Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Disputed content

I've deleted the following contribution by User:Cs32en:

Conspiracy theories do not necessarily need to be factually wrong. Theories about the Watergate scandal, the administration of drugs by the CIA under Project MKULTRA, and Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan of the U.S. Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, turned out to be true.

Despite how reliable his source may be, the point the majority of the reliable sources we are using for this article make is that the state crimes they list may be political/criminal "conspiracies" but they are not conspiracy theories unless it can be shown that people were being dismissed as conpiracy theorists for claiming that the U.S. government might have been engaged in these illegal/unethical acts until it was proven that these acts had actually been done. I suggest everyone reads G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies, in which he writes, "It is [...] true that the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one." --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It should noted that, although Domhoff consistently uses the term "conspiratorial view", he is in fact refering to conspiracy theory. Furthermore, his text is a summary of arguments found in his book. Furthermore, people should be mindful of not basing their arguments on the definition of the term "conspiracy theory" as a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. As the article makes clear, the term almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. Therefore, any list of CIA crimes may be conspiracies but they are not conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Domhoff is talking about "conspiratorial" "theories of power", i.e. more generalized theories, not theories (or hypotheses) about single events. There is no need for a conspiracy theory about a single event to postulate the existence of a "secret team" (run by people higher up in the echelons of power) or a "shadow government". Domhoff's statement therefore is only applicable to a subset of conspiracy theories: those theories that Michael Barkun classifies as "systemic conspiracy theories" (see Conspiracy theories#Types). Whatever our individual reasoning on the appropriate definition and classification of conspiracy theories, we should follow the information provided by reliable sources, and the content I have added is based on a reliable source (see page 4 of the text). If there are differing viewpoints in reliable sources, we should, of course, state all relevant viewpoint, giving due weight to each of those viewpoints that have significant support.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about Domhoff. Through a colleague, I've contacted him in the past to clarify his views. I am more than happy to do so again. That being said, I have no problem with including some content from your source somewhere in the body of the article but I am opposed to its inclusion in the Lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Domhoff's book. My interpretation of Donhoff's position was based on your description (above, in bold), as well as on the essay he published on the internet, which is included in a section on "Theories of Power". I did not add the content from Sunstein and Vermeule to the lead, and content in the lead should, in my opinion, always be sourced to multiple reliable sources. I therefore would agree to the inclusion of the content, and I do not insist on the particular wording I have chosen, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but please remember that there is a difference between an actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. --Loremaster (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only this, there is also a difference between a theory about a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect Wording

I have a problem with the wording: "Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism and often ridiculed because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis..." Who is this who is speaking for the general public? Most of the people I've known believe in conspiracy theories (most commonly of the JFK assassination (who believes in the magic bullet theory, anyway?) Many others still are at least open-minded. Only those heavily indoctrinated in society through institutional learning may become so close-minded as to ignore evidence which contradicts the 'mainstream perspective' sold by politicians and news media writers. This statement should be reworded because where it stands it is factually incorrect. Neurolanis (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually have a good point. I'll work on rewording it. --Loremaster (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Neurolanis (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus over lead?

Does this version of the lead have the support of most contributors to, and/or watchers of, the Conspiracy theory article?

“ Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism and often ridiculed because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculating on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.

The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

In the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media. This has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind. According to historians Harry G. West and Todd Sanders, "evidence suggests that a broad cross section of Americans today…gives credence to at least some conspiracy theories." Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

”

If not, please explain? --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

please present a source with each statement, and i will then comment. 89.216.142.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Ibid. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources for each statement can be found in the Notes section below. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the two (2) sources cited specify the Page number, as WP policy provides. Please specify the exact page numbers for each source. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Which source are you refering to exactly because the first source is to a short Barkun interview for New Internationalist magazine. There are obviously no page numbers. --Loremaster (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

i think it would be nice to find additional source for the second sentence. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? --Loremaster (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

it is a very strong statement, and needs a strong source. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have two sources for the statement that the term "conspiracy theory" has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning: 1) A short Barkun interview (which people can read immediately), and 2) Barkun's book which is considered by many as one of the most extensive study of conspiracy theories in America culture. Therefore, I don't see why need anything more. --Loremaster (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

it is basically one source -- coming from the same person. if this refers mainly to american culture, article should have a 'not a worldwide view' tag. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One source is fine since it is strong. The specific sentence doesn't refer to American culture. Only the fourth paragraph of the lead section does. However, I'm not opposed to slightly expanding the lead to discuss how conspiracy theories are perceived around the world. --Loremaster (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this statement- This has contributed to conspiracism emerging as a cultural phenomenon and the possible replacement of democracy by conspiracy as the dominant paradigm of political action in the public mind. meaning the belief that democracy is threatened by conspiracism, a conspiracy theory itself? I'm pretty sure it is!Batvette (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No what it means is that many people have become so cynical and paranoid that they believe most if not all government officials and corporate executives engage in secret conspiracies to acheive their politics goals instead of acting openly within the guidelines of our democratic system. Whether or not this belief is true is not issue, it is fact that this belief is now widespread among the public that is of concern because it contributes to political apathy and disempowerement. --Loremaster (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Fusion paranoia" section

Are there any independent secondary sources on "Fusion paranoia"? As of this moment, the whole section is based on references to proponents of this notion only. Also, the long direct quote of Daniel Pipes, who clearly should be treated as an involved commentator, looks rather undue in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. --Loremaster (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Psychology

There is a large amount of theory in here about the psychology of people who create, or believe in, conspiracy theories. I get the impression from this article that doing either is seen as a symptom of some kind of mental ailment, but surely that diagnosis would depend on the quality of the theory. I think the first sentence of the article attempts to eliminate the idea of a conspiracy theory being plausible based on the opinion of one guy in that source. The whole article has been written on this false premise. I think "conspiracy theory" still can refer to an idea in a neutral way. For example, the idea that the U.S. government knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before they went in is a conspiracy theory, but not necessarily ridiculous or indicative of a particular mental state. You can have a conspiracy theory without being a nutcase. So why don't we go with a firm, dictionary definition, and stick to the FACTS. Such a subtle and effective suppression of real conspiracy theories could only have been carried out by a group of supremely powerful individuals, perhaps even more powerful than world governments. Possibly not even from this solar system. 192.198.151.36 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has not been written on a false premise based on the opinion of one guy. It reflects a consensus of views among scholars of various fields who have written on this issue. Although we did source the first sentence to only one reliable source, he (Michael Barkun) is a political scientist who is considered an expert on conspiracy theories. That being said, although the expression "conspiracy theory" can be still be used to refer to an idea in a neutral way, it doesn't change the FACT that it no longer does in mainstream discourse so the article can't ignore that reality. Therefore, arguing that U.S. government knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before they went in is NOT a conspiracy theory IF one bases this claim on institutional analysis as opposed to paranoid speculation, which can often be traced to mental ailment. --Loremaster (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that investigation beyond what the status quo dictates is evidence of a mental illness? At what point does institutional analysis occur if nobody engages in speculation? I'd also not put too much faith in institutions which didn't read the Joint Resolution and understand he was just going to make more. Batvette (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rational speculation that leads to investigation beyond what the status quote dictates is perfectly fine if one is actually engaging in investigation following a scholarly or journalistic methodology. Paranoid speculation implies that the speculation isn't rational. Furthemore, speculation itself isn't investigation. That being said, “institutional analysis” simply means that an investigator focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions to explain historical or current events rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals without any evidence. Noam Chomsky engages in instutional analysis as opposed to conspiracy theorizing. No one would accuse him of having faith in the institutions that he criticizes. --Loremaster (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Relocation and Revision to Conspiracism

I would like to redirect and move the content of this page to "Conspiracism" and revising the page to this http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conspiracism&oldid=363478212 The purpose of this is to foster dialog regarding Conspiracism as a worldview. Please take a look to see that all points of interest are included and that it is a superior edit. Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm not alone when I say that I would be opposed to such a redirect since the term "conspiracy theory" itself deserves its own article. Several books have been written about conspiracy theories from a critical point of view that never use the term "conspiracism". --Loremaster (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I humbly disagree.

It is true that the term conspiracism is uncommon, however it is cited numerous instances through out this article it self.

Like you have noted conspiracism is different than conspiracy theories and should be delt with separately. This should not mean dealing with the term "conspiracy theory" separate. After all, understanding what a conspiracy is, is pivotal to understanding what conspiracism is, and so the distinction is included in the revision. Dealing with conspiracy theories separate from conspiracism should mean dealing with conspiracy-tainted and conspiracy-centric world views (conspiracism) separate from the individual and separate theories that define them. Dealing with these individual theories is possible through the conspiracy theory list.

It is actually a matter of fact that most, if not all of the citations dealing with academia are actually addressing a particular type of worldview. This is in large part, due to the fact that it is uncommon people deal with the subject of conspiracy theories in a nonpartisan way- mostly generalizations are made about all conspiracy theories. The term conspiracy theory actually fosters this type of grammatical ontology- it is referential, denoting something particular, and allows its users to refer to a particular conspiracy theory or make statements that conspiracy theories are this way or that conspiracy theories are that way.

It is because of this grammatical ontology that there are formatting issues in this article dating back to the merger of the conspiracism article with this one. Conspiracism can not be dealt with when distinguishing what a conspiracy theory is, in my revision; Mintz's comments, along with Berlet and Lyons' comments are moved to the criticism section, the bit on Richard Hofstadter which deals with Fusion paranoia is moved that section.

Hypothetically speaking, the term conspiracy theory should be reserved for information on the scientific inquiry into the theory of conspiracy.

Having participated in this discussion, I can now see that (for now)"conspiracy theory" should redirect to "conspiracism", "conspiracy theories" should redirect to the list and the introduction to the list should be revised; re-framing the context to show how the theories may fit into a greater world view- thus better distinguishing what a conspiracy theory is. Zzzmidnight (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't studied the matter completely, but conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories should point to the same article. Whether it should be this one, or one on conspiracism, with the list being at list of conspiracy theories, would require more thought. I lean toward it being here, but would consider reasonable arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur that conspiracy theory and conspiracy theories should point to the same article. I think they should point to conspiracy theory. That being said, I'm not opposed to “conspiracism” having it's own article if there is a consensus that this topic deserves one. However, Wikipedia encourages us to merge two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap so I think it best that the Conspiracy theory and Conspiracism article remain merged under the title “conspiracy theory” as it was previous to Zzzmidnight's undiscussed changes. As for his other proposed changes such as moving content from one section to another, I will take some time early next week to determine whether or not they are good ideas. --Loremaster (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Your personal thoughts are understood, however I would ask that you rebuttal my previous arguments. To further make my point I will restate them and add supportive information.

Dealing with a Conspiracy Theory is most effectively done on an individual biases, one conspiracy at a time, rather than by making generalizations.

Dealing with what conspiracy theories are, aside from making generalizations, is only available through addressing the context in which they arise (conspiracism). When this is done, it then becomes possible to consider Psychological origins, Socio-political, Media tropes, Terminology, Criticism, Conspiracies as Psychological Projections and Fusion paranoia(These are sections from the article, most of which deal with conspiracism explicitly and state this), not before.

The Fiction section references fiction where in alternate realities the main drivers of political and economic change are conspiracies: this is the definition of conspiracism.

On a side note, we are both aware of my lack of experience here on wikipedia and hopefully you will have realized my willingness to do things here in a adequate fashion, if not please know that doing this is important to me and that I have read the articles you suggested. Having said this, I feel it is important for you to realize how it comes across: you stating "...as it was previous to Zzzmidnight's undiscussed changes". Frankly, the fact that I changed things with out discussion does not pertain to this discussion, it would have been just as correct to say "...as it is now", and I am unsure if it carries a tone of superiority. It may even be taken to imply, that because I changed the article with out discussion, my suggestions now should not be taken seriously. I hope this is not the case. Zzzmidnight (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You are reading way too much in what I said. Regardless, this article follows the example of many scholarly books on the subject of conspiracy theory who simply don't share your analysis. --Loremaster (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be a more accurate statement to say that you don't share my analysis. As it is, the way the content of this article is framed it fosters a culture of negative generalizations about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorist.Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see that I may be being argumentative for little purpose. I am content and will carry on with the status quo- but look forward to improving this article with you through the future. I would archive this discussion I created, if I knew how. Zzzmidnight (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that no reliable sources agree with your analysis. If you can find one that does, I would consider including it, no matter how absurd it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what analysis of mine is it you are referring to and which sources do not agree with it? Zzzmidnight (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Globally neutral definition?

Is is possible to have a globally neutral definition of this term in its pejorative sense?

If the US government, or one of its allies, alleges machinations by a foreign government, this isn't usually labeled "conspiracy theory" by the Western media. For example, if Obama alleges that Iran is covertly working to make nuclear weapons, or Uribe alleges that Venezuela is conspiring with Colombian rebels, the Western media won't label this as "conspiracy theory." But if the government of a country like Venezuela or Iran alleges covert machinations within the US government, or the government of one of its allies, this will often be labeled as "conspiracy theory" by the Western press.

So I would like to know how Wikipedia, in its effort to have a more inclusive global worldview ( WP:WORLDVIEW ) plans to handle this issue, both in this article, and other articles which deal with "conspiracy theories." Vetube (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have any "plans". We just do. What you see is the best we've got - and we're open to getting better. So, got any specific suggestions for improvement? Rklawton (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

CIA drug trafficking listed as a conspiracy theory, but not verified?

Probably a can of worms, but I'm curious why CIA drug trafficking is listed as a conspiracy theory in the table at the bottom of the article in the "U.S. Government" section, but is not listed in the "Verified" section. When I click through and read the article, it sounds like there are several verified cases of the CIA having been involved in drug trafficking, but I didn't see any discussions there of conspiracy theories per se. Is the idea just that CIA drug trafficking is a common theme of (dubious) conspiracy theories, even if there are also a number of verified cases of that having occurred? I notice that Iran-Contra affair is listed in the verified section, as well as being one of the incidents discussed in the CIA drug trafficking article. Just curious if there is some low-grade advocacy going on by virtue of listing "CIA drug trafficking" as a conspiracy theory here, thereby creating a misperception that it is something other than verified. Thanks. --John Callender (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to the exact section you are talking about? --Loremaster (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I'm referring to the "Conspiracy theories" template at the bottom of the article. See Template:Conspiracy_theories. It may well make sense for me to pursue this in the talk page for that template, rather than here, if I'm going to pursue it further (which I think is unlikely). John Callender (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article. If you want to discuss improvements to Template:Conspiracy theories, you should do so on the Template talk:Conspiracy theories page rather than here. --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, yes, that's exactly what I already concluded (that I should pursue this on the template's talk page, not here). Thanks. -- John Callender (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's two basic versions of the CIA drug trafficking theories. 1) The CIA traffics drugs in order to oppress African Americans. 2) The CIA facilitates drug trafficking in order to support various Congressionally unapproved projects. The first is a conspiracy theory. The second has a lot of supporting, secondary sources. Both are worth nothing in this article. Rklawton (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to say “noting” rather than “nothing”? --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct - I meant "noting". Funny typo. Rklawton (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Freudian slip, perhaps? 69.140.35.147 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ontology

After reading Hakim Bey's essay The Ontological Status of Conspiracy Theory, I am wondering how best to incorporate some of his analysis. Any thoughts? --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

who is he? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hakim Bey is the pen name of Peter Lamborn Wilson, an American political writer, essayist, and poet. --Loremaster (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

honestly, i find that essay very hard to read, and i think it is really hard to sum up in a sentence his main point.  :( 77.46.171.76 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's what I'm working on. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A vs. An

In keeping with the spirit of WP:BRD, I'm bringing the reversion of my reversion here for discussion. My understanding is that, in American English, the preferered usage of the indefinite article is AN before an unstressed syllable starting with "H", so "AN historical" is correct but "A history" is also right. (This quirky construct comes from the English way of pronouncing the bilabial fricative "H" following a consonant sound.) My friends that use UK English (English English?) tell me that, to them, AN is correct in both cases, because they don't pronounce the "H".

