the Argentine dictatorship, the watergate scandal, the gladio operation, the Echelon network, etc. distrusting of governments is something absurd and paranoid.

Distrusting governments would be reasonable if they had ever done something wrong. But since that is not the case, the only reasonable thing is unconditional and absolute trust in governments.

88.9.175.84 (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what edit you are suggesting.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we're being trolled. I would have deleted this as not a forum. Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead (RfC)
What should the lead of Conspiracy theory be changed to? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Option A (prior version)
(Permalink to prior version.)

Option E½
Please !vote in the survey section and discuss in the threaded discussion section. Any editor may move discussion from the the survey to the discussion section. Thanks to everyone for participating. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * D as proposer. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support E. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * B as proposer. Autonova (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent between C and D, both appear to be decently sourced summaries covering the important points. — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really fussed between A, B, C. I think C may be a tad too long, but more detailed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C is excellent, and accurately summarizes the conclusions of high quality sources used in the article. Option D is also well written, but inappropriately ambiguous and noncommittal. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Since the options are continually revised and added to, I'll add Option E as a preference to my survey response. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C. The problem with D is that it states sources differ on whether CTs are false, without the absolutely essential context that all the commonly discussed CTs are false, and indeed the same sources that discuss whether they are false or not, identify the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is generally understood to imply falsity, a point made even by pro-CT sources. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also more or less Ok with E, though I think fear is well supported and i think both interesting and relevant, it can be discussed in the body. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * C. "D" starts off promisingly, then proceeds to go off the rails, so "no" to that, and the less said about "A" and "B" the better. --Calton &#124; Talk 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C is the best of these. I miss the 'insulation from refutation' phrase from an earlier version but that's fine. D would be my second choice but C is by far the best. It's thorough and clear. Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine keeping A, but if push comes to shove, I prefer C out of all the alternates. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C E I liked powerful, evil people working in secret in D, but the rest of it seemed to be trying so hard to say everything at the same time that it just confused me. (ETA) Changing to the newly proposed E; C is now my second choice. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C E 1/2 A and B are too slim. They are just bones. C mentions many important typical properties of CTs, which is good writing. There is a lot of flesh on those bones! D is mainly skin - it focusses too much on unimportant and unrepresentative hypothetical outliers which a few people think may be true. There is no reason to do that, except if one really wants to sit on the fence no matter what. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C Does the best job of both following the sources and capturing what most people mean when they use this term. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * D Seems strongest and is well sourced. Agree that A and B are too slim. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not C More specifically, I object to the Barkun sentence. If a statement requires in-text attribution then it generally doesn't belong in the lead section. One person's opinion, no matter how expert, should not be part of a 5-sentence summary of a broad subject like this. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C looks good to me. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The best option out of those presented is probably C, with the caveat that none of them are complete leads yet (none of them fully summarize the article body), so this should not be interpreted as closing off further improvement. D might seem reasonable at first glance, except for its repeated use of weasel terms and other WP:W2W in a way that introduces unwarranted ambiguity. In fact, in terms of content and tone, that seems to be the most significant difference between options C and D that’s not purely related to style. For instance, while the source lists superficially appear to be quite different, many of the sources used in option D but not C could in fact be used to support both, and the difference is just that they haven’t been transferred over.
