Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 5

The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations
The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.

The reason the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is logically self-contradictory is because everyone with an I.Q. high enough to tie their shoes is a believer in conspiracies. Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.

Thus, those making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" are also believers and/or promulgators of notions regarding conspiracies--often far more so than the person being accused as being a "conspiracy theorist."

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate a plan which involves doing something untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component of conspiracy).

It certainly says something regarding the intellectual blinders one making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is wearing that they don't even stop to realize the logically self-contradictory nature of this charge, as going by the literal meaning of the two words in the phrase "conspiracy theorist." For the one making this charge is himself a believer in conspiracies.

And so it is here where we come to the real meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" as it is used by those making the charge. What they mean by this charge is that the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which have not been offically sanctioned by the accuser's government--whereas the accuser making this charge believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which his government has deemed appropriate for the public to believe in. The difference between the two is that the accuser believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are statist in their implications, in that they merely reiterate the offical government line--whereas the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are anti-statist in their implications, in that they go against what the accuser's government would have the public believe.

Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so?--209.208.77.64 09:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you over this for the same reason that I don't spend my time mud wrestling with pigs. But I do think that you should consult a dictionary for the definition of "theory".  It does not "suggest a principle or law of operation".  Laws have been proven as verifiable.  Theories have not.  Thus the word applies for the term "conspiracy theory".  Dismas|(talk) 09:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, talk about an ad hominem attack! That is a way to dehumanize me by conflating me with animals used for slaughter. I will here ask you to please stop psychologically projecting upon me. I've actually read many dictionaries on this matter, including having read Wikipedia's very own entry on the term "theory." Apparently you would have people believe that you've never heard of the General *Theory* of Relativity and the *Theory* of Evolution. Is not the General *Theory* of Relativity a physical law? Go ahead and look at Wikipedia's own entry on "theory." You'll find that it has no relevancy to almost any belief in conspiracy. So please now answer my question: if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so? That is the issue here with the misapplied term "theory." The logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack of "conspiracy theorist" is against those making claims regarding historical events which go against the claims of the political establishment. Such people attacked by this ad hominem are making claims regarding historical events based upon historical inquiry. Either the event happened or it did not--just as with the historical claim of rain having fallen on a certain day and at a certain place.--209.208.77.64 10:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Is not the General *Theory* of Relativity a physical law?" No.  That's why it's called a "theory".  See Theory of relativity and you'll see in the evidence in the first sentence.  I'm done... At least you made me chuckle and shake my head... Dismas|(talk) 10:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The General *Theory* of Relativity is certainly a physical law in the sense that every experiment to date has confirmed it, i.e., in the sense of a principle that is known to be true to date. By your use of "law" in this context, nothing could be a physical law unless proved *a priori* (since experiment can't prove a general principle but merely confirm it). Granted, using "law" in this sense isn't logically rigorous in the utmost of sense if one means by "law" something which is known cannot possibly be violated, but all mainstream physicists that I am aware of speak of the "laws of physics" (i.e., as they are currently known). At any rate, this is a total diversion by you from my actual statement. I said "The term 'theory' suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution." Notice I said "principle *or* law," so your own incorrect cavils regarding the term "law" are irrelevant even on their own terms. The point is that merely making a claim regarding a historical event is not the same as positing a principle or law of operation. So, once again, please now answer my question: if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so (whether they be either right or wrong)?--209.208.77.64 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

- Cleanup notice removed --Cberlet 13:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

''The Notable "conspiracy theories" segment needs attention and cleanup. Categorization and "ranking" is needed badly. Some of them are very minor and some are very major. It's "all over the place", so to speak. ''

- "Some people believe that Freemasonry was condemned by the Church primarily because of its view that all religions are equal; this view was diametrically opposed to the Catholic belief that it is the only true religion. Since many Catholics and some Protestants now agree with the Masonic principles condemned by the Church ..." Some issues with this: No past tense needed. A catholic may not be a freemason, on pain of excommunication. What exactly is meant by "All religions are equal"? And do many catholics and protestants agree on these alleged masonic principles? Perhaps this part can be coordinated with the wikipedia article on freemasonry, if there is one?