I hope VoluntarySlave will come here to talk about it. Any opinions from other interested editors?

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any style guide that endorses the use of "an" before an unstressed, but pronounced, "h". Some do make a specific exception for some words: the Economist style guide says that, when preceded by the indefinite article, the "h" in "historical" is silent, and so "an" is used; the Times style guide prefers "an" for "historic," "heroic" and "hotel," but doesn't make a general rule. I'm not aware of any US style guides that prefer "an historical"; the New York Times and Chicago Manual of Style both prefer "a historical," and "a historical" is preferred by some UK style guides too, for example the Guardian and Oxford University Press styles. So, while "an historical" isn't wrong, I think "a historical" is more widely preferred.VoluntarySlave (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a major issue, but I thought I'd just record my own personal preference: "a historical." warshy^talk 23:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's certainly true this is not a major issue, it does bring up some interesting points. Because VS didn't provide any links, I had to look 'em up myself and found Merriam-Webster prefers "an historic" but "a history", as I mentioned. The Times guide, as VS quoted, prefers "an historic". (None of them "make a general rule"; let's omit the spin-doctoring, please.) Oxford weighs in on the subject saying exactly what I thought: "an" should be used when the consonant is not pronounced.

Google shows some interesting things, some of the most amusing are the gearheads that seem to think you can apply a hard-and-fast rule the the English language. Can't be done.

However, if we must invest an hour creating an homage to proper syntax, I find I would much rather munch on an hors d'oeuvre with a hint of an herb sauce. As an heir of the English language, I frequently find I must make an honest effort to extend an honor to an hombre that preceeded me.

(Just for fun, change each "an" in that paragraph to "a". Does it sound right to y'all?) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

continuity amongst articles

The article about secrecy says this "A military secret is secret information that is purposely not made available to the general public and hence to any enemy, by the military in order to gain an advantage or to not reveal a weakness, avoid embarrassment or to help in propaganda efforts."

But in articles about "conspiracy theories" they don't mention this statement. This statement pretty much guarentees that some portion of a conspiracy is true. A cover up is a cover up no matter what the purpose is. This is why almost every government operation/story is a cover up in some form and then proves that almost all government actions have a legitimate "conspiracy theory" type idea to it. There arn't any crossover talk pages for connecting various wikipedia articles so not sure where this statement should go.

For example there is a CIA "conspiracy theory" that their work is covered up, and part of CIA mission is to perform covert operations, covert means secret. If it's a secret then the government will inform the public the CIA is doing something beneficial. But since the real operation is covert they don't tell the public exactly what the CIA is doing. Therefore it's a cover up, proving the conspiracy theory was in some for big or small accurate. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in articles about these types of conspiracy theories? --24.94.251.190 (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

How does that follow? There's no "cover up", if there's no public discussion of the mission whatsover. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. This is a silly debate. --Loremaster (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proven True Category

The category navigation box at the bottom of the article has a section called "Proven True". It's not clear to me that many of these were actual conspiracy theories before being exposed to the public. For example, before Watergate was exposed, was there a conspiracy theory that the Republicans had stolen documents from Democrat campaign headquarters? To be "Proven True" conspiracy theories, there needs to have been a conspiracy theory beforehand. The Watergate article doesn't mention a prior conspiracy theory that I could see, so it doesn't really deserve to be in the Proven True box IMHO.

In other words, a "Proven True" conspiracy theory differs from an ordinary scandal in that there needs to have been a notable conspiracy theory which (correctly) predicted the nature of the scandal before it was revealed to the public. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.8.65 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, you should be raising this issue on the Template talk:Conspiracy theories page rather than here... --Loremaster (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer to this question probably depends on the definition of conspiracy theory. If we accept a definition such as: "A conspiracy theory is a set of assumptions about an event that include the assumption that knowledge about the event is not being revealed through institutionalized processes that are expected to result in such revelations," then the conspiracy theory (i.e. the explanation based on such assumptions) has been true (or not true, in case the assumptions are wrong) regardless of any observers actually expressing such a view before the facts became public knowledge. Theories, including conspiracy theories, are not necessarily conjectures, i.e. unproven assumptions, they include proven, or, for that matter, disproven, theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

unexplained revert

To the person who never contributed this page and reverted all my edits, please explain the revert of the edits, especially the vocabulary improvements. Failure to explain will eventually lead the reverting the revert. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I have restored the page to the last change that you had made. It was a simple mistake and I had realized that right after the rollback. Wikipedia would be a complete mess without users like myself who monitor recent changes and filter out vandalism. As human, I will make mistakes. No need to worry about reverting the revert. I restored the page very shortly after the rollback. I also removed the warning on your talk page. Again, my mistake. Carmichael^{95<speak·check·chill>} 07:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Badger Drink has reverted them, all of them, including the volcabulary improvements, without stating why the edits were not good edits, dispite how the edits already went through enough change to be confusing to readers. If you are User:Badger Drink, please discuss why you think EACH edit "aren't good" as you reverted every single one. There is no hurry to discuss, but the edits will soon be put back.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:173.180.214.13, you must also understand that unregistered users will forever have their motives called into question due to the plethora of anonymous vandalism that Wikipedia endures day in and day out. A legitimately interested IP is difficult to distinguish from a trolling or vandalizing IP. While there are plenty of trolls and vandals with registered accounts, their motives are well-identifiable by being able to check their edit history (IPs change hands frequently and their edit histories are unreliable). IPs are welcome to contribute, but they're far more likely to be embraced if their desire to contribute is paired with a desire to hold themselves accountable for their edits (on articles and on talk pages). In other words, create a user account. --Loremaster (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess your right there. I have an account, just keep forgetting to log on to it because I do very little editing and mostly reading, where logging in is not required. I will try to remember in the future. Neitherless, however, this does not give User:Badger Drink any excuse to retain from this discussion without having my edits redone.173.180.214.13 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll temperately restore the edits until anyone who opposes it comes to discuss, as it does not hurt to prevent the edits from sinking deeper down the articles history.Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your edits because you are altering sentences that are based on content from reliable sources (which I myself added to the article) and therefore subtly or radically changing the meaning what these sources stated on the subject. Furthermore, you are adding original research which is unacceptable. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia's articles are based on reliable sources. Wikipedia does not copy reliable sources directly. We don't copy spelling mistakes. We don't use each every word. My vocabulary improvements do not "radically change the meaning." Also, the sentence I added is merely a statement that there are conspiracy theory critics who compare many conspiracy theories to the mentally disturbed's fantasies based on sources from conspiracy theory critics. Although those sources aren't reliable for solid information, they are a reliable source for stating the conspiracy theory critics' points. Look at any article with a criticism section: the references there are based on the critic's sources, and whether of not a critic makes a good point doesn't change whether or not he/she's a critic. BTW, I wanted to change the reference there to [1], (one of the many critical writings that 1. suggest all conspiracy theories are based on mental disorders 2. imply a broad definition of "conspiracy theory",) but the edits was reverted too fast for me to change it. If you still disagree with my vocabulary improvements, say so (and why), if you disagree with the sentence I added, say so. But if there is no opposition to one of my editings, I will temperately restore that one after a week or so.173.180.214.13 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that your vocabulary changes were “improvements” and I will continue to oppose them. For example, you replaced the word “evil” with “unmoral” in one sentence and with “unknown” in another. Barkun specifically used the word “evil” which is a far more negative qualifier than “unmoral”. Furthermore, the notion that the force at the summit of the conspiratorial hierarchy is “unknown” is not necessarily true since many conspiracy theorists actually do in fact identify this force.

As for your other changes, you simply moved the order of some words around for no reason. I therefore prefer sticking to the order Barkun gave them.

As for the statement you added, it is badly-written and badly-sourced so I am opposed to it as well.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your points make a lot of sense. But just make them a little better by adding examples and reasons. Exactly why do you think evil "is a far more negative qualifier than unmoral" and examples of when theories identify this force as not unknown.

You should also discuss on a level a little deeper(less vague reasons) than "it is badly-written and badly-sourced so I am opposed to it."173.180.214.13 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't an academic debate and I have better things to do than waste my time explaining common sense to you. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I ain't here for a massive debate neither, but I don't like the idea of getting edits reverted without any explanation other than vague complaints. However, if you seriously do not want to discuss while still opposing my edits sincerely, I don't care, those were only 10 minute edits anyway, and you can go enjoy seeing me leave the reverts without hearing any further debate if you really wanted me to. But keep in mind, if you want to discuss, I will cooperate. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I've given you sufficient explanation because your bad edits don't rise to the level of needing a thesis to explain why they were bad. So get over it and move on. --Loremaster (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

First, both of you would do well to calm down a bit. Second, I agree with Loremaster that the IP's edits were not helpful. They did not improve the prose, and they moved the content away from, rather than towards, the source. Leave them out. PhGustaf (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lore, you should not use that answer whenever you can't find a proper reason. I've seen many discussions where both sides go on saying "I don't need to explain cause it ain't worth it," "I'm not going to argue with you because your wrong," or "Your stupid because your wrong because your stupid" which gather to a vast argument with literally no reasons on either side. Let's prevent that from happening, and give reasons/premises to our points.

PhG, what exactly do you mean "away from ... the source?"173.180.214.13 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found a simple yet proper reason which I explained. PhG and probably a silent majority agree with it. You actually agree with my points but ridiculously insist that I provide you with more examples or fleshed-out arguments when they aren't necessary to validate my points. As for PhG's comments, he is simply explaining that, althought we shouldn't necessarily copy sources word for word, our paraphrasing should be true to what the sources state as possible. Regardless, since no one supports your edits, can you please accept that the consensus is against you and move on? --Loremaster (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, we've said quite a lot of stuff, and it is hard to find your points your talking about, please just repeat them so we can see what we're talking about. Shouldn't be hard or anything, no one is in too much of a rush, and Jimmy Wales wont worry too much about Wikipedia's pixels we wasted.173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* For the last time: I disagree that your vocabulary changes were “improvements” and I will continue to oppose them. For example, you replaced the word “evil” with “unmoral” in one sentence and with “unknown” in another. Barkun specifically used the word “evil” which is a far more negative qualifier than “unmoral”. Furthermore, the notion that the force at the summit of the conspiratorial hierarchy is “unknown” is not necessarily true since many conspiracy theorists actually do in fact identify this force. As for your other changes, you simply moved the order of some words around for no reason. I therefore prefer sticking to the order Barkun gave them. As for the statement you added, it is badly-written and badly-sourced so I am opposed to it as well. Since PhG agrees with me, let's MOVE ON. --Loremaster (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Those points? I still haven't agreed to them because you still haven't explained why "evil" is more appropriate than "unmoral," and still haven't quite given a single example for notable conspiracy theorists clearing identifying anything as "known." The "badly-written and badly-sourced" is also a conclusion still without any reasons. Your points so far have all been conclusions with absolutely no explanation yet.173.180.214.13 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me. Sometimes I make the mistake of assuming that people know basic Wikipedia guidelines and hate it when you dumb things down by talking to them like children. So here goes:

1. The word "evil" is more appropriate because A) our source uses it, B) it is a far more specific and negative qualifier than the vague word "unmoral", and c) according to sources, conspiracy theorists don't simply believe that conspirators are "unmoral" they actually believe the conspirators are outright "evil".
2. Putting aside the fact that all Christian conspiracy theorists identify Satan as the force at the summit of the conspiratorial hierarchy, I assume you know that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist who believes the world is controlled by a race of reptilians he named the “Babylonian Brotherhood”. At the apex of the Brotherhood stands the "Global Elite," identified throughout history as the Illuminati, and at the top of the Global Elite stand the "Prison Wardens."
3. David Icke is a conspiracy theorist and therefore he is not a reliable source for an objective statement on conspiracy theories. Neither is an interviewer from a fringe website like metatech.org. You obviously need a second- or third-party source like a notable mainstream scholar or journalist to support the statement you wanted to add to the article.

--Loremaster (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Differences between conspiracy theories and real conspiracies

Conspiracy theories differ radically from the real-world conspiracies described by historians. Let me first point out that most conspiracy theorists seem unable to imagine that something can happen by accident. On the opposite pure random chance is an integrated part of modern historiography as well as most other sciences. However, the main differences are these:

Motives. Conspiracy theorists tend to propose motives which they have no evidence of other than their own prejudices. In some cases there is even empirical evidence to the contrary, the persons accused for conspiracy don’t possess the ideas or characteristics claimed to motivate them. It is also common for them to propose motives which would not motivate real-world people to do the things they accuse them for. For example, I see no economic motif for harming and killing millions of people. (The tobacco industry profit from making people addicted and not from harming or killing them.) Historians tend to propose motives which there are eyewitness accounts of the accused persons possessing. Alternatively, they propose motives which are likely considering personal characteristics they have eyewitness accounts of. This is something completely different from the often groundless accusations conspiracy theorists devote themselves to.
Means. The technology described by conspiracy theorists typically would not work under known laws of physics. They also typically describe methods which function there are no empirical evidence of. There is even evidence to the contrary in some cases. For example, paper does not dissolve in vinegar. On the opposite historians describe means which are already known to have existed at the time. They may also contact experts in particular fields to ask if a certain method would work. Something conspiracy theorists never seem to come up with the idea of doing.
Accomplishments. Conspiracy theorists imagine that everything goes exactly as intended except that some people (themselves) are not fooled. To the contrary, historians have described many failed conspiracies: attempts to conspire which did not acquire their goals to any significant degree. The simple explanation is that super-humans don’t exist. Experts and those in power are exactly as clumsy and unforseeing as everyone else. This fact of life seems to be unimaginable to most conspiracy theorists. At lest this is my explanation for them imagining super-human success rates. Alternatively, they image people in general to be much more skilful than they really are. But should it not be an experience common to all mankind that things don’t always go as you want?
Secrecy. Conspiracy theories tend to involve what I would call “air-tight secrecy”. What I mean is that secrets are so closely guarded that literary nothing comes out in decades or even centuries. Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that the British government kept Project Ultra secret for more than thirty years. Yet in this case the secrecy was not “air-tight”. For example, when Alan Turing committed suicide in 1954 some clues to Ultra must have been found among his belongings. Yet their significance may not have been realized until much later. Historians typically know very well that things can’t be kept nearly as secret as conspiracy theorists imagine. Often it is existence of disambiguous leaks which makes it possible to tell that there was any conspiracy at all. Personally, I am convinced that not even a single person can keep a hundred percent quite. However, the tiny fragments which slip out by mistake may appear mysterious to his or her contemporaries.
Evidence Conspiracy theorists typically search for evidence in the places most easily available. For example, adherents of different NASA conspiracies use photos made public by NASA as evidence. To the contrary historians usually search for evidence in the places most likely to contain clues which can be quite hard to reach. (They do such things for a living, don’t they?) Examples include contemporary eyewitness accounts and archives from the conspiring organisation opened much later. When leaked documents are used historians typically try to show that they are authentic. This opposed to conspiracy theorists which just assume their authenticity.
It is also common for conspiracy theorists to use circular reasoning when dealing with evidence. At least I would consider it circular reasoning when any condition of anything encountered is taken as evidence for the same preconceived conclusion. I have never encountered any historian who reasons like this. I don’t dare to say that it does not occur but it must be very rare. Why? Because historians are trained to think logically and are aware that any logical error will be criticised by their colleagues. Usually, they are also willing to take this into account.

