Talk:International Jewish conspiracy

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Der ist Schuld am Kriege!.jpg

conspiracy vs conspiracy theory
There's a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. International Jewry, international Jewish conspiracy theory or world Jewish conspiracy theory or whatever you want to call it is a conspiracy theory and not a conspiracy. The title of the article should reflect that fact. Describing it as just a 'conspiracy' is wrong, it is a conspiracy theory. Abdul Akter (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That’s not how article titles are decided, however. Please review WP:AT and consider the number of reliable sources using either of the proposed titles (Google Scholar for example) then whether the extra word is necessary to distinguish from other topics (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm home I did the search and can tell you: 1750 results for "international Jewish conspiracy" on Google Scholar, but only 12 for "international Jewish conspiracy theory". Wikipedia articles are titled after what the topic is commonly called in sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be changed to conspiracy theory. Stating otherwise is misleading and fails to follow WP:PRECISE, its unnecessarily ambiguous. LoomCreek (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your move. Once you moved it and someone {Buidhe) moved it back, your moving it again was edit warring (technically, "move warring").  Please do not move it again until you have filed a formal move request and have a consensus for the move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have requested move protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't constitute that as enough to be edit warring. But I apologize, I was under the assumption it was okay to move given the previous talk page on the subject. But I'll refrain from moving till there is a more formal move request LoomCreek (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy vs. Conspiracy theory
Should this page be named International Jewish conspiracy or International Jewish conspiracy theory? LoomCreek (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * An RfC is not the correct format. Please start a RM. Go to WP:RSPM and follow the instructions there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

International Jewish conspiracy → International Jewish conspiracy theory – The current name is ambiguous and imprecise. Which for this particular topic is an issue. It lends undue weight to the idea that this theory has any validity, it doesnt.

The problem with the title "International Jewish Conspiracy" is it implies that a real conspiracy exists and that there's a secret group plotting, which there isn't.

Since conspiracy is a term often applied to actual historical events like the Burr conspiracy or the Watergate Scandal. This unnecessarily conflates them. These concerns override academic literatures occasional dropping of 'theory' from the title when both are recognizable. One simply just doesn't have those loaded false implications. LoomCreek (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The NGRAM results and Google Scholar 1,800 for "International Jewish conspiracy", 23 for "International Jewish conspiracy theory" make it clear that the proposed name sees hardly any use. We should not make up an article title and substitute it for the one used in reliable sources. Anyone who reads the first sentence of the article cannot miss that this conspiracy does not exist. The proposed title also fails WP:Concise and WP:Precise. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As it stands the current title fails WP:Precise due to the ambiguity in my opinion. LoomCreek (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no ambiguity. All sources discussing "international Jewish conspiracy" refer to this topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that Buidhe is the creator of the article, and is credited with 62.9% of the authorship. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per the sources. "International Jewish conspiracy theory" is not a well-used phrase, as opposed to "International Jewish conspiracy". It has been the name of the article since it was created by Buidhe on 2 December 2021. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the change. When I saw these page moves, I was about to revert the ones moving it back to Conspiracy because, as I read it, this title does imply that a conspiract exists. Conspiracy theory, while it might be used less, demonstrates that it is not true. We all know that many readers don't read very far into an article and might just read the artice title and scan the lead section. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And the lede section makes it abundantly clear that this is something that people believe in that is not true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support "Conspiracy theory" is quite a different meaning "conspiracy", and is certainly a commonly used phrase. Current title is quite ambiguous and a bit jarring. And unreflective of its content. This article is not about international Jewish conspiracies, whether true or not.  It is about conspiracy theories.  It is consistent with other related articles, e.g. Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory, Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, Jewish war conspiracy theory, etc.  Leaving this simply at "conspiracy" would be anomalous.  I am not finding examples of articles about conspiracy theories that are titled "conspiracy" alone.  Seems like a straightforward move. Walrasiad (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Somehow when it comes to conspiracy theories the article titles policy often flies out the window. For example, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy and Zionist Occupation Government articles should be renamed that because it's by far the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of conspiracy articles at a title that refers to a nonexistent phenomenon, i.e. Great Replacement (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe Comment I definitely understand the inclination. My main contention is that in the example you gave 'conspiracy' isn't in the title.
 * My main issue is how conspiracy can be misinterpreted as the political/historical term that refers to actual events that happened (which this isn't obviously) like the contra affair.
 * So it's clearer in that example you gave it's just referring to the term for something completely made up and nonexistent, i.e a conspiracy theory. LoomCreek (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support (As I made the initial proposal) LoomCreek (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're supposed to add a proposer's vote in requested moves. I've striken it through for clarity's sake. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  09:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Festucalex Ah okay, noted LoomCreek (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add: What I've observed in many RfCs, RMs, etc, is that directly after the initial statement, the proposer adds their !vote, followed by "as proposer", as in "Support - as proposer" - or "as nominee" in XfDs, etc. But even without this, unless the proposer has made a statement indicating otherwise - such as "doing this for the sake of formality" - it is assumed that the proposer supports the proposition being considered.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I disagree that the current title somehow implies the truth of the premise.  We have lots of articles on conspiracy theories and hoaxes, they don't need to have the fact that they're crazy and false be part of the title, that can be in the lede and the first sentence.  Eurabia, Sony timer, Andinia Plan, etc. don't need to include "conspiracy theory" in the title.  SnowFire (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support—the title clearly implies the existence of this "conspiracy". This is a baseless conspiracy theory, and it should be clearly labeled as such. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  09:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – existing title fails WP:V, as there is no such conspiracy. Even the oppose votes above refer to this as a theory. – bradv  12:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say that the proposed title fails WP:V as it is hardly used in reliable sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no such a conspiracy theory named "International Jewish". There is an "International Jewish conspiracy" conspiracy theory. The proposed name would not be correct in my opinion. Similar to the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, which has a misleading name because it is actually an anti-Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, so it should be renamed. Vpab15 (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the most obvious point. People believe, erroneously, that there exists an "International Jewish conspiracy", which belief might rightfully, if repetitively, be called, a belief in an "'International Jewish conspiracy' conspiracy theory". That name, although correct, would obviously be pretty silly, whereas the current name, which denotes the thing being believed, is entirely appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted edits
Pinging Buidhe

In what way do my edits misrepresent the cited sources? I quite literally just paraphrased what is already written. The lead sentence is a mess right now and needs to be rewritten. The term should be introduced with a definition; there's no point in claiming the theory is widespread if the reader doesn't know what it is. Loytra (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Source doesn't say that the "exact details" vary, but the content of the theory varies. I'm not dead set on any particular wording but you do have to check the sources before changing the meaning. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's fair. Would it work better if I changed "exact details" to "content"? The first two sentences would then read as such:
 * The international Jewish conspiracy or world Jewish conspiracy is a conspiracy theory that typically claims a malevolent, global Jewish circle, referred to as International Jewry, conspires for world domination. It has been described as "the most widespread and durable conspiracy theory of the twentieth century" and "one of the most widespread and long-running conspiracy theories" overall, something that has been credited to the large amount of variance in the theory's content. Loytra (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * that's fine by me. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)