Can someone justify the "Anti-Semitic belief systems" section?
Almost all of this section is devoted to the idea that Jews have prospered by lending money for profit, in a manner justified by their religious beliefs. Although this is an interesting topic, I'm not sure what it belongs in the "conspiracy theory" article unless someone can clarify what the conspiracy is supposed to be. Is the conspiracy supposed to involve the Jews making back-room deals to jack up interest rates, or to hiding their financial activity from the general public? (It seems to me that on usually doesn't need to "conspire" in order to lend money for profit. So why would the Jews need to?) Or is the conspiracy supposed to involve non-Jews spreading this rumor about the Jews in order to discredit them? Or is it something else? --Ryguasu 12:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a legitimate point on this page because it is the start of many of the worst conspiracy theories about Jews. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has already been cited as an example of that sort of thing. Edward I's treatment of the Jews in England is another example of a conspiracy theory starting from that point. Hitler also used aspects of the money lending point in his attacks on Jews. It's not so much a conspiracy theory in and of itself as the starting point for a great many theories. David Newton 11:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've created two new archive pages. Philwelch 19:29, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hoax, which was written in the late 1700s, which has been pressed into ideological service many times for many philosophies, including Nazism and other such groups. Davidizer13 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S Interventions

"During the 20th century the United States has also often been accused of plotting foreign coups d'état for commercial interest, as in the 1954 overthrow of Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz Guzman."

That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a well documented fact. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed text
Have removed the following text from the article: Firstly if such an article exists where is it, and secondly the red link (which is only linked to from here) is a target for vandals of wikipedia. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 14:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Another article exists which lists and describes a vast array of conspiracy articles, including a series of global conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories peculiar to the United States of America, conspiracy theories peculiar to Canada, and conspiracy theories peculiar to the Arab and Muslim world. This includes a discussion of Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the September 11th 2001 Terrorist Attacks.

Well, there was this crazy conspiracy which involved several Israeli citizens allegedly found with a camera and cheering when the towers fell.Bold textItalic textThis has been proven to be false. What really happened was that 5 Israelis drove a white van across the George Washington Bridge later that day. The police had a tip that Middle Eastern terrorists in a white van were going to destroy the bridge. The Israelis were detained, and that's how that falsehood started. I cite Chapter 71, "911" of the book, "The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time" (quite possibly the best list of conspiracies ever compiled) to back this up. Davidizer13 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rosh Hashannah theory
A recent addition by Gzuckier discussed an original date of 9/17 or 9/18. I'd never heard that before. Do you have a cite? Quadell (talk) 19:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * With the information that the news agency was 'Al Manar', I can now find a few such sources:
 * 4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At World Trade Center On Sept.11
 * AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report
 * Beirut, Lebanon - Monday, September 17, 2001
 * 4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack
 * 
 * 


 * According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television. The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."
 * The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times.
 * 

Actually, the claim that no Israelis were killed at the WTC appears to be correct. All the victim lists I've found only list 1 Israeli death, and it was on a plane, not in the WTC.. Whether there were any Israeli employees working there normally I don't know. - Mustafaa 20:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although Haaretz disagrees, citing 5 victims, 3 of which were at the WTC. - Mustafaa 21:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reason for the disagreement is that 4 of these were listed as Americans elsewhere - presumably dual citizens. - Mustafaa 21:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to take this discussion to Talk:Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks. I've made extensive recent edits, partly benefiting from the Slate link cited above, and would be interested to get more input. - Mustafaa 23:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the book "The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time," it says that figure was drawn from the 4000 Israelis who worked in the entire city! It is highly unlikely that they all worked in the WTC.Davidizer13 16:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

psychology of conspiracy theories
This is a good article, but it could really do with a section on the psychology of conspiracy theories. Why are they so prevalent for instance ChrisG 18:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * 'owzat? Adhib 16:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iraq weapons of mass destruction qualifies as Conspiracy theory?
In light of definition given


 * "common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers or conspiracies."