Characteristic of conspiracy theorists is that they are ignorant of their own ignorance. They often imagine themselves to be experts. But the true knowledge they possess is only a tiny fraction of what is known to real-world experts. (Combined with their belief that experts can’t fail it might explain their unwillingness to admit any error.) The admittance of ignorance may even be used (amongst other things) to tell crackpots apart from serious investigators. Sten Forshufvud may have been convinced that Napoléon I Bonaparte fell victim to a conspiracy. Yet he admitted that he had no direct evidence of any such. I find his proposed conspiracy – consisting of four people or more – a little too large to be credible considering that no-one fund out anything during these people’s lifetime. After all, the first one who found out that Napoléon had been poisoned to death was Sten himself in the 1950ies. To me Napoléon may well have fallen victim to a single person who acted on his own. (On Saint Helena no woman ever had the opportunity to poison Napoléon.) If there was a conspiracy I prefer to imagine one so limited that only two persons know what was really going on: the poisoner and his assigner. Please note that the poisoning theory is supported by contemporary eyewitness accounts as well as forensic evidence. When examined by people with relevant formal qualification they don’t support a natural death. I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found here. I don’t give myself out of being an expert, I am just an ordinary sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon. As long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me questions will be answered to the best of my ability.

2010-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Hello Lena. If you want to contribute to the Conspiracy theory article (or any Wikipedia article for that matter) I strongly encourage you to create a user account. Why? Unregistered users will forever have their motives called into question due to the plethora of anonymous vandalism that Wikipedia endures day in and day out. A legitimately interested IP is difficult to distinguish from a trolling or vandalizing IP. While there are plenty of trolls and vandals with registered accounts, their motives are well-identifiable by being able to check their edit history (IPs change hands frequently and their edit histories are unreliable). IPs are welcome to contribute, but they're far more likely to be embraced if their desire to contribute is paired with a desire to hold themselves accountable for their edits (on articles and on talk pages).

That being said, it is even more important that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", and "No original research". Unless your opinion on conspiracy theories and Napoleon's death was published in a mainstream newspapers or an academic journal or a book, it is nothing more than original research which cannot be included in any Wikipedia article. Therefore, the wisest course of action is for you to discuss substantial changes you want to make to the Conspiracy theory article here on this talk page before making them and supply full citations from reliable sources when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I once has a discussion on a similar topic on the Talk page of the list of conspiracy theories. Now I wanted to write something even better. About the cause of death for Napoléon I Bonaparte the text is only available at my website. I have not conducted any original research on this issue. First, I would not understand much of the contemporary eyewitness accounts. The very most of them are mostly written in French and Italian: languages I don't speak. Second, I don't have proper training to participate in the testing of forensic evidence. Entire books has been written on this subject. I have one of them myself which is the main source of my text. It was primary written as a debunking of the misconception that he died from cancer. It also debunks other misconceptions about what he died from as well as misconceptions on the circumstances under which he lived the last six years of his life. I know that I have written a lot of texts on Wikipedia's Talk pages which I don't have much of specific sources. In some cases this has lead to interesting discussions. In other cases people have committed the straw man fallacy and mistaken me for a fool. Once I even encountered a troll who accused me for hating the Bonaparte family. In fact it would be against my principles to hate a whole family. I got the suggestion today of starting a blog but I answered I did not have enough time.

2011-01-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Putting aside the fact this talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article not problems you are having on Wikipedia; I will repeat my advice: Create a user account; sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", and "No original research"; discuss substantial changes you want to make to the Conspiracy theory article here on this talk page before making them and supply full citations from reliable sources when adding information. Can you do this? --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are a very broad subject. There are more than just real and fake theories. You need to understand that here, however, fantasies of the mental ill and all theories about corruption are all mixed homogeneously under one article, and the editors here are very uninterested in proven conspiracy theories in the past. If your writings are put together differently than these editors, it would be extremely hard for some people to allow you to add them, as they are too focused in building the article their own way to allow any disruptions from other editors. You should think about going to a more flexible (and more important) article, as I soon will be.173.180.214.13 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that this article reflects the erudite opinion of notable mainstream scholars and journalists on the subject of conspiracy theories; I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not uninterested in “proven conspiracy theories in the past”. However, the problem with this kind of content is that people have yet to provide us with reliable sources that state that a conspiracy that was once dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory has been proven to be true. That being said, you are free to create whatever article you want but remember that it won't belong to you and that it must follow Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", and "No original research". Violations of these policies is something no article should be flexible enough to allow. Furthermore, Wikipedia encourages us to merge articles that cover the same the topic so don't be surprised if someone suggests redirecting your new article to this one. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you've started give valid points; I totally agree that paranoid fantasies of the mentally ill has never been proven true.173.180.214.13 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always given valid points. You simply forget when I do. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference between a conspiracy theory and "real" conspiracies...

The difference between a conspiracy theory and "real" conspiracies is that the exitance of a "real" conspiracy has been proven whereas a "theory" by definition has not been.

That does not mean that the theory is wrong or incorrect -- it means only that it has not been proven.

For instance, it has been proven that there was a conspiracy to assassinate (American) President Abraham Lincoln, Vice-President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward. Several members of the conspiracy admitted to being part it. Therefore, the conspiracy is "real."

However, the involvement of Secretary of War Stanton in the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln has not been proven and therefore remains a conspiracy theory. There are theorists who believe for one reason or another that he was, but to date they have not been able to prove it. Therefore it remains a theory.

It is a matter of historical fact that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Reinhard Heydrich in 1942. That some form of poison or biological weapon used in the assassination remains to date a theory. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

This is talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article not sharing your opinion on the difference between a conspiracy theory and "real" conspiracies. --Loremaster (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What this article looks like:

I will soon stop caring about this article if progress gets anymore improbable, but here is a way of looking at it.

Computer use:

Computer using is using a [computer].

Types

There are different types of computer use.

• Information finding. Searching through the Internet compulsively to find the information the searcher desires. One example is Bob, who spends his whole [life] looking at sites about being successful at life, it is unknown whether he really will.
• Social networking. Moving social life into the Internet to find friends in a different way. An example is Joe, who only has friends through the internet and "reminds" them everyday how smart and rich he is.
• Gaming. Playing at websites with digital games which are repetitive in nature. One example is [Jack von NoLifeCompAddit], who [glue|sticks] his [eyes] in to the computer 24 hours everyday while gaming.
• Learning to commit suicide. Trying to understand how to [kill] oneself by studying intensely in random sites. One example is [Bobby McSuicider].

Computerism

When one believes the computer is [superiority|superior] to him/herself. Computerism believers are thought by certain people to be paranoid.

Criticism

Computer use is the subject of broad critique by academics, politicians, and the media. Perhaps the most contentious aspect of computer use is that of the negative effects on [homo sapiens sapiens|humanity]

Study of computerism

Adam once said

The central belief of every moron that uses a computer is that his computer is victim of great discrimination and prejudice from the whole world

Psychological origins Computer use has become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts. According to some psychologists, a person who precipitates with one type of computer use tends precipitate in others; a person who does not precipitate in one type of computer use tends not precipitate another. Psychologists believe that the want of knowledge is common in computerism and the development of computer uses.

Problems with life

Many people use computers because they have problems and grievances in life and hope those problems will disappear if they live within a computer. A study of many notable computer users such as Bobby McSuicider clearly shows that computer uses have deep problems with life, which is not surprising since they are perpetually learning to commit suicide.

Antisocial disorder

Many antisocial people use computers as an excuse for avoiding socializing. Studies of well-known computer users such as Jack von NoLifeCompAddit clearly shows this, as everyone who spends 24 hours a day on the computer is antisocial.

Political use

Many people use "computer user" to criticize people who occasionally use machinery that resembles computers. Most people understand that famine, war, pestilence, and [death], as well as the [second law of thermodynamics] with dooms is universe is caused by computer use.

Fiction

Many authors write about worlds where computers are the stabilizing effects of the universe and therefore more important than humans, validating computerism.

...The problem with this article is that the types section gives very limited examples, and some of them are extreme among computer users. The study of computerism section also seems to give valid explanations for the examples studied, put do not correctly apply to all computer users which it claims to do. Moderate computer users are not mentioned as the examples, yet the article implies the theories based on the mentioned examples apply to all computer users. People who simply use computers should not be discredited because of a theory that describes Bobbly McSuicider. The subject is too broad(Computer using is using a [computer].) and the examples are too restricted (A study of many notable computer users such as Bobby McSuicider clearly shows...) 173.180.214.13 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Although I have always believed that the Conspiracy theory article can and should be improved, you need stop wasting your energy writing these kinds of convoluted rants and instead start discussing concrete changes you want to make to the Conspiracy theory article here on this talk page before making them and supply full citations from reliable sources when adding information. Please remember the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true... --Loremaster (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Merely a comparison. If you've been here everyday since who-knows when and you're going to see everything you disagree with as convoluted rants, improvement will be impossible. Verifiability is important, but NPOV is also important and Computer Use wont be a featured article regardless of how many verifiable citations to reliable sources about Bobby McSuicider's psychological state. However, since this article means so much for you I can't touch it, I wont be here anymore. I understand your pride, over how an article on infamous Wikipedia is written in your ways, logically means more than whether one rarely read C-class article is biased. If Wikipedia is meant to make people happier, I wont upset you just because of one out of 3.5 million articles. Further arguments to me will be merely wasted time, I will no longer be looking at this talk page that you are on all the time.173.180.214.13 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been contributing to, and watching over, this article since 12 December 2007. I have had many discussions on this talk page with people I agree with and others that I disagree with. All these dicussions have led to constructive addition or deletion of cotent in the article so the notion that improvement of the article is impossible because of my close-mindedness, pride or sense of article ownership is demonstrably false and ridiculous. Regardless, none of your suggestions for, or actual edits to, the article have been good. So if it is your intention to leave this article alone, please do since you've do nothing but waste our time. --Loremaster (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Banning Proposal

Here's the statement: "Political leaders are often suspicious of negative effects of conspiracy theories. Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to the United States government wrote an article concerning how they can be detrimental to a society and a government, even proposing a ban of them." Here's the citation(page 15 he proposed banning them, just open the link): Sunstein, Cass R. and Vermeule, Adrian, Conspiracy Theories (January 15, 2008). Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585.