 * I would also note for the record that a great deal of context for this RfC is currently recorded in Archives 19 and 20. In particular, extensive discussions of the sources have already occurred. (Also, since a number of the editors here have already expressed their opinions and reasoning, I expect this is why some of the comments in this section are so short.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 07:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'd ask you to strike that note about these options being discussed before as it is not accurate. Archives 19 and 20 have discussion about Option A (unsourced), and earlier iterations of Options B and C. Option D is entirely new, written two days ago, and has not been discussed prior to this RfC. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment more carefully. It would be hard for me to strike a claim that I didn’t make! <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * C is the most accurate and through summary for its length. Tom Harrison Talk 12:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C* C is a strong base, but the Barkum thing could be replaced with a more generic "Although there is no universal agreement on the exact criteria... [main criteria most people agree on]". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * D as first choice, A as second choice. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C or A, about equally. B drops the "untrue" connotation, which is important, and D just feels wrong somehow. Gaelan 💬✏️ 02:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C packs a lot of info --helpful to the one-click user who has only one minute to spend here.--such as the people who ask about it on Alexa, Google or Siri (they link here) Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * D JQ Picked because it distinguishes conspiracy theories from actual conspiracies, but this points up the problematic use of the word "theory" here. See more comments below (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C * or A. C apparently has bad sources (for fear [1]) and the Barkun quote is not exactly the mainstream interpretation of conspiracy theories, so should not be in the lead.  D adds the unnecessary "evil" (pun intended), and is weaselly.  B omits "untrue", and it really isn't required that the goals be "nefarious".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E as proposer. This option combines elements of A, B, C, and D to address some of the concerns that have been raised with them.  Compared to C in particular, it adopts a more standard wording than C's idiosyncratic "fear or assumption", removes the "three principles" of Barkun (these belong in the body of the article, not the lead), and addresses the recent emergence of conspiracy theories in the mass media. Tim Smith (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E is best, just as Tim Smith says it combine many elements from ABCD. It also insert citation to the current relevancy.-- AldNon Ucallin?☎ 06:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E 1/2 is best at this moment (I understand, it is an "upgraded C", C being most !voted so far), with a minor change, see my word in Discussion below. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E describes it in the most neutral way. C describes it in a reasonable way as well, D does not sound neutral, and A and B do not provide enough info. RedPanda25 23:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * C1/2 would be my first preference with E1/2 my second choice. As I noted below "conspiracist ideation" is commonly used in the academic literature. Multiple definitions that vary somewhat requires a somewhat longer intro. --mikeu talk 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E 1/2 Much more accurate, neutral, succint and helpful to the user than c 1/2. It doesn't contain anything that will provide doubt and fully describes it; and provides new definition. What else do you need. A or B would what would written for a new article after being spun up and are too simplistic for this important article. I've not looked at the sources but assuming they are readable by the masses. Definently E.05.   scope_creep Talk  00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * E 1/2 with Staszek Lem comment on it given below. Jzsj (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A as concise and best initial line, after that E1/2 seems close to following LEAD summarizing the article which the other choices do poorly. I’d say any choice needs additional work, and removal of cites — so it’s lead for the article, not a separate item.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Is the mention of superstition necessary here? It is commonly connected to beliefs concerning the supernatural, excessive religiousness, and a focus on omens and prophecies. None of this is a prerequisite to the formation of a conspiracy theory. Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would agree with removing "superstition" (and also "prejudice"), as I think the main point is that the term implies falsity and lack of evidence. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Update: I made the change. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 20:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW, option A is the only option that is completely lacking citations. It conveys the impression that "without credible evidence" has no support in reliable sources as a concept. I hope this was just an unintentional mistake. Cmt moved from survey by - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A, included at the request of multiple editors, was the "prior version", and the only one of the options that's actually been used in the article. I'd call it the long-standing status quo version. It had no citations, so this is not an unintentional mistake, but a faithful reproduction of the original. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not having cites is the guidance from LEAD — the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so then cites are in the body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * My long explanation for why I wrote D and like it better than C: Reference 1 of Option D is intended to collect the major scholarship about the definition of "conspiracy theory" in the last 10-20 years. Note that all are from reputable academic journals (wiklinked) and almost all are from well-known scholars (many have their own WP articles and are author-linked). These scholars all put forward "standard" definitions that include all or almost all of the following elements: (1) an explanation (2) of an event/practice (3) caused by (4) a group of people (5) acting in secret (6) who are powerful (7) evil or malevolent and (8) working towards a goal that benefits themselves (e.g., money). The first sentence tries to summarize this in as few words as possible, and the large bundle cite with quotes tries to show that this is a standard widely-agreed-upon definition. The remainder tries to address the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, and the idea that conspiracy theories are generally considered false (though not necessarily so by definition), while also acknowledging that research has found CTs are sometimes even harmful or pathological. My quibbles with the others:
 * Option A is uncited and doesn't accurately summarize the literature.