As current understanding is that Iraq didn't have 'weapons of mass destruction' so old theory that it had 'weapons of mass destruction' and it was provided by 'secret agencies' can it qualify as conspiracy theory?
 * Zain 23:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fixed Zain's spell-error--OleMurder 14:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems more like 'blatant baldfaced lie'. Gzuckier 17:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The BBC briefly claimed that No.10 Downing Street "probably knew" that their pronouncements on Iraq were false, which claim amounted to charging people within the UK government of conspiracy. The BBC corrected the claim in later reports in that same broadcast, but was eventually eviscerated by the UK government backlash. The point is this: The idea that Tony Blair and chums are two-faced liars makes more sense in a lazy media narrative than the idea that the UK government were institutionally blind to reality. This latter appears, now, to be the case. But it made (and still makes) a far too complicated narrative to set out in a mass media context. Why were people of such evidently limited critical faculties chosen to run the country? Much harder to answer than "Why is this lying b****rd lying to me?" Adhib 17:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except for that pesky Downing Street Memo that recently came out.

Secret reasons for the end of communism
I removed this section from the article. The text was


 * It is sometimes claimed that not only the bad economics terminated the communism in Eastern Europe, but that because of bad technology and frequently occuring UFOs, the principle of Cold War - the equilibrum of terror - was not maintainable any more. This theory can be claimed by some extraordinary and well documented UFO incidences in East and West before 1989.

At first, I though I'd just fix up the English and POV, but when I was done I had


 * It is sometimes claimed that the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War was caused by UFOs.

And the references 1) are all in German, and 2) look like they aren't that good anyway. dbenbenn | talk 19:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup attempt
This article suffers from being a way that proponents of dubious conspiracy theories get to insert their claims into an article. Much of this can be linked to external articles, and the detail deleted. The new Popper stuff is interesting, but derails the main theme of the article. I think we should move it lower. And none of us can claim to know what Popper would like and dislike today. So that was cut. This article still needs a lot of work to make it coherent and more balanced. --Cberlet 00:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Can anyone explain what this section is doing on this page?
 * "Termination of rocket experiments at Cuxhaven"
 * It just seems to be a complaint about a government ruling about rocket testing. Is this actually a well-known conspiracy theory? I cannot find evidence of this as a major conspiracy theory --Cberlet 13:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tidying-up
OK, I've started trying to lick this into better shape. Apart from new subsidiary articles exporting some of the discussions to stand on their own, I'll be removing the occasional paranoid fantasy or re-describing it in non-commital NPOV. Oh, and I'll also be pasting dubious 'facts' here for debate about whether they warrant reinsertion into the article: for a first example, I think Al Capone might have had something to say about this ...
 * The Mafia was essentially completely unknown to outsiders until Joe Valachi revealed them in 1963.

Adhib 09:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the snafu and thanks to Cberlet for the rescue job. Seems my set-up (iMac, 'course) can't handle editing stuff that's way over-length. The edit window just gives me the first 40kb or so, hence the ugly snip that occurred, even when I reverted. This means the bits I valued from my own contrib of the 23rd (material on the Chinese Embassy in the War sub-section; 16:09, 23 Feb 2005 ) are inaccessible to me to copy and paste across to their appropriate home in Cberlet's new Conspiracy theories (a collection) article. Anyone got any advice? Adhib 15:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed from main article for analysis
An unidentified user added this to 'Psychology of ...'


 * There may also be specific historical periods during which a government is actually covertly subverted from within by a conspiratorial cabal. In such a case, if successful, covert control over the mass electronic news media, the central nervous system of any modern democracy, will probably also be employed, leaving the public at large with an officially-sanctioned conspiracy theory produced to distract attention and blame away from the true conspirators.  In such cases, those people who accept the government-provided unproven conspiracy theory will not see themselves as conspiracy theorists, yet will see anyone who does not accept the unproven official conspiracy theory as a "conspiracy theorist"  with some ulterior need or motive.  When this happens, it is time to cast aside the labels and psychology and study the physics in order to determine the truth of the matter.  For example, in the case of 9/11, the official government explanation of the "gravitational" collapses of the twin towers, which occurred in near-free-fall times, despite the great expenditure of energy pulverizing so much concrete to an impossibly fine powdery dust along the way, requires the belief that gravity was stronger than gravity, a ludicrous proposition.