I was told to submit for approval before making changes to the page.

````Rockinfilmmaker44 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinfilmmaker44 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A Opposing View

I understand that this is not a forum, but I'd like to point out that many of the world's leaders have candidly admitted the veracity of what many consider to be "conspiracy theories". I will give two examples: Illuminism and the money power. On the first subject - George Washington took John Robison's observations, as gleaned from Weishaupt's own texts, about Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati as the mainspring of Jacobinism and harbingers of world revolution, who falsely made appeals to liberty, equality, and fraternity but in reality sought after their own world power, very seriously, believed that they were active in America, but believed that they had not, at the time of his writing, infiltrated the lodges in America. See, the following, from the Library of Congress archive: 1) http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw2/021/1820176.jpg 2) http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw2/021/2000194.jpg 3) http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw2/021/2010195.jpg

I have seen other citations that I have not yet verified, but if we go forward a few centuries, we find other admissions: Trotsky, in "My Life", said the following:

"In the eighteenth century, freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of [the Bolshevik] revolution; on its left, it culminated in the Carbonari."(http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch08.htm)

Further insight can be gleaned from this document:

http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD%2FRed_Symphony-Landowsky-1968-30pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=340

On the subject of the money power - FDR admitted that a financial element owned (not influenced, but owned) the government: "The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson" (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373.: http://books.google.com/books?rview=1&id=VpwqAAAAYAAJ&dq=FDR+His+Personal+Letters++financial+element+government+since+the+days+of+Andrew+Jackson&q=financial+element+government+since+the+days+of+Andrew+Jackson#search_anchor ))

I suggested adding the following counter-claim in the "conspiracism" section:

Holding the opposite view, Webster Tarpley stated that

“ Conspiracy theory as a term of opprobrium is relatively new. It dates back to the work of Richard Hofstadter of Columbia University. Hofstadter was himself a kind of neocon ante litteram who became a direct beneficiary of McCarthyism: he took over a job vacated by Prof. Philip Foner, who had come under ostracism as a member of the Communist Party USA. In his essay on “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (1964) and in his other writings Hofstadter took issue with the 1880s-1890s prairie populist critique of international bankers, a critique which today seems prophetic in its foreshadowing of the destructive shenanigans of Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England during the interwar period (Norman was part of Brown, Shipley in London, the home office of Prescott Bush’s Brown Brothers, Harriman in Wall Street) and of the International Monetary Fund during the entire postwar period. But for Hofstadter, radical critics of Anglo-American finance oligarchy were paranoids. His essay is doubly suspect because it appeared in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, and seemed to suggest that the many critics of the Warren Commission report were also – paranoids. An interesting problem was posed for Hofstadter in that sophisticated western Europe, where populist paranoia was supposedly less strong, was even more critical of the Warren Commission report than was the alleged US citadel of paranoia.

Hofstadter’s favorite habit of tarring political forces he did not like, such as the populists, with the brush of paranoia appears illegitimate. The paranoid typically fears that there is a conspiracy afoot specifically against himself. For Hofstadter, this notion becomes impossibly broad: anyone he thinks he sees a conspiracy anywhere is ipso facto a paranoid. What is lost here is the necessary reference point in reality: is there a conspiracy going on or not? US Attorneys have been proving the existence of conspiracies to juries for a long time, and they have generally escaped the charge of paranoia.

It is impossible to write political history without admitting from time to time the possibility of confidential agreements for concerted action made in advance. There are of course times when conspiracy plays no role: an absolute tyrant at the height of his power has no need of conspiracy; he can act directly by issuing orders. (Yet even here, even figures like Hitler and Stalin turn out to have been less absolute than usually assumed; it is enough to think of Hitler’s chronic need to keep an eye on his Gauleiters, or the fact that the USSR functioned as an oligarchy during more years of its history than it did as a tyranny.) Similarly, an absolutely spontaneous mob – a rarity, although a theoretical possibility – is also innocent of conspiratorial planning. Between these two extremes, some form of surreptitious concerted action can frequently be found. As has been stressed throughout this book, US society today is neither a tyranny nor a democracy; it is organized from top to bottom according to the principle of oligarchy or plutocracy. The characteristic way in which an oligarchy functions is by means of conspiracy, a mode which is necessary because of the polycentric distribution of power in an oligarchical system, and the resulting need to secure the cooperation and approval of several oligarchical centers in order to get things done. Furthermore, the operations of secret intelligence agencies tend to follow conspiratorial models; this is what a covert operation means – coordinated and preplanned actions by a number of agents and groups leading towards a pre-concerted result, with the nature of the operation remaining shielded from public view. So, in an oligarchical society characterized by the preponderant role of secret intelligence agencies – such as the United States at the beginning of the twenty first century — anyone who rules out conspiracies a priori runs the risk of not understanding very much of what is going on. One gathers that the phobia against alleged conspiracy theory in much of postmodern academia is actually a cover story for a distaste for political thinking itself.

“Conspiracy theorist” as an all-purpose term of ad hominem argument to dismiss arguments which cannot be refuted thus goes back to the years after the Kennedy assassination, when the public was expected to accept that it was US government policy that this great crime, along with the further assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy in 1968, would remain permanently unsolved, and that those who objected would be vilified.

A more recent hue and cry against so-called conspiracy theory has been raised by the neocon academic Daniel Pipes, doubtless a nepotistic close relative of the Richard Pipes who was a prominent member of Bush 41’s exercise in anti-Soviet alarmism, Team B. Pipes is a neo-McCarthyite who harasses academics who show sympathy for the Palestinian cause through his witch-hunting Campus Watch organization. He was also a beneficiary of a recess appointment to the board of the United States Institute of Peace, a procedure to which Bush 43 resorted when it became apparent that the US Senate would never approve Pipes. Pipes’ book, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From (1997) defines conspiracy theory as “the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy,” as well as a form of political pornography. But what if the conspiracy exists? For Pipes, ones own ignorant prejudice that no conspiracy exists trumps anything that might be determined by empirical research. Pipes relies frequently on his interpretation of Occam’s razor, the nominalist proposition that explanations should be kept simple, or more precisely that theoretical entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In the hands of Pipes, this becomes an infallible all-purpose argument in favor of lone assassins over multi-member plots, since a lone assassin approach is always more economical than a conspiratorial group. But what if necessity, which even Occam mentions, dictates something more complicated to account for the effects observed? Pipes and his friend Gerald Posner, who has written an especially meretricious book supporting the 9/11 myth, have no answer. There is one conspiracy which Pipes does believe in: he alleges an Islamist conspiracy to take over or destroy the United States. According to Pipes, one of the focal points for this conspiracy is the Committee for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which he thinks wants to impose Islamic law on this country. In any case, we can be certain that Pipes has learned all about conspiracies from his enthusiastic participation in the neocon mutual admiration and self-promotion society, which has been remarkably successful in making its banal and mediocre members into intellectual and political authorities.

”

THis article starts with a great self-contradiction.

Right near the beginning we have "used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1]" It then goes on to mention, for example, candidates for the JKF assassination. Yet none of those candidates that I have read qualify at all for "conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning". I propose a less dramatic definition. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I oppose your proposal since the definition comes from Michael Barkun, a scholar who has studied and written extensively about conspiracy theories. From PublicEye.org:

New Internationalist: How can someone tell the difference between conspiracism and rational criticism of the status quo?

Barkun: The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them. A sure sign that we have gone past the boundaries of rational criticism is the conspiracy theory that's nonfalsifiable. Such a theory is a closed system of ideas which "explains" contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it.

So although there are a few or even many examples of conspiracy theories that don't fit Barkun's definition, the point is that true conspiracy theories do. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, we are still talking past each other. Maybe we could look at an example. Let us postulate, purely hypothetically for the sake of example, that whoever hired Lee Harvery Oswald to kill JFK also hired Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. Can we agree that this is a "true conspiracy theory"? But surely it has no REQUIREMENT for "almost superhuman power and cunning"? Old_Wombat (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody talked about “requirements”. The point is simply that conspiracy theorists often describe the people who hired Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby as if they have almost superhuman power and cunning. --Loremaster (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, this conversation has become too wierd for me so I'm bowing out. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the point to the "superhuman power and cunning" line is that most conspiracy theories stretch the boundaries of rational thought so much that to pull off most of them the conspirators would need to be extra-human. It may be worded a little strongly, but it's not inaccurate.

For example, the Apollo moon hoax movement is so far-out that it is laughable. The originator of the theory, Bill Kaysing, held a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and worked for Rocketdyne as head of the Technical Publications Department. He had absolutely no formal training in science or engineering. Yet that doesn't stop millions of people from following him. All of his claims show a fundamental lack of understanding of the science involved, and he never could understand that not going to the moon, and trying to make everyone believe it had been done, is enormously more difficult than actually going to the moon. Even forgetting everything else NASA and myriads of contractors and government agencies would have to do to pull off the moon hoax, the mere problem of silencing everyone involved with the hoax (the so-called "whistleblowers") for forty years is insurmountable. Any person or group who could pull off something like this would have to be "superhuman". They would be gods in comparison to the mortals who merely sent humans to the moon and returned them safely.

That's only one conspiracy theory. I could go on for days about how the human element makes most conspiracy theories impossible. The reason most conspiracy theories are considered to be "fringe" is that the conditions necessary for the theory to be true are vastly more complex than what the truth is. They are so much more complex, in fact, that most times it would take a "superhuman" to pull it off. On top of that, one mistake by any of the so-called conspirators blows the lid off the conspiracy. So they had better be cunning, as well. Primium mobile (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! I literally couldn't have said better myself. --Loremaster (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists section guideline

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an 'official' link for above must statement, and for the conclusive 'therefore' statement. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of mainstream there. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

it does seem wikipedia is becoming a mainstream encyclopedia. last time i was checking that policy (early 2008), there was no mention of mainstream in it. very unfortunate development -- encyclopedia that is going to mirror what mainstream corporate mass media owned by a few are repeating all the time -- beats the purpose of encyclopedia. luckily, wikipedia is an evolving system, so future editors may change this nonsense. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current list of conspiracy theorists. It's random, many of the names listed lack bios, the bios of the people who are listed are poorly researched and in some cases inaccurate, sensationalized and lacking in documentation. Putting the list in a table and adding birth years does not constitute unbiased research. The criteria being used appears to be "someone once said something somewhere that sounded like it could have been a conspiracy theory therefore I feel it's acceptable to list this person as a conspiracy theorist in wikipedia." This is clearly not in keeping with even basic wikipedia standards.

The intent to smear specific individuals like politician Lyndon Larouche (by highlighting his criminal conviction) or Dave Emory and Mae Brussel (by presenting a characature of their research and writings on the survival of fascism in the post-war era) is blatant and obvious. It's become especially obvious when accurate, documented and verifiable information has been added about these individuals and others and it has been removed and replaced with patently inferior and biased writing. These activiies constitutes a not-so-subtle form of vandalism of the article. I think it's blatant enough that the matter needs to be looked at by the larger wikipedia community for an opinion.

If there is to be a list of "conspiracy theorists," serious standards for inclusion need to created. It can't just be a matter of one persistent person's whim or opinion.

What has already been suggested is not a bad place to start: "we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist." It's a place to start, but it's still pretty thin criteria. Since conspiracy theorist is a derogatpry term and is a commentary on an individuals intelligence, integrity, and even sanity, this designation should be applied carefully only if the preponderance of references characterize the person this way. Even then, special care should be taken in the case of living persons.

I think the list needs to be removed in its entirety pending the creation of serious and standardized criterial for adding people to it. The rationale for including any individual living or dead needs to be open for discussion pro and con with serious data and documentation being presented. Nolatime (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Nolatime

Although I personally think that Lyndon Larouche, Dave Emory, and Mae Brussel are conspiracy theorists, I've never contributed to the list and I actually agree it should be removed from the article until each entry can be sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It’s pretty easy for anybody who’s willing to spare even a few minutes a day. A lot of these people have their own articles here. Just visit them and use any good sources they have. — NRen2k5<sup>(TALK)</sup>, 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be confused. We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you’re right – even if we have plenty of good sources saying that Person A believes in Concept B and that Concept B is a conspiracy theory, it’s only acceptable for us to list him as a conspiracy theorist if a good source explicitly says so. It sounds totally fucking ridiculous on the face of it, but I suppose BLP can be like that sometimes. — NRen2k5<sup>(TALK)</sup>, 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy

I removed the entry for Ken McCarthy from the list of 'Conspiracy Theorists' as it is inaccurate and misleading so to describe him. While a case can be made out that a small proportion of the video clip reprints on the brasschecktv.com site might qualify as conspiracy theories, much of the material comes from reputable mainstream news sources, comedy programs etc. In any case the site makes it clear that the views expressed in the contents are those of their respective originators and not necessarily endorsed by the site's proprietors. DaveApter (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even assuming that he no longer runs the site, he is still responsible for the selection, and is therefore a promoter of conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, whether hosting a site which contains - among much other material - reprints of clips that you judge to be 'conspiracy theories' justifies labelling the site owner a 'Conspiracy Theorist'. This is a term that should be used with discrimination in view of its pejorative implications (as the introduction to this article says: "The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe."

It is clearly entirely appropriate for this section to list individuals such as David Icke and Kent Hovind, and completely absurd to include people like Ken McCarthy alongside them. For this reason, I have removed him again.DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your position is absurd. I'll have to check whether you've completed the whitewash of McCarthy's article, removing the sourced information that he (at least used to) solicit conspiracies, but that is adequate, even if he didn't contribute or host. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Loremaster, and thanks for your ongoing attempts to bring some sanity to this article. However I'm confused by your endorsement of Arthur Rubin's position here as it seems completely at odds with what you say yourself in the section above:

"We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist."

Where are the works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist? DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to cite works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist. However, I was simply expressing my personal opinion that McCarthy is a conspiracy theorist even if we can't cite such works and articles. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, in order to comply with the BLP guideline you quote above, we should remove him from the list until such time as one of these reliable sources can be found and cited? DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entire list should moved here to the archives until it is completely sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I went ahead and did that. DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that Ken McCarthy, who has hundreds of Internet references and over one dozen book references as an Internet pioneer, entrepreneur and educator, has now been designated a "conspiracy journalist" in the External Links section of this article. This inspired a look at the dictionary.

The phrases "conspiracy journalist" and "conspiracy journalism" do not exist in any English dictionary I was able to find, online or offline. A Google search turns up three uses total - one in wikipedia, one in something called wapedia and one on a site that republishes wikipedia articles. The wikipedia article on "conspiracy journalism" has been entirely inactive since it was posted and contains only posts made by a single individual.

For these reasons, I'm removing this link. I have also proposed in the Discussion area for the "conspiracy journalism" article that the article "conspiracy journalism" be removed and would welcome the assistance of more experienced wikipedia users in making this proposal to the wikipedia community. Thanks.Nolatime (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

List of alleged conspiracy theorists

Here is the list from the article, so that adequate sources may be sought DaveApter (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists

The following people are known to have proposed conspiracy theories:

James Jesus Angleton (1917 - 1987)	American Cold War spymaster whose paranoid excesses as the CIA's counter-intelligence czar, arising from false information provided by his KGB defector friend Anatoliy Golitsyn, had adverse effects on the Agency.
Art Bell (born 1945)	American founder and longtime host of the paranormal-themed radio program Coast to Coast AM.
Peter Beter (1921 - 1987)	American lawyer and author who claimed that world events were being controlled by three factions, the Rockefeller family, the "Bolshevik-Zionist axis," and the Kremlin.
Mae Brussell (1922 - 1988)	American conspiracy theorist and radio personality, focusing on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
William Guy Carr (1895 - 1959)	Canadian naval officer and author responsible for creating the American Illuminati demonology.
Jack T. Chick (born 1924)	American publisher of comic book-style tracts, known as Chick Tracts, often depicting conspiracy theories featuring Satan, the Catholic Church, Communists, Muslims, rock musicians, scientists, and politicians, as well as other groups and subjects behind popular entertainment, role-playing games, and other perceived ills of modern culture.
Jerome Corsi (born 1946)	American author who theorizes about a potential North American Union, advances 9/11 conspiracy theories, believes in abiogenic petroleum origin and theorizes a conspiracy between oil companies and politicians to maintain pricing.
Francis E. Dec (1926 - 1996)	Disbarred American lawyer from Hempstead, New York who is today known for having in the 1970s and 80s mass-mailed various rambling flyers and rants to randomly selected addressees all across the US, in which he purported to warn the public of an omnipotent machine-entity he referred to as the "World-wide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God."