 * Option B doesn't address the implication of falsity (although that could easily be done in a subsequent sentence, so not a huge deal), but also doesn't include the elements of secrecy, self-serving goals of the conspirators, and uses the word "conspiracy" in the definition of "conspiracy theory" (so self-referential).
 * What I don't like about Option C is its selection and use of sources, and its departure from the standard/accepted definition (doesn't mention the elements of secrecy or self-serving goals), and its characterization of CTs as a "fear or assumption", which I don't believe is supported by scholarly consensus. Here are a few of my specific quibbles with Option C's sources:
 * Ref 1, Daniel Pipes is, in my humble opinion, a discredited racist. To get a flavor, his article on RationalWiki starts, "Daniel Pipes is a right-wing academic/crank". Our article about Daniel Pipes suggests the same thing in more neutral language (e.g., "Some commentators have argued that Pipes' writings on Muslims contain racist elements..."). Pipes' writing has been questioned by several subsequent authors (see Option D, reference #10, for some cites and quotes). I think it's UNDUE to base the entire lead and thus the article on Pipes' writing alone.
 * Ref 2, Goertzel, includes a quote that I cannot find in the actual paper anywhere. Goertzel 1994 (manuscript available for free at ResearchGate) doesn't seem to include this definition. Quite to the contrary, Goertzel 1994 distinguishes between "monological conspiracy theories" (which are the fake kind) and "Dialogical conspiracy theories, which include extensive factual evidence and details, are testable and may even be disconfirmed by new evidence" (Goertzel 1994, p. 740). Writing much later in 2010, Goertzel uses a definition that cites Coady 2006 (see Option D, reference #1 for cite and quotes). So, not really faithful to the source in my opinion.
 * Update: after I posted this, the misattributed Goertzel quotation was removed from the Goertzel cite, and the correct citation added. However, while we now have the quoting correct, neither source actually supports the first sentence of Option C. See my comments below. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 quotes Uscinski and Parent 2014's definition, but doesn't actually incorporate that definition into the lead. Compare the use of this same source in Options C/ref 3 and Option D/ref 1.
 * In ref 4, Aaronovitch 2010 puts forward his own definition, but this doesn't seem to have been widely adopted by other scholars.
 * Many of the others are cited for bits and pieces, but the definitions of CT that is used by those same scholars (e.g., Barkun, Swami, Furnham, Freeman and Bentall, Douglas and Sutton, Ucsinski, etc) in those same papers for some reason don't make it into Option C (they are cited in Option D, however). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On option B, this is the first bit of constructive criticism I've had on it (I based it on the previous wording) - would it be okay if I tweaked the wording per the above points? Autonova (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with it–it's still early in the RfC, though if you change it, I'd encourage you to leave a note in the discussion section saying you've changed it. I can't speak for other editors, though; they may have a problem with it; proceed at your own risk because WP:AGF is unfortunately in short supply here :-) Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject, for my part, I have no problem with changing the Goertzel cite if he wants to per my comments above, nor with  changing "Option A" (or even adding a whole new option) if they want to do that, nor with anyone else adding/changing options. It's early in the RfC so I see no reason to stop editors from improving the options. Just my 2¢. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Leviv. Let me clarify: for the recent Talk page discussion, it was fine to isolate the first sentence from a historically stable consensus version of the lead. (For context, see the prior Talk page discussion which began here and that resulted in consensus for this edit.) But when newcomers to the article drawn by the RfC see it presented as "Option A" without any context, it's misleading. Because the choice appears to be a single uncited sentence -- vs. the other options. This almost guarantees criticism of A because "it's too short" and "it's uncited". In the very least, you might modify A to include the full version of the lead text, and label it "Prior Lead" or "Previous Lead" to avoid confusion by newly-arrived editors. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , the version you linked to is from September 2018 and is not the "prior version". This is the prior version from Feb 2019, and as you can see, the whole first paragraph is included as "Option A". Also, if you look at the talk page archives, this "Option A" was posted several times (originally not by me), and users specifically requested the inclusion of that option. It's the only reason I put it in is because people said to include (what was at the time known as) "Option B", so I copied and pasted Option B. I'm doing specifically as requested. Following that trend, I will add "prior version" per your request and I will link to the diff so editors can review the whole prior version for themselves. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Commenting only on point 2, the quote is a summary of Goertzel by Douglas et al, rather than a quote in Goertzel itself. I transferred over the relevant source to fix the attribution - it’s the same source and quote that you used in the second entry of your reference 1. (You may also want to update your numbering after my edit.