This does not to achieve NPOV, a basic standard of inclusion in Wikipedia articles, but instead commits to one - at least somewhat controversial - interpretation of events. If it is to be revised to appear in an article, I recommend it is placed appropriately in Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Adhib 14:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adhib. This was an attempt to insert a specific POV conspiracy theory into the text. The idea here is that this page is a general discussion of Conspiracy theory. There is another page that mentions specific Conspiracy theories, and then there is a page just on 9/11 conspiracy theories (and many other topicla pages). Also, for the record, Popular Mechanics has a thorough study debunking precisely this conspiracy theory. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html --Cberlet 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another unidentified user added the following.
 * But as real conspirations quite naturally sometimes occur in history, (for instance tere ocur often spy paronoias in some contexte where people sees spies wherever, but naturally real spies also do exits, so the fact that exist sometimes that sort of paranoïa quite not do that tera can be real spies) So the nowadays success of the concept of "conspiracy theory, and the strange   propensity in some section of media the resort of that "arm" to a-priori discreditate every troublesome susputions, do that now many poeple suspect that that new "fashion" is mainly the fact of power circles, that found a very potent and easy to use weapon to frighten all would be critics, "whistleblowers", or truth-searchers, and thus maybe prevent that real conspiracies or every kinds of scandal might come to light !

AndrewMcQ 19:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And here's yet more in that vein ... we're clearly going to need to find a way to head off these kinds of contribution, if possible. This seems to me to constitute original research:


 * Equally relevant to consider is the psychology of dismissing conspiracy theories by the dominant cultural influences in society (governments, media, etc.). Throughout the ages, one of the commonest techniques employed by powers that be with regard to allegations that make them feel uncomfortable is to accuse supporters of such alternative views of insanity or irrationality, even if their case is supported by at least prima facie evidence. This approach serves to effectively deter continued discussion of a theory in question on the fear that those who give ear to it be publicly labelled "insane".


 * Thus the modern-day term "conspiracy theory" has been generally denigrated to mean a point of view that could more aptly be called a "conspiracy hypothesis". N.B.: a theory differs from a hypothesis in that a theory is a supposition that is backed up by some (prima facie, at least) evidence in practice. The dominant cultural influences however, whose vested interest is to maintain the dominant (=their own) explanations of things, consistently strip the term "conspiracy theory" of this important shade of meaning that sets it apart from a simple hypothesis. The very existence of evidence to back up a "conspiracy theory" is thus denied by the powerful on the level of verbal conditioning of the masses (=consumers of the dominant culture). In this fashion, the very accusation of something being a "conspiracy theory" carries today the undue connotation that the dissenting point of view is lacking in evidence and is hence unworthy of any pursued investigation.

Excising the original research and logical fallacies from these pars leaves, as far as I can see, nothing to reinsert in the article. Adhib 10:00, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias against anonymous editors
The insertion of highly POV material in defense of conspiracy theories by an anonymous user is almost comical on this topic. Folks, at least have the common courtesy of signing in and defending you views.--Cberlet 04:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy does not treat edits by anonymous users different from edits by logged-in ones. Reverting an edit because it worsens the article is acceptable. Reverting it because it was made by an anonymous users is against the rules. --FOo 14:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not clear. I was commenting on the irony of anonymous edits on the conspiracy page. I meant sign into the discussion page first. Bad choice of words on my part.   I reverted the edit for three reasons: 1) it was very poorly written and did not make a lot of sense. 2) this is a contentious page and people have been asked to discuss these matters first before a major edit. 3)It was an unsupported opinion plonked into a section on the psychology of conspiracism that is based on over 50 years of research in academia.--Cberlet 20:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect that some "anonymous posters" on this and certain other articles do so in order not to be targetted by "the idiots"/flamers and other suchlike (as distinct from "those who rearrange for the fun of it/to annoy others."

Bogus Edits
Dear User:Bogusstory Let's not have a revert war. The definition is cafefully worded. Your attempts at editing have been poorly written, often barely coherent, and opinionated. If you want to discuss what you are trying to say, this is the place. But let's not have a revert war.--Cberlet 22:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lead
The lead definition should not be focused on the political examples with "secretive powers" and "common understandings".