James Shelby Downard (1913 - 1998)	American author who perceived occult symbolism, twilight language and synchronicity behind historical events in the 20th century.
David Emory (born 1949)	American talk radio host who asserts that an obscure, sinister, organization called the "Underground Reich" maintains the interests of the German industry, banking and finance, which survived World War II as a major part of the global capital elite. Based in the San Francisco Bay area.
Myron C. Fagan (1887 - 1972)	American writer, producer and director for film and theatre, who wrote and produced plays and pamphlets claiming the United Nations was a Communist front for one world government.
Anatoliy Golitsyn (1926 - ?)	Soviet KGB defector who provided the CIA with false information and later wrote a book claiming that the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was a hoax.
Des Griffin	American author espousing a right-wing Christian view of global conspiracies and the New World Order.
G. Edward Griffin
Zaid Hamid
Patrick Haseldine (born 1942)	Former British diplomat, dismissed in 1989 by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988. His subsequent conspiracy theory seeking to incriminate apartheid South Africa over the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing alleged that the aircraft was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia.
Stanley Hilton	American lawyer who filed a subsequently dismissed $7-billion lawsuit against Bush Administration officials, accusing them of complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Richard Hoagland (born 1945)	American author whose books claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon and Mars, and NASA and the United States government are conspiring to keep this secret. Latest theories of this nature include the Jovian satellite Europa and what he claims killed the Columbia shuttle astronauts.
Michael A. Hoffman II (born 1954)	American historian who posits conspiracies about Jewish control of the United States and about the Holocaust.
Leonard G. Horowitz	American author, former dentist, who claimed in a book, Emerging Viruses, that HIV/AIDS was engineered by the U.S. as a biological warfare agent. Reportedly inspired Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to caution against vaccinating children; mentioned by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in support of Wright's similar claim.
Kent E. Hovind (born 1953)	Young-earth creationist speaking on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs.
David Icke (born 1952)	British writer and public speaker who claims that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Alex Jones (born 1974)	Syndicated radio host, film maker and web site publisher. Has been referred to as a "conspiracy theorist." Considers himself a libertarian and a patriot. Based in Austin, TX.
Timothy F. LaHaye (born 1926)	Joint author, with Jerry F. Jenkins, of the Left Behind novels.
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. (born 1922)	American activist and self-styled politician whose publications rail against what he calls "Synarchism" and who, in spite of having received a felony conviction for mail fraud, has repeatedly sought election—thus far, without success—to the office of President of the United States.
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
William S. Lind	Paleoconservative activist and director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, Lind claims "Political Correctness is cultural Marxism." and that scholars associated with the Institute for Social Research at University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the ) determined to overthrow Western Christian culture and have turned college campuses into "small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble." Lind's theory has been embraced by conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and by Michael Minnicino who is associated with Lyndon Larouche's Schiller Institute.
Jim Marrs (born 1943)	American author who has written such books as: Rule by Secrecy, Alien Agenda, Crossfire, and The Rise of the Fourth Reich.
Texe Marrs
Ken McCarthy (born 1959)	Owns and operates BrasscheckTV via his AMACORD consulting business. Massive provider of conspiracy content, videos and alternative news stories. Site named for Upton Sinclair's book The Brass Check, an early analysis of the significance and impact of ownership patterns of US news sources
Thierry Meyssan
Gary North
Roberto Pinotti
Jeff Rense	American radio show host and web site producer, mostly UFO and 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Lew Rockwell
Christopher W. Ruddy
Ben Stein (born 1944)	former Nixon speechwriter turned actor/game show host, whose movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alleges a vast conspiracy among modern scientists to squelch evidence for creationism in order to promote atheism.
Oliver Stone	Academy award-winning film director and screenwriter
John A. Stormer
Webster Tarpley

Richard Belzer is a self professed Conspiracy Theorist. I would have left this out as being more along the lines of a hobby rather than his lifes work, but the same would also apply to Ben Stein and Oliver Stone. 70.179.142.114 (talk)

Any non english speaking authors on the list? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

o.k. few have been added... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Centric Tag

One of the most annoying things about this site is the tendency of editors to just run around putting tags in articles but then saying nothing, not even in the edit summary, about why they feel the tag should be there. I'm going to remove the tag on this article in one week if the editor responsible for placing it doesn't give his/her reasoning for for doing so. Primium mobile (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• If I were you, I would send a talk page message to let the editor know "Hey! There is a problem with the tag! Hey hey!" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Zakaria, Fareed. "Why do we embrace conspiracy theories?" CNN. May 6, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite 1 - Verify Source?

The current introductory reads as follows...

"Conspiracy theory" was originally a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy.<ref name="Barkun 2003">{{cite book| author = Barkun, Michael | title = [[A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America]] | publisher = [[University of California Press]]; 1 edition | year = 2003 | isbn = 0520238052}}</ref> It is frequently used to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.<ref name="Barkun 2003"/>

While a complete presentation of the cited source is not, to my knowledge, available online, the Preface, Chapter 1, in its entirety, and a part of Chapter 2 are available online within a Google Books preview. Unless the currently incorporated text is drawn from elsewhere in the book (which I tend to doubt as the text in question is introductory-esque in nature), a search of the online text fails to return major elements of the currently incorporated text (eg. "originally a neutral descriptor" and "conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning".)

Unless I've overlooked something in my search of the online text, I believe this introductory can be (and should be) re-composed utilizing elements from the original source that adhere much more closely to the text of the original source and are, consequently, much more easily supported under WP:V. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon further consideration (I've not been down this WP road before), I've changed the pertinent tags to {{verify source}} to better represent the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The introductory sentence was partly based on a published interview of Michael Barkun, a scholar who has studied and written extensively about conspiracy theories, in New Internationalist magazine:

New Internationalist: How can someone tell the difference between conspiracism and rational criticism of the status quo?

Barkun: The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them. A sure sign that we have gone past the boundaries of rational criticism is the conspiracy theory that's nonfalsifiable. Such a theory is a closed system of ideas which "explains" contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that...but doesn't that beg the question of WP:V I initially raised? The current cite attributes the text to a different Barkun source entirely...and I'm beginning to wonder about the WP:V of the other numerous Barkun cites incorporated in this article.

I'm also not confident that the current language, in what should be a defining introductory, isn't overly deferential to the lexicon of a single, apparently highly academic viewpoint. It just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic at all. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, JakeInJoisey, Barkun and his book are vastly more reliable than the (defunct) webpage you were using. In his book, he lists a number of characteristics of conspiracy theories. In addition, Loremaster has brought the required "almost superhuman power and cunning" quote. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 02:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Barkun and his book are vastly more reliable than the (defunct) webpage you were using.

Perhaps so, perhaps not...but that's another subject entirely about which I'll defer comment in this discussion (at least for the moment).

In his book, he lists a number of characteristics of conspiracy theories.

I will assume, then, they are cited somewhere in this article and perhaps might be referenced in any recomposition of this article introductory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not "Perhaps so, perhaps not..." he's a published academic expert on exactly this topic. Conspiracy theories are actual things; it's not just a pejorative term for "an explanation I don't agree with, and which, by the way, is true". Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note the title of this dispute section. Barkun's relative expertise is not the issue here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jake, you're missing the point of WP:V. It doesn't say that the full text of sources must be made available to you upon demand. It says that you must be given sufficient information to locate the reliable source that asserts something. It's called a "citation." If you suspect the validity of something that's cited to University of California Press, you should walk to your nearest public library, put in an ILL request for the source, read it, and then use facts to make your argument, not innuendo.

Besides, anyone who looks at your edit history can see that you're bootstrapping an argument that there's some BLP issue with Jerome Corsi. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I replaced your {{check}}s with a {{qn}} and consolidated the pointy references. WORD. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added new sources (Merriam-Webster and New Internationalist) and quotations for first sentence of the lead. I did an appropriate synthesis and paraphrasing of the definitions found in the current three sources. I've therefore removed quotation-request tag. --Loremaster (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe your edit to be a considerable improvement of the introductory and resolves my two concerns as previously tagged. Nicely done. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfair use of sources

Closed discussion about a resolved dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The text says: Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals. and these books are cited: A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change which are two essays by two sociologists and as such they explains the respectable point of view of the authors on this matter, yet they are used to justify factual statements. This is unfair: we must specify that we are citing the authors and not stating a fact. Also what we are expressing seems not really plasible: since we defined "conspiracy theories" as "fringe theories" obviusly (by definition of fringe theories) they are not accepted by the mainstream scholars, yet it is not necessarily true that they are not accepted by any scholar (again according to our definition) as we are instead saying with the phrase "Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars" it seems that we are suggesting that institutional analysis denies the possibility of any single conspiracy, it's hard to believe that any serious theory would assume such a position.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I disagree with everything you said. I'll explain why when I have time. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) The disputed text has been deleted from the article therefore this dispute is moot. --Loremaster (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false"

Closed discussion about a resolved dispute
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've moved the following material from the lede to here for discussion: Accordingly, the term “conspiracy theory” is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank. The sentence has no page number in the source, so it can't be verified, and the statement itself seems both dubious and lacking context. Many words are used to "characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank" - "superstition" and "pseudo-science" spring to mind. "Conspiracy theory" is a term used to describe, first of all, beliefs about conspiracies, not just any "outlandish" belief. Since we cannot verify what the source actually says, I don't think it can remain in the lede. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC) I don't understand your claim that the statement itself is both dubious and lacking context. The context for this statement is the entire second paragraph of the lead section which explains that conspiracy theories 1) are viewed with skepticism by many, 2) are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence, 3) contrast with institutional analysis, 4) go beyond the boundaries of rational criticism when they become nonfalsifiable, and 5) are closed systems of ideas which explain away contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it. It is well-known fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank. This is the reason why most conspiracy theorists hate being described as "conspiracy theorists" and hate their conspiracy theories being described as "conspiracy theories". The fact that there many other words besides "conspiracy theory" to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank doesn't change the reality that the term "conspiracy theory" is still used to do just that. The article already explains that "conspiracy theory" is a term used to describe, first of all, beliefs about conspiracies. However, it also explains that the term is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false. The article never argues that the term "conspiracy theory" is only used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false. That being said, in his 1999 book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Mark Fenster discusses how the "conspiracy" tag is often used to delegitimize others' opinions and dismiss them as paranoid kooks. I no longer have a copy of the book but I will try to track it down to get a citation. --Loremaster (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC) While the term may be used to dismiss those promoting conspiracy theories, it's not a term used for generally dismissing cranks, outlandish beliefs, or even non-standard theories. One would not, for example, describe pyramidology or heliocentrism or homeopathy as "conspiracy theories" even if one's intent were dismiss them as "outlandishly false beliefs held by persons judged to be cranks". The wording stated, or at least strongly implied, otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Ridiculous. You're the only person who has ever misintepreted this sentence (which has been in the lead since 25 March 2009) in such an absurd way. However, you bring up a good point that dummies often need things to be dumbed down to avoid such confusion so I guess we should add “in a conspiracy” next to the word “belief” in the sentence (i.e. “Accordingly, the term “conspiracy theory” is often used to characterize any belief in a conspiracy as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a paranoid crank.”). Therefore, once we find a citation, the sentence now improved (or a diffirent version of it) will be restored to the article and the dispute will be resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Since the entire second paragraph of the lead section has been deleted and replaced with new content, I won't be restoring this disputed sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of judgmental statements

Its tone is definitely not neutral. The quotes serve well to invalidate the subject matter. Links to articles such as "furtive fallacy" and "pseudohistory" make a connection based on guilt by association instead of objectively presenting facts. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theories are more factual than others. This article paints them all with the same brush. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps but you need to find a reliable source that explicitly states that “some conspiracy theories are more factual than others”.--Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Criticism" section contains this unsourced statement: "Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case." What follows is a list of criteria that could be construed as original research. Other parts of the article, including the introduction, treat the subject in a much more dichotomous manner. There are also redundancies (such as references to Michael Barkun) that seem to be reinforcing one particular viewpoint. Maybe it's just poor writing style, but it sounds instructive rather than informative. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I have edited this article and watch over it for a few years now, I am the first one to admit that needs significant improvement to meet good article criteria. That being said, unsourced statements should obviously sourced. If they can't be, they should be deleted. If you can help with that, go ahead. --Loremaster (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the article's tone is unbalanced, not unsourced statements. Obviously, additions to the article should be sourced. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Other contributors would disagree. Therefore, it is up to you to discuss substantial changes you want to make to the article to balance its tone on this talk page before making them to seek consensus. --Loremaster (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What's with the manual archiving?

From my talk page for the consideration of interested editors... JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you disputed in the Conspiracy theory article has been removed from the article so further discussion on the Talk:Conspiracy theory page is pointless. I've therefore archived that discussion but feel free to start a new one if you feel it's necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't "discussion", that's a decree. If you'll pardon my inquisitiveness, under what Wikipedia policy do you presume to a. be the determinant as to just when a discussion is no longer worth occupying space on the talk page and b. be judge and jury as to what gets archived and what doesn't? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

From Help:Archiving a talk page: “It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers [...] The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case.” --Loremaster (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

...and the talk page was just barely over 40k when you archived content and had 8 topics (now 9 with this silliness). And just how does your second subsequent archiving after being asked to discuss your rather unorthodox dictate reflect an understanding of "However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions..." after another editor has objected to it? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. My comment on your talk page and my second subsequent archiving was based on my mistaken belief that you were User:Pokipsy76, the creator of the first thread that I archived (which has now been temporarily restored). That being said, regardless of the length of the talk page, I routinely archive resolved disputes (especially obsolete discussions about content in the article that have been deleted weeks ago) after they have been dormant for 1 month in order to make the talk page more easier to read and encourage people to focus on the disputes that haven't been resolved yet. None of this violates Wikipedia's archiving guidelines. Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted though resolution and understanding is my real purpose. I appreciate both your explanation and that your archive action was made in good faith and that your second archiving was based upon a misunderstanding of who did what and when...but now a third removal? I'm restoring that content.

As to the crux of the issue and IMHO, even if a discussion or dispute is long since resolved, the record of that content serves a considerably more broad purpose than pure transcription. It can, for example, reflect what may be pervasive article problems that need to be addressed, provide a more circumspect view on contributing editors and on and on. I could write a dissertation...but I won't.

In short, stay away from manual archiving and let the system do its archiving job just as effectively as it does in thousands of other articles. As far as I'm concerned and without any objection, my intent is to delete this entire section (assuming no further issue) after you've had adequate time to respond or you can feel free to do so yourself. Let there be peace in the valley. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the broad purpose that an old discussion or resolved dispute can have. However, I only archived closed disputes that I judge did not serve this purpose, especially since they were about content that was deleted from the article for reasons unrelated to these disputes.

There is no need for you to write a dissertation since Wikipedia guidelines already state that “there may be circumstances where it would benefit discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages; namely, to allow newly visiting editors to see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. However, this situation can be better addressed by use of the {{FAQ}} template.”