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 08:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that neither Goertzel 1994 nor Douglas/Sutton/Cichocka 2017 in any way support the first sentence of Option C. Neither source talks about conspiracy theories being a "fear" or an "assumption" or involving "illegality". Rather, Douglas/Sutton/Cichocka go with the standard definition used in Option D and they cite Goertzel for that standard definition ("...explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups (e.g., Goertzel, 1994)." to quote D/S/C). Option C, Ref 4, Uscinski & Parent, also doesn't support the language in Option C, as the book doesn't say CTs are based on fears or assumption. U&P 2014 supports the Option D definition, note their use of the term "standard definition", which is omitted from the Option C quote: "For conspiracy theory, we use a standard definition: an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a small group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good." Nothing about fears, assumptions, or illegality. Option C's "fear" language comes from Pipes ("A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy.") and the "assumption" and "other explanations are ore probable" language comes from Aaronovitch ("So, a conspiracy theory is the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy where other explanations are more probable.") Only Aaronovitch makes reference to Occam's razor. Yet, Option C uses the Pipes and Aaronovitch definitions as if they are standard, completely ignoring the definition used by almost all other scholars. By the way, Goertzel 1994 distinguishes between "monological" and "dialogical" CTs and writes "Dialogical conspiracy theories, which include extensive factual evidence and details, are testable and may even be disconfirmed by new evidence." It doesn't seem Goertzel is accurately represented in Option C. Editors can read the sources and verify this for themselves here: Goertzel (DOC), Douglas/Sutton/Cichocka (PDF), U&P 2014, Pipes, Aaronovitch. The reason there's overlap between Option D and Option C is because Option D is based on Option C, but adds additional works to show actual broad scholarly consensus rather than just Pipes and Aaronovitch. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For D, many of the references represent an attempt to refer to what may be (but isn't presently) in the body. It is not always necessary for leads to have sources, if the information supporting the lead is in the body (and sourced there).  We're comparing apples to tomatoes here.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I could be wrong, but I think almost all if not all of the sources in D are already in the Conspiracy theory article (that's where I found them). D is my attempt to summarize the existing scholarship as it's already represented in this article. I agree that the prose in the body doesn't actually summarize the sources as well as it could. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, I was intending on editing the body of the article to expand it, but before doing so, I wanted to see what editors thought of the sources, because the big difference between C and D are the sources used. D is basically everything in C, plus the rest of the references in the article. That's how I got to writing D. For me, this RfC is more about the reference list (which sources are we basing the lead on?) than it is about the prose. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Edited Option B, to remove self-reference to the term "conspiracy" as pointed out by Levivitch above. Autonova (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * A general problem. It's clear that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is always intended to convey the imputation that the claim being described in this way is false. But that imputation may itself be false. For example, in the early stages of the Watergate investigation, the claim that members of the Administration were conspiring to cover up the facts might have been described as a conspiracy theory. Once those people were convicted of conspiracy, the term was reserved for claims that the official account, involving an actual conspiracy, concealed the real, and undetected conspiracy JQ (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I like E a lot. My only hangup is that it doesn't explicitly differentiate between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". What are your thoughts on that point? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 07:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that is clear enough from the first sentence, which says that a conspiracy theory is "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy", and then says what a conspiracy is. But the distinction could certainly be elaborated in the body.  By the way, great job compiling all those sources for D. Tim Smith (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a missing element from c: conspiracist ideation is generally considered to be irrational. It is legitimate to draw the distinction in the lede between a conspiracy theory, whic is implicitly false, and a conspiracy, which is implicitly true due to the presence of objective evidence of its existence. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * just throwing this out there but what if it were three paragraphs that looked like this (additions to E underlined): Paragraph 1 being the definitional stuff; paragraph 2 containing a summary of the "typical qualities" stuff; and paragraph 3 containing a summary of the what's new/recent scholarship stuff. The third paragraph would need some expansion but I bet there's enough in those four footnotes to do it. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: statements in the literature such as "Although there remains some debate as to its precise definition (see Bale, 2007; Swami & Coles, 2010; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009), conspiracist ideation is usually described as a belief in the existence of a ‘vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character’ (Hofstadter, 1966, p. 14)."