I don't care who writes the lead definition, however I was not happy with the current one because I (and likely Rhobite) think it is incomprehensible and inaccurate compared to dictionary definitions and leans more towards the colloquial or political definitions.

The lead definition needs to be flexible enough to work for any special case. The concept of "conspiracy theory" is really just the combination of the concept of "conspiracy" and the concept of "theory" or "guess". To conspire is to plan together to do something, usually bad but not necessarily. For example you and your mom can conspire to surprise your dad with a party! So a "conspiracy theory" is a guess that a group of people conspired to do something. It is a guess, because the person guessing has no direct knowledge that the group of people planned it and executed on it. In the previous example, after the surprise party, your dad might suspect that the two of you were in on the surprise because he doubts either one of you could have pulled it off on your own (his conspiracy theory) and ask you both how you planned it. [Perhaps only your mom knew that he would be there at that time and only you could have invited his friends.] After revealing these facts to him, his theory becomes a fact.

If you check the new definition of conspiracy theory, you will see that my above example is correct usage of the term. However the previous lead definition would not allow for it. Bogusstory 09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. The meaning of "conspiracy theory" is not just the defs of the two words mashed together. And please put future comments at the bottom of the page.--Cberlet 14:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 'the concept of "theory" or "guess".'

Nonsense. The word 'theory' does not mean 'guess'. Matthew Platts 16:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles
There is a new page, Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV / apologists
I'm tempted to put a NPOV label on the two uses of "Skeptics / apologists". I think "skeptics" is fine, but "apologists" carries a negative connotation.
 * Sure, why not. Either that or go through and tack 'cranks' on every description of conspiracy theorists for balance. ;)
 * Erm, and "conspiracy theorist" doesn't in itself carry a negative connotation? If anything, it seems to me that BOTH are skeptics of something (a "conspiracy theorist" of the official story, and an "apologist" of "conspiracy theory", though, admittedly, the inverse is not necessarily true in either case).  In terms of negative connotation, "apologist" just means "A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution." The only reasons it would have a negative connotation are


 * a.) what the apologist offers "apology" for (in the explanation sense of the term) is widely criticized or indefensible on it's face, or


 * b.) the average reader is ignorant of the definition of the term.


 * While my own POV tells me that both are correct in this case, I disagree that the term implies POV.

London
i need comments:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 19:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Guild
Join: WikiProject Conspiracy

Guys, what about starting Coincidence Theory ?

It gets 4 020 hits on google... 

--Striver 23:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. This article is incredibly biased, from the term "conspiracy theory" down to the detailed obsession with categorizing the mental illness of people who perceive certain conspiracies. So then what about gullibility and susceptibility to propaganda as mental illnesses?

See: Coincidence theory

I'm not paranoid, but ...
I have to say, I agree with Striver. This is an incredibly arrogant and blatantly biased article, and I'm surprised no-one's stuck a POV flag on it. I am currently trying (gradually) to broaden it a bit, without (hopefully) going too far in the other direction.

Since I think the vote about 'Conspiracy theory' ended with the conclusion that 'CT' wasn't a perjorative, then it's only fair to do something about this article, which seems to believe that all conspiracy theorists are nuts. Garrick92 14:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Making it un-biased would need to rewrite the whole article, and that would raise question about biasedness of word Conspiracy Theory itself. I propose that "conspiratorial" views would be treated as opinions of the authors; in some cases proving against those opinions would be trivial (author is a nut) or just a matter of choice (cannot be proven for or against). History knows many human beings whose work was disputed by contemporaries, but was later proven true. Earth is flat, isn't it?

--80.220.157.40 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

MKULTRA
The bulleted paragraph MKULTRA seems to be garbled. Will the author please rearrange the sentence fragments? I can't figure out how the last sentence is supposed to read. J S Ayer 14:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Problems with introduction
"proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic.&quot;

As do proponents of a certain car, computer, fashion label or political party. The point of is ?