Since my archiving doesn't violate Wikipedia guidelines but rather is inspired by them I will continue manually archiving obsolete discussions and resolved disputes as I see fit. If you or someone else feel that some of these archived discussions need to be restored, I will respect that. However, I won't be the one restoring them. --Loremaster (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So why are those three two-year-old sections at the top still around? Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect they're the product of manual, selective archiving...and it needs to stop here...and pronto. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You would be wrong. I did not archive those two-year-old sections because they are disputes that still have not been resolved but eventually need to be. That being said, Wikipedia guidelines allow for manual, selective archiving. --Loremaster (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, as it is now becoming more clear, you appear to be manipulating the archive system to retain content of your choosing. I'm still digesting the ramifications here but I'm here to tell you it is not going down well. I'd be interested in soliciting the views of other editors on what appears to be transpiring here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. What is now becoming more clear is your ability to turn a non-issue into a controversy that waste everyone's time, energy and good faith. I don't know if you missed my comments above that I posted at 22:55 but I will say this for the record: I have and will continue to systematically archive what are clearly resolved disputes, obsolete discussions or rants that violated talk page guidelines. However, you're welcome to excavate any archived talk page discussion and cut and paste it here on the talk page and continue discussing it if you feel the need. The archives are readily available for anyone to view or further discuss. --Loremaster (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Two year old discussions are done. If the issues need to be resolved, they'll have to be resolved by a new discussion. I'm removing them now, please don't restore. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 03:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:AGF, Jake? John Shandy` • talk 03:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask, John Shandy? - Crosbie 09:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way Jake, it's a tiresome business this 'archiving' of comments. I had the same stunt pulled on me at Talk:Bilderberg Group [2] where my two week old comments were deleted with the comment 'archiving resolved disputes'. I asked the user not to do this months ago. [3]. As he suggested, we can simply restore the comments from the archive, and perhaps we must regard this behaviour as we might regard an unexpected shower, or a missed bus. - Crosbie

Crosbie, my archiving wasn't a stunt. You posted a personal message on an article's talk page asking me to use edit summaries. I took note of your message and deleted it while archiving obsolete discussions because there was no need for this message (that should have been posted on my personal talk page) to stay there. Regarding your comments I archived, you start discussions to seek support for your viewpoint and proposed changes. People (including me) respond negatively to your opinions and propositions but sometimes suggest and implement compromises. You offer no rebuttal and proceed to make the dubious changes anyway which are then reverted by these people. You obviously have no interest in having actual discussions. You simply want to impose your narrow-minded vision on us all. Despite this problem and in light of the changes made by me and others contributors to the article as well as your silence, I assumed you accepted the new consensus and I honestly thought the dispute was resolved. I won't make that mistake again. However, you need to start engaging people in a debate in order to resolve a dispute instead of simply issuing decrees. --Loremaster (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the actual problem? I have not looked at the history here, but if someone has a problem, please spell it out. We are not here to establish a perfect archiving system or to ensure equal time of exposure for all comments, and it appears from the above that some misunderstanding occurred and an apology was given. Is there an issue that needs further discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

...it appears from the above that some misunderstanding occurred and an apology was given..

What actually transpired and your perception of what transpired has been, unfortunately, handicapped by my ill-considered (and now regretful) attempt to edit my earlier comments to better reflect the current status quo of the issue/discussion. That was an error on my part and I shouldn't have done it. A quick explanation, if you'll indulge me for a moment.

In the time frame when the "apology" and "explanation" was offered and I both accepted, commented upon and was intent on disengaging, I was under the impression that talk page content had been restored (the underlying issue) per the apology/explanation offered. I was in error in that understanding. During that timeframe, a THIRD archival of that same content was made...a fact I was not aware of until after I had posted my earlier comments. Realizing that, I amended (foolishly in hindsight) my earlier comment to reflect that new understanding...and reverted/reinstated the content in question a THIRD time.

That an editor would persist, not once but twice, in the archiving of content about which an objection had been raised (immediately after the initial archive event) and under active discussion is, IMHO, troubling and suggestive that conduct exhibiting characteristics of WP:OWN is reflected here and worth further consideration and discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

My first and only apology was made after the third partial archiving. As you can clearly see, the “Unfair use of sources” discussion was not re-archived during this third archiving because I wrongly assumed you were User:Pokipsy76, the creator of that discussion. As I told you afterwards, I wasn't going to restore the other discussions but I would accept your decision to restore them and that I would not try to archive those specific discussions again. --Loremaster (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I grow tired of seeing people fail to assume good faith on part of Loremaster, alleging ownership or some sort of "agenda." Go figure that a common editor of numerous conspiracy theory related topics on Wikipedia would find other editors inventing conspiracy theories about his editing habits. By the way, I'm surprised you guys still haven't realized that MiszaBot does not archive this talk page and never has, because it has not been configured to do so. So, manual archiving is the only kind of archiving that's ever been carried out here - a practice that is common and not in violation of policy - only now has it been brought up as an issue on this talk page. I will add MiszaBot configuration to the top of the talk page later and set it to archive discussions after 30 days. John Shandy` • talk 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, John, for bringing up the point about MiszaBot I wanted to bring up earlier but didn't. --Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Barkun and the lead

Shouldn't we rename the article lead 'Stuff Michael Barkun thinks'? That's what it is. - Crosbie 11:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the lead ends with a quote from anthropologists Todd Sanders and Harry G. West, Michael Barkun is a political scientist well-known for being an expert on the culture of conspiracy theories. Therefore, he is one of if not the most reliable source on the subject. That being said, feel free to discuss constructive changes to the lead to correct any imbalance you perceive in it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Loremaster has written above. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 02:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the original statement. It is biased. This is my attempted lead which is being thrown away in favor of Michael Barkun's take on things:

"A conspiracy theory is a working hypothesis which attempts to attribute (and in some cases predict) the cause of an event to a group of entities (persons or otherwise) who are concealing their role in bringing the event about. The event may be intended or unintended. Conspiracy theorists are, therefore, regarded as fringe theorists because the mainstream account of the cause of the event is believed by them to be a result of the conspirators' attempt to conceal involvement. Thus, a conspiracy theory is usually at a contradiction with the most commonly held proposition, and is likely to meet strong antithesis whenever proposed or held to be true." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.67.205 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your lead references no reliable sources (in fact, no sources at all), so it must be treated as original research. Wikipedia is a culmination of secondary research, whereby we merely characterize the original research published by notable authors in reliable sources. That is why your lead is unacceptable in comparison to the lead that cites reliable sources written by notable political scientists and scholars of conspiracy theories who have published works through reliable channels with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Further, rewriting a lead is a substantial change and, when disputed, editors should reach a consensus on the talk page before overhauling a lead. Amendments to the lead are welcome, but it needs to cite references to reliable publications, and channel those sources' views with the appropriate weight they hold in the mainstream. John Shandy` • talk 19:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Crosbie never argued that the lead is biased but that, according to him, it relies too much on the (schorlarly) opinion of Michael Barkun. I and others disagree with him on that point. That being said, you need to stop adding your personal opinion (however nuanced and neutral you think it may be) in the article. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research policy. --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are both beyond blind. That is not even original research. Does one need a reliable source to define something? No. But I suppose someone needs a reliable source to do so when someone wants to redefine something, which Barkun does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.67.205 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the first sentence of the lead section is mostly based on the definition found in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary; according to Wikipedia's core policies, we need a reliable source to define any subject, especially in the case of a subject as complicated and controversial as “conspiracy theory”, which we can all define differently. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. If you can't accept the policies, you have no business editing Wikipedia articles. --Loremaster (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

"Does one need a reliable source to define something?"? Yes. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 03:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really, no, and it is not based on wikipedia rules but logic. The "reliable source" would, thus, be incapable of defining something itself without pointing to some other reliable source, and the logic would end up being circular if reliable sources just pointed to eachother. Instead, one explains one's own understanding, and hopefully most other people come to an agreement... which is what wikipedia originally professed to be rather than what it has become. Regardless, take a look at the lead (assuming you are actually capable of being educated) "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end." This sounds like the sub-header for a comic book. Conspiracies actually do occur, fyi, and they arguably occur all the time- most notably in CIA operations, which this article correctly identifies as "institutionalized conspiracy". So YOUR favored header is actually presenting misleading information. It makes it appear as though a conspiracy theory is a fantastical portrayal of some "historical event", which is being carried out by a group of super humans- and later this can all be explained as some sort of mental or character condition of the person who holds the belief. I.e., you're making a conspiracy sound very unlikely, which conflicts with reality. Enjoy your education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.67.205 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is pitifully nonsensical. Do you understand that an encyclopedia is only ever a piece of secondary research? An encyclopedia is meant to simply characterize the available literature (that is published in reliable sources by notable authors) on a given subject, and such literature is regarded as representing the academic/scientific/media discourse. There are majority views, minority views, and insignificant views, each holding different weight (or no weight at all) in their respective disciplines. Wikipedia is meant to channel those views in direct proportion to their prominence in the literature, and if those sources' authors' views lean one way or another, such biases must be reflected in any given Wikipedia article. This is because an encyclopedia is meant to introduce the reader to the "lay of the land" such that everything in a Wikipedia article is verifiable by having been previously published in a reliable source. Then, it is each individual reader's own prerogative to explore further, become convinced one way or the other, and determine what he or she accepts as true or false. The "litmus test" for inclusion in Wikipedia is essentially: what matters is whether content is verifiable, not whether editors (or readers) think it is true. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place where information is democratized by consensus, and that bizarre notion would never enable any editors to get any work done on controversial topics such as Creationism versus Evolution - proponents of creationism and proponents of evolution would never reach a consensus on what information is valid or invalid. Wikipedia uses consensus in conjunction with its core content policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. Achieving consensus is primarily used to resolve disputes that reach a high level of sophistication (such as content disputes that don't necessarily violate policies, or drastic and sweeping changes that have potential to result in edit wars or prolonged disputes - see Talk:Atheism for a months-long debate about the first three sentences of Atheism's lead paragraph, in which consensus is being pursued because there are so many acceptable proposals for a rewrite of those sentences).

You have a dire misconception of reliable sources using circular referencing, but that's okay. As time goes on, reliable sources cite previous reliable sources, but it doesn't work in reverse because the sources being referenced are already published... Further, not all reliable sources are secondary research, some are original research (it's okay if a source is original research, but the Wikipedia article cannot itself contain original research, it may only reference some other author's or scholar's original research, such that the Wikipedia article is secondary research), and so for example, an academic paper that conducts a scientific study will almost always have a literature review (which is secondary research) and then will present the findings of its own experiments and analyses of data, which are often a new idea or conclusion that may (but not necessarily) include synthesis of previous papers' findings (which is original research). This is how research advances... The same goes for other academic publications (which are considered to be the most reliable among choices of sources to be used for writing Wikipedia articles).

Because Wikipedia is only interested in publishing mainstream views as published in reliable sources, your, my, Loremaster's, or Jayjg's views on conspiracy theories don't matter. What matters is what the reliable sources say, and that's that. Some editors come to accept this, others don't and choose alternatives websites where they can ignore these content standards and self-publish free from interference by other editors. If you cannot accept Wikipedia's standards, I respectfully suggest you consider starting a personal blog. John Shandy` • talk 21:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia one needs reliable sources to define something. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I said it is absurd to define something of this sort using a reliable resource. You don't perform any experimentation or test in order to explain what is meant by this term. A definition of this sort IS reached by a democratic consensus. The defining lead is arguably the most important part of the article. I.e., if you're defining a swan, and you write, 'a swan is a white bird', someone else will change it to say, 'a swan is a bird, commonly depicted as white'- that will survive and evolve because most people will see that as being true, and one certainly did not need to quote anyone else about it. If someone were defining someone else's research, however, like the concept of an electron 'a negatively charged subatomic particle which orbits around a nucleus', you would need to quote someone because the concept of an electron is, itself, original research, and the same could be said for historical events and theories such as creationism. You may as well be talking about an author's work. A concept which is freely available to everyone, such as the concept of an "argument" or "column" or a myriad of freely available concepts tested daily by the public use of the words, shouldn't require one or two person's butchering of a term, just because it was written about in a published article. If this were the case, many things would either go undefined, become purposely misconstrued to suit one's own ends, or become defined incorrectly. Consider the case of contradicting authors, and what it takes to choose between them: supposing I wanted to combat this lead with a publication which suited my definition, so and so says a swan is always white, but so and so says a swan is sometimes black, and yet so and so found a green swan, and so and so says a swan is a bird commonly depicted as white. Is not the last author chosen democratically? Even if the author of the green swan article presented a ton of evidence, and wrote in the most respected publication? The lead of this article is a joke, and a prime example of what wikipedia has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.67.205 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If two sources contradict one another, it is necessary to examine whether most sources either concur or disagree - if those sources that disagree are an insignificant minority, they don't matter and aren't worthy of inclusion (they also don't matter if the authors aren't notable). If a significant minority of them disagree, it is appropriate to channel that discourse into the article. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing what people might like to call "common knowledge." Your version of the lead is not verifiable and it reflects your opinion, whereas the existing lead (which isn't etched in stone and certainly welcomes improvements, if they're substantiated with reliable sources) is verifiable and reflects the mainstream view. That's that. Either you can accept it or you can't, but such is what makes something encyclopedic. Besides, if your definition is so incredibly more accurate than the current definition in the lead, you shouldn't have any trouble providing reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, published by notable authors/scholars; then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. John Shandy` • talk 16:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead section of the article is mostly based on the definition of “conspiracy theory” found in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. Do you have a problem with them as well? --Loremaster (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. If you are interested in editing the Conspiracy theory article (or any Wikipedia article for that matter), I encourage you to create a user account since not only is it extremely useful for an editor (such as giving him or her the ability to more easily watch over pages he or she is interested in) but it also contributes to a culture of relative accountability on Wikipedia. That being said, whether or not you decide to create a user account, please remember to always sign your posts on this talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~).

In addition to the comments of John Shandy and Loremaster above, please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Real world conspiracies

The article omits a key reason conspiracy theories get so much traction--there have been smaller conspiracies that have been fully documented:

1763 Native Americans intentionally given blankets contaminated with smallpox

1919 Black Sox World Series "fix"

1932 GM streetcar

1932-1972 Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments

1933 Smedley Butler's attempted coup against FDR; Reichstag fire aftermath in Germany

1956-1958 TV Quiz shows being rigged

1953-1975 MKULTRA - CIA's testing of LSD on US citizen's often without their knowledge or consent.

1962 Operation Northwoods

1972 Watergate

1981-1986 Iran-Contra

1980s/1990s-2009 Bernard Madoff

2001 Enron and Arther Anderson

Also there is the comfort factor in some of the longer conspiracies--it is more comforting to assume that massive forces were actively covering things up then the more likely that the regulators were sleeping at the switch.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first argument, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly states that a key reason conspiracy theories get so much traction is because there have been smaller conspiracies that have been fully documented. Regarding your second argument, I suggest you read the Psychological origins section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As anyone who has dealt with me in the past knows I don't put up anything up without something to back it up:

(1997) A&E's Conspiracies

Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley (basically the whole book)

Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 18 ("some historians have put forward forward the idea that more recently the United States has become the home of conspiracy theories because so many high-level prominent conspiracies have been undertaken and uncovered since the 1960s."

Young, Katherine K.; Paul Nathanson (2010) Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man McGill-Queen University Press ISBN 9780773538733 pg 275 ("The fact remains, however, that not all conspiracies are imagined by paranoids. Historians show that every real conspiracy has had a least four characteristic features: groups, not isolated individuals; illegal or sinister aims, not ones that would benefit society as a whole; orchestrated acts, not a series of spontaneous and haphazard ones; and secret planning, not public discussion. This pattern lies at the root of a feminist conspiracy theory of history.")