 * IMO, the debate about the precise definition of the topic title necessitates a longer than usual (for wp) lead for this article. The issue is complex and requires a detailed explanation with caveats. For this reason I prefer the longer versions such as C or the edited option E above.


 * Also, the phrase "conspiracist ideation" is very commonly used in scholarly works, yet the article lacks any mention of this. It may or may not be appropriate in the lead, but I think it should be descibed somewhere. The term does occasionally appear in more popular works such as NPR and Psychology Today. The lack of mention causes someone searching for this term to not find this article as prominently in a google search as they would for a search for the topic title. --mikeu talk 15:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa, you're right! How did I miss that? E½ coming up... Guy (Help!) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks better. Have you seen A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs? I don't see that one in the refs. I feel that it is important for the opening mention of CI to reflect the opinions of experts who have written a review article. The traits described should be given the same weight as the preponderance of evidence in a survey of the field. More minor associations can be left for deeper in the article.
 * The paper also describes the history of this rather new field and some inconsistencies in methodology and results. It's a rather difficult subject to summarize due to this. The openings suggested are impressive given the challenges. The paper claims to be the first systematic review and I would use it cautiously until other researchers have reacted to it. --mikeu talk 00:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In a Frontiers journal? No thanks. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having looked further into that author's other works I'm having second thoughts about recommending it. I'm not convinced that the journal is wholly unreliable but I withdraw my suggestion of that specific source. More generally, are you aware of any reviews or meta-analysis on this topic? --mikeu talk 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not off the top of my head, but I'd be surprised if they did not exist. The literature on cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, conspiracist ideation and the overlap with paranoid fantasism has expanded significantly in recent years. Guy (Help!) 06:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I' d like to suggest a change for E1/2 (my !vote), in " by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation" - I would not say that in Moon landing conspiracy theories the alleged actors  are sinister. Therefore I would suggest an extra "weaseling": by powerful actors, often sinister and politically motivated. - Opinions? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this change. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural Comment -- I guess there will be the Second Round of the survey, because during the discussion new options appeared and old ones upgraded, so that people may want to reconsider their !votes. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having some difficulty assessing which specific wording someone supported. For these reasons I waited to express a preference until the modifications to the suggestions were more settled. I support an effort to continue refining the language of A through E, followed by a second round of !votes. The wording has improved a great deal since this discussion started. --mikeu talk 16:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As the poster of this RfC, I agree. I've never been involved in an RfC before where almost every option changed and several new ones were added during the RfC and then it went to a second round, so I'm just not sure how that happens procedurally-speaking. (I assume I cannot "withdraw" the RfC as nom and it must be closed before a new one is posted?) One question I have is whether it should be an RfC for a sentence, a paragraph, or the whole lead? (We have all three above.) A second question is, what are the "final options" going to be? For my part as proposer of Option D, I would withdraw Option D in favor of some form of Option E or E 1/2 for a second round. So I'm happy to support whatever moves us closer to a final consensus on a lead, and to do whatever I can to help with that, but I'll be looking to others (a closer?) for exact next steps here. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per mikeu, I've watched the RfC evolve into a collaborative workshop, which turned out to be much more useful and constructive than a single up-or-down !vote. Kudos to User:Levivich for continuing efforts to foster consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)