I think this unfortunately falls into the category that I'm seeing a lot of on Wikipedia recently; soundbites in the introductions of articles which really have no place being there and are not informative or educational to new readers at all with the potential to skew or distort the entire article.

The other argument to this would be that logic has been rigourously and studiously applied by many individuals who have the burden of being labled 'conspiracy theorists', for example surrounding 9/11 to come to the legitimate alternative conclusion that the official explanation surrounding the attrocity is incomplete or just plain wrong.

Personally, I take issue with "proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic" which is a superficial and misleading stereotype that doesn't belong in an introductory paragraph.


 * The phrase is drawn from the work of Barkun, Goldberg, and others. It is a common assertion of these and other scholars, although others disagree, as is noted in the article. This page offers a range of views, but the views of most scholars and reputable publications is skeptical of conspiracy theories as a genre.--Cberlet 15:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and history
Slightly tautological but:

There will always be conspiracies (even on the level of arrangements of convenience).

There will always be "collections of coincidences."

Sometimes the significance of certain pieces of information/documents is not realised at the time and so they get destroyed in innocence. (If the guard in the Watergate building had not noticed that the door had been taped shut, history might have developed very differently).

Information does get lost or forgotten over time.

Certain events will capture the imagination (the deaths under strange circumstances of certain people who are popular).

Some people will take (groups of) events that fall under the last four categories, play "join the dots"/interpret them from a particular political or other view point and deduce the first comment.

My "theory" is that some of the objects of the Ancient World were constructed partially to generate conspiracy theories among future generations.

Have to distinguish between "conspiracy theory" and "working theory" (ie where someone works within the normal rules of evidence and research and adapts as appropriate).

See discussion on other page
Hi, some of my recent edits are based on a big discussion on this page:



Please join in.--Cberlet 19:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Uncited assertion
I do not think the following claim is true, and it certainly is not cited:
 * "It is important to add that this article itself - purely by discussing the 'psychology' of conspiracy theories - could be used to support an argument that 'conspiracy theorists' (i.e., anyone and everyone who believes, or tends to believe, in a non-orthodox explanation for at least one social 'event') are somehow mentally ill. There is no evidence that would support such a sweeping claim. However, there is plentiful evidence to suggest that humans have an urge to conform, even superficially."

Anyone have a cite?--Cberlet 01:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

standards of assessment
IMHO, the article Apollo moon landing hoax accusations has very nicely written introductory paragraph about conspiracy theory and assessment of it. Shouldn't it be incorporated here in some way? Most of it is treated in more detail here, but over there it's really nicely summed up. Samohyl Jan 21:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this, taken from the article mentioned above:
 * Conspiracy theories often defy an official or dominant understanding of events. Even though some conspiracies are proven to exist, many more, even though they come to be widely accepted, are often propounded by advocates who substitute zeal for logic. While conspiracy theories vary widely in their plausibility, common standards of assessment can be applied to all:
 * Followed by the list consisting of Occam's razor, etc.


 * Anybody object? Should we workshop it here first, or just edit and revise on the page? Tom harrison 02:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations
The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.

The reason the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is logically self-contradictory is because everyone with an I.Q. high enough to tie their shoes is a believer in conspiracies. Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.

Thus, those making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" are also believers and/or promulgators of notions regarding conspiracies--often far more so than the person being accused as being a &quot;conspiracy theorist."

A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate a plan which involves doing something untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component of conspiracy).

It certainly says something regarding the intellectual blinders one making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is wearing that they don't even stop to realize the logically self-contradictory nature of this charge, as going by the literal meaning of the two words in the phrase "conspiracy theorist." For the one making this charge is himself a believer in conspiracies.

And so it is here where we come to the real meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" as it is used by those making the charge. What they mean by this charge is that the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which have not been offically sanctioned by the accuser's government--whereas the accuser making this charge believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which his government has deemed appropriate for the public to believe in. The difference between the two is that the accuser believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are statist in their implications, in that they merely reiterate the offical government line--whereas the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are anti-statist in their implications, in that they go against what the accuser's government would have the public believe.

Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so?--209.208.77.64 09:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To put the recent postings here in context, interested editors my visit Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid. Tom harrison 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)