Based on the source material the difference between a real conspiracy and many conspiracy theories is the scope required to keep the conspiracy a secret. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments and MKULTRA were real world conspiracies that lasted decades but in terms of the scope of area or level of occurrence they were very minor compared to the scope required for the majority of such theories secret.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The Peter Knight source seems like a good one. The Katherine Young & Paul Nathanson source though, at least the excerpt you provided, seems to describe differences between real conspiracies and major conspiracy theories, but doesn't appear to be putting forth that real conspiracies contribute to the embrace of conspiracy theories (I actually don't doubt that they do help give traction to conspiracists' views, but Wikipedia requires that we find reliable sources to support that linkage, rather than editors making the linkage themselves - you know, original research and all that jazz). But the Peter Knight source seems to support exactly what you're proposing to add to the article. Is the A&E source a textual work or a documentary? I don't have access to the Hodapp book on hand, but maybe some parts of it support real conspiracies as a reason for the traction of conspiracy theories. John Shandy` • talk 12:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A&E's Conspiracies was a documentary and treated the subject very evenhandedly addressing the the very real world Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and CIA's Connection with Drugs conspiracies, the boarder line Gehlen-CIA conspiracy, the very iffy Kennedy and Martin Luther King Assassination conspiracies, and the off the wall Suppression of Technology and New World Order conspiracies. "Our history books are filled with conspiracies as endurable as the assassination of Julius Caesar and Shakespeare's tale of dark ambition Macbeth. America has had a long history of conspiracies--after all the country was born in the midst of conspiracy."--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a securities scam or Ponzi scheme really qualifies as a "real conspiracy" in the sense covered by the phrase "conspiracy theory". The "con" in "con artist" is short for "confidence", not "conspiracy". Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Go back to Young's four criteria above: involves a group (yes, Madoff had help); has an illegal or sinister aim (yes), is an orchestrated act (yes), and involves secret planning (yes). So yes in this case a securities scam or Ponzi scheme is a conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs)

I think you're going way beyond the scope of this article. The world is filled with thousands of cons taking place on a daily basis. These aren't "conspiracies" in the sense meant by "conspiracy theory". Young's criteria may be necessary, but they're not sufficient. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 04:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm merely using the definition Young provided. Yes, there are world is filled with thousands of cons taking place on a daily basis but they are not conspiracies because the majority of them are done by individuals or couples and not by groups. Unlike Ponzi, Madoff was not alone ergo that example meets the group requirement of Young.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of cons taking place daily involve more than one person. And why would Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man be a good source in conspiracy theories? Katherine K. Young's expertise is in religion, not conspiracy theories. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no formal field of conspiracy theories. Also Young states that historians show this and not her and she is stating this in a University Press book rather than some self published material so the material was peer reviewed.

The definition Young gives is certainly better then the "A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or groups of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thug conspiring to stickup a liquor store..." in the for Dummies book.

Nuking the "Real Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories" section just because of Young and you find it confusing even though there are references by such WP:RS as ABC-CLIO, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Oxford University Press, and Wiley-Blackwell (which does NOT include the For Dummies book as that is by a different part of Wiley) is IMHO lazy editing.

The article has NPOV issues in that it implies that all conspiracy theories are off in tin foil hat land until you get way down in the article. Several sources clearly state that there are real conspiracies and these feed the whole Conspiracy Theory speculation machine.

Mark Fenster's Conspiracy theories: secrecy and power in American culture University of Minnesota Press (2008) goes into the the whole matter of the conspiracy narrative and the common themes seen in it.

David Coady's 2006 Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing goes into the philosophical issue of conspiracy theories with real world examples.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

From a sociological perspective, I don't think many state crimes people describe as “conspiracies” should be described as conspiracies. In his essay There Are No Conspiracies, G. William Domhoff explains:

Even though there are no conspiracies, it is also true that government officials sometimes take illegal actions or try to deceive the public. During the 1960s, for example, government leaders claimed that the Vietnam War was easily winnable, even though they knew otherwise. In the 1980s the Reagan Administration defied a Congressional ban on support for anti-government rebels in Nicaragua (the "Contras") through a complicated scheme that raised money for the rebels from foreign countries. The plan included an illegal delivery of armaments to Iran in exchange for money and hostages. But deceptions and illegal actions are usually uncovered, if not immediately, then in historical records.

In the case of the Vietnam War deception, the unauthorized release in 1971 of government documents called The Pentagon Papers (which revealed the true state of affairs) caused the government great embarrassment and turned more people against the war. It also triggered the creation of a secret White House operation to plug leaks (the "Plumbers"), which led in turn to an illegal entry into Democratic Party headquarters during the 1972 elections, an attempted cover-up of high-level approval of the operation, and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in the face of impeachment charges. As for the Reagan Administration's illegal activities, they were unraveled in widely viewed Congressional hearings that led to a six-month imprisonment for the president's National Security Adviser for his part in an unsuccessful cover-up, along with convictions or guilty pleas for several others for obstruction of justice or lying to Congress. The Secretary of Defense was indicted for his part in the cover-up, but spared a trial when he was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush on Christmas Eve, 1992.

It is also true that the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one.

That's why, even with sources that back him up, BruceGrubb's argument is debatable. --Loremaster (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is Domhoff is talking about the conspiratorial view and defines it as "a conspiratorial elite with secret desires, i.e., by a small secretive group that wants to change the government system or put the country under the control of a world government." and NOT Young's group with an illegal or sinister aim, that is performing an orchestrated act, and involves secret planning.

"There have always been conspiracies." Parish, Jane The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell ISBN 978-0631231684 pg 2

"Real conspiracies in Vietnam, Watergate, and the Iran-Contra affair did little to boost public confidence and provided cynics with ample evidence that Washington was capable of deceit." Whitfield, Stephen J. (2004) A companion to 20th-century America Wiley-Blackwell ISBN 978-0631211006 pg 136--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus on this issue among scholars, my point remains that it is a statement of opinion rather than fact that XZY is a “real conspiracy”. Therefore, if we decide to add your suggested claim in the article, we should clearly point out that it is the opinion of ABC. That's all. --Loremaster (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems with your position, Loremaster. First, there is the level of WP:RS Domhoff as presented has. If the point is repeated in Who Rules America? then you have the added reliability of McGraw-Hill but as it is all we have currently is what amounts to WP:SPS. Second and more importantly you have the WP:Weight issue: you have ONE example while I have three all of which come from highly respected publishers. And to those three I add some more:

The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 Wiley-Blackwell Page 119, 305

Parker, Martin; Jane Parish (2001) "The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences" Wiley-Blackwell ("This book differentiates between conspiracy theory and theories about conspiracies.")

A history of Florence, 1200-1575 Wiley-Blackwell Page 352

Clarke, Roger (1985) Industrial economics Wiley-Blackwell Page 64

Jones, Gareth; Rick Arrandale (2007) The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology Wiley-Blackwell Page 360 ("Soon after his return Bonhoeffer joined the conspiracy against Hitler")

Vallabhaneni, S. Rao (2005) Wiley CIA Exam Review, Conducting the Internal Audit Engagement: Volume 2 Wiley-Blackwell Page 430

I could go on with another 10 I have also found but I think you get the point. All these books give examples of conspiracies that existed. If you go back up to Young's definition you can see several real world conspiracies: the Mobs of the 1920 and the attitude toward Prohibition, the management of the drug trade by gangs and the Mafia, anyone that the RICO statue was used against, and so on. By WP:Weight one lone statement does not equal no consensus. The majority of sources clearly show that there have been real conspiracies as well as imagined ones and some shows that the real conspiracies help feed the belief in the imagined ones.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Theory?

Defining all conspiracy theories as fringe is not supported, by among other sources, the dictionary. Maybe this is a place to start to make the article more NPOV. Mystylplx (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study — if it were widely held or definitively proven, it would no longer be a conspiracy theory. Don't confuse the term with a simple "conspiracy". The word "fringe" was removed, with an edit summary requesting a citation; I've returned the word and noted a cited source already present in the body of the article. Application of the word in the lead is worth discussing here, however. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To Xenophrenic

You can not provide your own opinion and definition as a justification for including this, even if your opinion is arguably the correct one. YOU MUST provide a reputable secondary source. That is the very basis of wikipedia and its ground policy for inclusion of material. As I have already stated in the summary of my edits, I have checked as far as I am able, the first three cited sources provided for the use of the word fringe. I have re-read the citations three times now and can see no reference to 'fringe theories' at all. I have previously asked that if any of these sources do indeed use that term please can I ask you to quote verbatim.

Loremaster argued that "sources don't need to use the word 'fringe'. The word simply summarizes the description of the theory". But I am of the opinion that is not in accordance with clear wiki policy thus is an unacceptable reason, especially when its for inclusion of a loaded, impartial and I would argue 'inaccurate' definition in the introduction.

The policy on original research states that ALL material added must be attributable to a reliable published source WP:OR. May I ask you both please not to reinsert this without such a citation.

Xenophrenic I see you have again recently reinserted it without one and claimed as justification that you had "verified, sourced to Barkun". Can you explain please? I don't see where any source or quote has been provided.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• "You can not provide your own opinion and definition as a justification for including this..."

I didn't. I quoted our fringe theory article verbatim for the definition.

• "YOU MUST provide a reputable secondary source."

I did; I directed your attention to the Barkun sources already cited in our article, with a note in my edit summary to pay particular attention to Barkun's discussion of fringe ideas, fringe beliefs and fringe speculation; i.e., fringe theories. He is quite clear in defining conspiracy theories as fringe in the preface and first chapter, and is equally clear in asserting that all conspiracy theories share that "generic characteristic". Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. And now PhGustaf has reverted with no explanation or justification except a claim of 'consensus'. Infringement of wiki policy can not be subverted merely by weight of numbers, old chap. Please discuss in the light of this:ALL material added must be attributable to a reliable published source WP:OR--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

...and that is why we have attributed it to a reliable published source. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Barkun describes a whole subculture combining a devotion to anti-government, anti-"New World Order" or anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing with a fascination with UFO's and other "stigmatized knowledge." By "stigmatized knowledge," Barkun means "claims to truth that the claimants regard as verified despite the marginalization of those claims by the institutions that conventionally distinguish between knowledge and error--universities, communities of scientific researchers, and the like" (Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy, p. 26). It includes beliefs in UFO's, alien abductions, conspiracies, racial hierarchies, astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, "End Time" prophecies, lost continents, underground civilizations, etc.

— Terry W. Colvin

Source: [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Another quote:

Barkun (1996) argues that once individuals are exposed to the ‘generic conspiracy theory ... treated as fact not hypothesis', then they are receptive to the full range of what Colin Campbell calls the `rejected knowledge‘ of the ‘cultic milieu'. This milieu is characterized by the powerful circular logic of conspiracism. as summarized by Barkun:

The more seriously conspiracies are taken, the less trust can be placed in the centres of authority. If conspiracy is everywhere — embedded in the churches, universities, government, banks, the mass media — then no knowledge promulgated by such institutions can be trusted. Hence, seekers after knowledge must by default go to the cultic milieu, precisely that body of ideas condemned by the centres of authority ... if the conspiracy has co-opted authority, and if authority has rejected certain ideas. then those rejected ideas must be the really true ones. for if they were not true. then why would the conspiracy have condemned them?' (1994: 249)

It is the internet that now plays a key role in introducing individuals to the cultic milieu and the body of rejected knowledge. As a result of recent developments, Barkun states: `Beliefs once consigned to the outermost fringe of American political and religious life now seem less isolated and stigmatized than they once did`, This is because militias present themselves as representatives of patriotism and constitutional fidelity. open to all races and religions`, which makes them attractive to people who wouldn't consider joining Klan-type or neo-Nazi organizations. However, Barkun argues that it is also because of the success that Pat Robertson has had as a ‘popularizer, taking ideas widely shared on the radical right and bringing them to a much wider audience'. (Barkun, 1995: 61).<sup>4</sup>

— Jane Parish, The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences, pp. 77-78

Source: [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's silly to demand that a source explicitly use the word fringe, because Wikipedia is about paraphrasing and characterizing sources. Nevertheless, here's a few good ones:

From the trajectory of our discussion, it should by now be apparent that we think a 'study of real society' must include a study of conspiracy culture, and all its associated 'fringe' beliefs, as a paradoxical but central feature of today's 'social surface'. - Parish, J., & Parker, M. (2001). The Age of Anxiety: Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. (Both editors of the work, and most all of the contributors, are professors of some form of social relations, organization theory, or political science, etc. at various universities - the two editors are at Keele University.)

Conspiracy theories, present on the fringe of American politics since the nation's founding, became an accepted part of popular discourse in the late 20th century. While once these views might have been considered the harmless and eccentric beliefs of a few, now they are neither. Paradoxically, they foster both political apathy and its opposite, political extremism, and significant numbers of people believe they provide reasonable explanations for economic, social, and political events. - Lee, M.F. (2011). Conspiracy Rising: Conspiracy Thinking and American Public Life. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. (The author is a professor of political science at the University of Windsor, Ontario, CA.)

In accord with their appeals to 'scepticism', Forteans often express doubt about the claims of conspiracy theorists, but conspiracy discourse nonetheless has a place within Fortean discourse for two main reasons: first, because Fort's own views often ran in directinos that resonate with conspiracy theory (Hierophant's Apprentice 2007) and second, because some conspiracy discourse grows out of fringe science (Barkun 2003: 27). - Locke, S. (2011). Re-crafting Rationalization: Enchanted Science and Mundane Mysteries. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing. (So this source is secondary to Barkun's, further acknowledging Barkun's established connection between conspiracy theory and fringe science found on pages 19 and 20 of Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America.)

These are just a few findings. I think stating fringe theory is justified. Regardless of whether or not it's used explicitly, it is a justified characterization of conspiracy theories. John Shandy` • talk 17:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

And this:

Tracing the beliefs in various conspiracies and mega-conspiracies in literature, apocalyptic and political writing, and popular culture, Barkun creates an exceptional and invaluable genealogy of the extraordinary permutations that these ideas have undergone since WWII and, of course, as a result of the Internet. Barkun dives into the religious and political matrix of what some call the "lunatic fringe," forcing us to look at the revival and spread of conspiracist thinking on an even grander scale into broad reaches of American culture. For those who think conspiracy thinking is a fading phenomenon, or a cultural phenomenon of little significance or creativity, think again. Welcome to the third millennium.

— Richard Landes, Director, Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University; editor of "The Encyclopedia of Millennial Movements and author of "Relics, Apocalypse, and the Deceits of History

Source: [6] (click on synopsis). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Barkun is talking about fringe conspiracy theories, not saying that all conspiracy theories are fringe. And Barkun is just one guy who wrote one book. This is hardly notable enough to adopt his views as part of the larger definition of conspiracy theories. Using the word "fringe" in the definition shouldn't be dependent on one guy and one book, even if he were defining all conspiracy theories in that way. Mystylplx (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Barkun (and others) is indeed saying that all conspiracy theories are fringe theories. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Put this another way--When it comes to definitions of terms Barkun and his book do not trump Websters, Random House, The American Heritage Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, etc. Mystylplx (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Michael Barkun is a professor emeritus of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. His book, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, as been described (by both its publishers and scholars who have reviewed it) as the most comprehensive and authoritative examination of contemporary American conspiracism to date by a leading expert on the subject of conspiracy theories. Although Barkun certainly acknowledges that there have been conspiracies, he argues that real conspiracies don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracy theorists attribute to them. The second paragraph of the lead section explains why all conspiracy theories are “fringe” in the sense that they depart from mainstream sociological/political explanation of an event (regardless of whether or not they are embraced by millions of people).
2. Wikipedia encourages us to view and use the work of notable maintream scholars as the most reliable sources rather than dictionaries.
3. G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, argues in his essay There are no conspiracies that conspiracy theory/conspiratorial view is inherently not scientific (sociological) therefore “fringe”. So he supports Barkun's position.

--Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I started writing my reply before Loremaster but he beat me. Anyway, Michael Barkun is a political scientist and one of the leading scholars of conspiracy theories (so much so that he even advised the FBI in the mid-1990s). With that in mind, he and other prominent scholars of social relations and political science are of course more reliable and more current than any collection of dictionaries. Dictionaries get updated over time to reflect scholarly discourse and consensus - you don't think that those dictionaries just "come up with" their definitions, do you? These scholars are a step ahead of dictionaries in identifying, classifying, and relating conspiracy theories to other topics or disciplines (also, see WP:RS#Scholarship). Michael Barkun has written quite a number of books, not just one book, and most of them are published by reputable academic presses. Further, you've completely ignored the fact that both myself and Tgeorgescu provided sources other than Barkun's book.

Even if we don't explicitly define a conspiracy theory as a fringe theory in the lead, it would be both appropriate and necessary to state that notable political scientists and scholars of conspiracy theories have characterized conspiracy theories as fringe theories. So I think this discussion of whether or not it's defined that way is a semantic side-stepping, because conspiracy theories are clearly characterized as fringe theories despite that those same scholars have acknowledged that conspiracy theories have gained acceptance beyond fringe groups and audiences. While the people who believe in them may not generally be out on the fringe, the fringe is where the ideas originate. That was made abundantly clear from reading the quotes in their context within the books I cited above.

So perhaps the lead could be changed to read something like: A conspiracy theory explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end. Political scientists characterize conspiracy theories as fringe theories originating from fringe science and gaining initial acceptance among fringe groups. That may not be the best wording, as I just came up with it quickly, but it more/less encompasses the things I read yesterday, and those were just a few things I found in a matter of minutes. I stand by the current verbiage in the lead though, until a better one is offered. John Shandy` • talk 17:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John Shandy's arguments and suggestion. However, I think simply replacing “fringe theory” with “belief” may be the best way to resolve this dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Barkun's reply on this matter

A colleague of mine contacted Michael Barkun to ask him whether or not it is appropriate to define conspiracy theory as fringe. Here is his unedited and complete reply:

I know that there has recently been some back-and-forth on the Internet about this. As a general rule, I would classify conspiracy theories as fringe, subject to two qualifications:

First, it’s important to distinguish between conspiracies, whose existence can be verified, and conspiracy theories, which are intellectual constructions and are thus ways of looking at the world.

Second, as you may know, I distinguish between event conspiracies, intended to explain specific occurrences, and superconspiracies, meant to provide comprehensive explanations for all of politics, history, etc. One could construct a continuum running from the most tightly focused event conspiracy theories to the most sweeping superconspiracy theories. All other things being equal, as one moves from the former toward the latter, the likelihood increases that one is moving more and more toward the fringe (although you could certainly imagine fringe event conspiracy theories).

I suspect that the people who object to the existing wording are people who are themselves on the fringe but don’t want to be stigmatized.

— Michael Barkun, 22 August 2011

That being said, I don't want to restore the term “fringe theory” in the first sentence of the lead section of the article based solely on an email exchange. However, we should think about how we might want to discuss this issue in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Loremaster, Thanks first of all for changing the intro. I think the current status is much better. We are getting there.:-)( With only a few remaining quibbles, one being that the wording should accurately follow the cited dictionary definition and not omit crucial wording)

The correspondence with the author Barkun is interesting but as I read it, it still does not support the argument for inclusion of the word fringe. Barkun as I understood him stated that not all conspiracy theories are fringe theories and then went on to qualify how a theory would move "more and more toward the fringe", only thus becoming a "fringe conspiracy theory". The problem with the lead as it was - and which I objected to - claimed that ALL conspiracy theories were "fringe theories". As it stands, the article later makes it clear that that is NOT the case. It states:

Terminology. The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any legitimate..., etc.

We can hardly have an intro that is then contradicted in the very first sub-section.

Secondly as you yourself intimated, an appeal to Original Research does not settle the issue, so getting and qouting an unpublished primary source (Barkun's correspondence) as an argument does not help.

The lead as it was ( and to an extent still does) managed to infringe THREE of Wikis five basic policy criteria: viz. Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. Thus it needed to be changed, whatever Barkun's opinion is on the matter. ;-)

Of course Barkun's published understanding has its place in this wiki article, but that that place, in my opinion, is NOT the intro/lead, as that gives the impression that his view is the only correct view. Which obviously infringes wikipedia neutrality policy.

Finally, his suggestion that "the people who object to the existing wording are people who are themselves on the fringe but don’t want to be stigmatized" is clearly an appeal to an ad hominem argument (a classic fallacious argument) one which anyway obviously does not trump wiki policy, which is very clear on this. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The wording does NOT have to accurately follow the cited dictionary definition otherwise we are engaging in a copyright violation. The first sentence of the lead section of the article should be and is a summarizing and paraphrasing of multiple definitions of the term “conspiracy theory” from different reliable sources.
2. Based on my reading of his book, reviews from journalists and scholars, and this email exchange, Barkun seems to be arguing that, although it is possible for a conspiracy theory to not be “fringe”, the reality is that all conspiracy theories are fringe but that some conspiracy theories are even more fringe than others. Why? the word “fringe” is being used to describe an idea as pseudoscientific and/or that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. In other words, a mainstream scientific (political/sociological/historical) theory that explains an event as the result of a conspiracy is not a “conspiracy theory”.
3. The sentence you cite in the Terminology section was written by me and I must admit that it is original research that I forgot to replace with sourced content so it might be wise to delete it.
4. You are right that the intro cannot be contradicted by the very first subsection so I will delete content in that subsection that is not properly sourced immediately.
5. I was only appealing to this email exchange to clarify what Barkun thinks on the subject not to support the addition/restoration of content so I think it does help.
6. As I explained earlier, many scholars think “conspiracy theory” refers to fringe theories that explain an event as the result of a conspiracy, whether or not they explicitly use the word “fringe” since some prefer using synonyms of the word.
7. I disagree that the previous version of the lead section violated any of the Wikipedia guidelines you listed since the word “fringe” was used to summarize content found in the one of the three sources we are using.
8. I strongly disagree that Barkun's scholarly opinion should not be used in the intro/lead because 1) he is a reliable source, and 2) his scholarly opinion is shared by many mainstream scholars on the subject that we could have used instead of him, and 3) it hasn't been disputed by a majority of scholars
9. Barkun's suggestion is not a fallacious argument since it simply reflects the fact that there are numerous examples of editors on Wikipedia who, under the guise of wanting more neutrality, try to make statements of fact appear as statements of opinion in order to manipulate some readers into dismissing a statement as nothing more than an opinion rather than a fact.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, this whole section is wp:or and really has no place here. If Barkun publishes that in wp:rs then it might merit inclusion. But as it is it's just a distraction.Mystylplx (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree since, as I explained, it is only being presented as an opinion that can be useful to inspire us in how to improve the article once we find and use reliable sources that support this opinion. Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines regarding original research is about content that shouldn't be added to the article. We are free to discuss original opionions on a talk page if it can help improve the article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Even so, I will go ahead and respond to a few things--

1. You are right, the exact words don't have to follow the exact words in the dictionaries, but they do have to follow the meaning. If we are to give a definition then it needs to be a mainstream (not necessarily scholarly) definition and dictionaries are the arbiters of that. If Barkun can convince enough people that all conspiracy theories are "fringe" then the definition will have changed and dictionaries will reflect that. To put this another way--at this point defining conspiracy theories as "fringe" is itself fringe. Further, I suggest it's rather silly as there are lots of conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true and are accepted as such by the mainstream. Operation Northwoods for example.
2. To say that if it's mainstream it's not a conspiracy theory is torturing the language. If it's a theory about a conspiracy it's a conspiracy theory. Most conspiracy theories may be fringe, but not all are and it's not a part of the definition.
3. I've yet to see a cited scholar saying all conspiracy theories are fringe in any wording except G. William Domhoff, and he actually says there are no such things as conspiracies (talk about torturing the language!) What I've seen is one scholar (primarily) talking about fringe conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I'll be corrected if I am wrong but Wikipedia considers mainstream scholarly sources as more reliable sources than dictionaries so the latter should not be used as the ultimate arbiters. That being said, the current version of the definition in the lead section of the article is perfectly consistent with definitions found in dictionaries. The absence of the word “usually” doesn't distort the definition. Furthermore, several scholarly sources we are using or can find lack the small nuance one dictionary chose to add to its definition.
2. We need to be mindful to not make an introductory first sentence excessively or awkwardly long with superfluous details that are not absolutely crucial for an accurate understanding of the subject matter.
3. Barkun doesn't need to convince everyone since his opinion is shared by many notable mainstream scholars on the subject.
4. You are hung up on the word “fringe” when we could just as easily have used “pseudoscientific”.
5. If you bring up “Operations Northwoods” as an example of a verified conspiracy, you miserably fail to understand the point made by Barkun and other experts on this subject, which is that 1) there is a difference between a rational/factual claim of conspiracy and a “conspiracy theory”. The latter term is now only used to describe wild speculation of conspiracy that defies and contradicts sociological understanding of how society works. Get it?
6. Regardless of what you think, what you also fail to understand is that words, terms and expressions evolve from their initial neutral or pejorative definitions. In other words, “conspiracy theory” is now a loaded term that no longer refers to simply a “theory of conspiracy”.
7. Domhoff argues: “It is [...] true that the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one.” Do you understand the crucial point?

--Loremaster (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

So Loremaster posts the correspondence not to use as a source, but to aid in verifying the interpretation of Barkun's publications, and you quickly label it original research. Yet, you are arguing on the grounds that what G. William Domhoff has to say is of little consequence simply because you don't like what he has to say and you consider it to be torturing the language? Putting aside the fact that it's only your opinion that Domhoff is torturing the language, your arguments seem unreasonable to me.

I clearly suggested a compromise above, that if we don't define conspiracy theories as fringe then we should at least characterize them as such in the lines following the lead statement, in accordance with what scholars of political science in general and conspiracy theories in particular have to say (such as the multiple examples above, which even when not defining conspiracy theories as fringe, clearly characterize them as originating from fringe ideas and gaining their initial acceptance among fringe audiences). Loremaster followed up with a compromise inspired by my suggestion but taking a slightly different approach. Things were suddenly good, then it seems the leading statement was further disputed because it didn't use the exact wording found in Merriam-Webster (the Merriam-Webster dictionary is no demigod among reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a dictionary).

I trust that you guys are acting in good faith, but this is starting to look as though you guys are shifting the goal posts on us. Each time we offer a compromise or provide support for why we think fringe is an appropriate characterization and generalization about conspiracy theories, which scholars have clearly expressed have fringe origins, you guys come up with some reason to say that it isn't good enough, that you don't agree with the scholars, that you don't like what the scholars have to say, that you feel the scholars are torturing the language, or you tout what Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries have to say (though we pointed out that scholarly/academic sources are regarded as more reliable by Wikipedia's standards).

We're not trying to beat up on you guys, and we're not necessarily hellbent on keeping the lead's exact current wording, but while we've offered compromise, you guys have simply thrown dictionaries back in our faces. I haven't seen a concrete proposal of a new lead sentence from either Mystylplx or Mystichumwipe that isn't just a definition as supported by Merriam-Webster. If you guys would go beyond a mere definition (as we should being this is an encyclopedia), and suggest some alternatives (alternative to our suggestions and alternative to your beloved dictionary definition), we might get somewhere with this despite our obvious disagreement over the mainstream characterization of conspiracy theories. I look forward to seeing suggested lead sentences that incorporate some effort and thought on your parts. John Shandy` • talk 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm fine with the current wording. I think dictionaries trump scholarly books when it comes to definitions and secondary sources trump primary sources. So dictionaries (plural) trump Barkun's book in two ways. But the current wording is consistent with that, and I'm only talking about the definition part--I think it's fine to quote Barkun in the lead as long as his quotes are attributed, and if paraphrased you need more than just one primary source, (Does that make sense?) I may be missing something, but you guys keep claiming all these other scholars besides Barkun that claim conspiracy theories are by definition "fringe" (or pseudo-scientific, whatever) yet all I've seen is Barkun, people interviewing or quoting him, and one self-published book by G. William Domhoff.

As for the word "pseudoscientific", that's worse than "fringe." To be pseudo-scientific they would first have to claim to be scientific, and some conspiracy theories certainly do that, but, again, many don't. Mystylplx (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Putting aside the fact that I was the person who first added a dictionary as a source for the the first sentence of the lead section until I found more scholarly sources to replace it, I would like to know on which Wikipedia guideline you are basing your claim that “dictionaries trump scholarly books when it comes to definitions and secondary sources trump primary sources”
2. Despite the fact that Barkun is considered by many scholars as one of the most reliable sources on the subject of conspiracy theories, you are right that we should add more sources. I'll work on that in the coming days and weeks.
3. Some of the people interviewing and/or quoting Barkun are themselves notable mainstream journalists and scholars who have themselves written on this subject.
4. You are right that the word "pseudoscientific" is problematic. "pseudohistorical" or "pseudopolitical" or "pseudosociological" would be fare more accurate.

--Loremaster (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mystylplx one hundred per cent.

We of course have to paraphrase. But that is not in contention. We must do that while still following the meaning of the cited source. You can't subvert the meaning to fit a divergent viewpoint from a contradictory source (e.g. Barkun). I.e. you can't cite the dictionary but then not follow that dictionary definition.

To John Shandy, this is not about "beloved dictionary definitions". Its about verifiability. EVERYTHING must be cited. And though paraphrased naturally EVERYTHING added to the article must also FOLLOW the meaning of the cited source. That is not "moving the goalposts", nor is it "smply throwing dictionaries back in [y]our faces". This is basic wiki policy, and is not something that needs to be "compromised" on.

To Loremaster, regarding the subsection entitled terminology: I thought that inluded a more accurate definition. Shame that you deleted it. Better would be to find a source for that than delete it, IMO.

Regarding your point no.9: "Barkun's suggestion is not a fallacious argument". This ironically seems to me to be the same argument used for describing ALL conspiracy theories as fringe theories. Yes some are, but NOT ALL are. So yes, some editors on Wiki "under the guise of wanting more neutrality..." etc., etc. But NOT all do. The exception does NOT prove the rule. Again this is very basic stuff.

Bottom line: if "Barkun argues that... it is possible for a conspiracy theory to not be 'fringe'" as you wrote, then this article should reflect that if you are using him as your verifiable source.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1. The point I've been trying to make is that there has never been any subversion. The dictionary definition doesn't contradict Barkun's definition nor does his definition contradict the dictionary definition. That being said, I think it was a mistake to use the dictionary definition so it will be removed.
2. Regarding the Terminology section, your opinion doesn't matter. I added original research so it had to be deleted.
3. Barkun argues that is it possible “in theory” for a conspiracy theory not be fringe but that in practice all conspiracy theories (as opposed to rational/factual claims of conspiracy) are fringe.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me say that I appreciate your civility, willingness to reason and your attempts at flexibilty. And, I admit I'm new to this topic, so make no pretence of expertise. I just came by and saw a clear infringement of wiki policy here: a questionable definition in the intro which none of the cited sources backed up. But no editor needs to be an expert on any subject to require wiki policy be followed and neutrality, verifiability, no original research be observed. And now I am investigating the sources and I see what appear to me to be clear flaws of interpretation and logic of both the primary source itself, its interpretation here and in the reasons given for keeping the article the way it is. PLUS I find that others have made the same points before me here in the discussion page. I'm just trying to help make a better article. I hope you continue to take my comments as constructive, even where we disagree.

i.) You wrote that it was "a mistake to use the dictionary definition"? :-o But why was it? Dictionaries do not contain potentially controversial and arguably incorrect, current academic opinions but represent the accepted consensus view. Surely that consensus view should be included somewhere in the article. Are you suggesting that we should ignore the consensus view regarding the accepted usage of the words conspiracy theory in favour of Michael Barkun's scholarly opinion?! :-0

ii.) As I understand it, the dictionary definition DOES contradict Barkun's definition. Or why are we even discussing this? And why have you and John Shandy been resisting changing it?

iii.) You wrote: "I added original research so it had to be deleted." That was one option, yes. OR ...it just needed a citation, if such exists (UNLESS of course one has an agenda to push a single point of view and subvert the consensus understanding, as represented by the dictionary definition.;-) Hey, I'm just teasing.

Finally you write:

iv.)."Barkun argues..." which implies it is one view and NOT the consensus view. So the article should reflect this.

v.). "...“possible in theory” for a conspiracy theory not be fringe", so then the article should reflect that (it didn't).

vi.). And Barkun's argument - if this is a fair paraphrasing of it - seems flawed as who decides which are "rational/factual claims of conspiracy" and which are merely "THEORIES of conspiracy"? If on that distinction the whole of his 'argument' (and the thrust of this article as it stands) stands or falls then who decides that and how? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Online dictionaries as sources

1. There are Wikipedia guideline citing sources that we should all follow before adding any new reference.
2. Putting aside the fact that there are some online dictionaries that are considered reliable and some that are not, I think we need clarify once and for all whether it is appropriate to use dictionaries as sources and ultimate arbiters before adding any new reference.

--Loremaster (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Websters, Random House, Collins, etc. don't become less reliable simply because they are published online. And dictionaries are indeed the arbiters of definitions. That's what they are. This isn't controversial stuff here... Mystylplx (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Although I recognize that the online version of Websters, Random House, and Collins are reliable, I don't think “Free Dictionary” is. Regardless, my point is that Wikipedia has guidelines about what we should and shouldn't use as reliable sources. We need to settle this once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

thefreedictionary.com just gives definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary. And dictionaries are most certainly reliable sources by every definition. If you can find anything in Wikipedia policies saying otherwise I'll eat my hat. This is about as basic and obvious as you can get. Mystylplx (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the Free Dictionary simply republishes definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary, we should be citing the latter rather than the former. That being said, you are the one making claims about dictionaries trumping the work of scholars. The burden is on you to prove this claim if we are to abide by it. What you think is “basic and obvious” doesn't matter. Only guidelines do. --Loremaster (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." Definitions. Dictionaries. Where is the confusion? Mystylplx (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop dodging. You claim that dictionaries trump the work of scholars when Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that, when available, the work of scholars are usually the most reliable sources. Please support your claim. If you can't, seek an opinion from the Wikipedia community in forums that exists to settle this kind of dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say the work of scholars is the most reliable? Read it again, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that. It does say that context counts and that sources should be the best source for the context--as in dectionaries for definitions. It also says secondary sources are preferable to primary sources and that "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." which, it seems to me, is what you are doing with Barkun. Mystylplx (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

So, despite your “creative interpretations”, you still haven't found any guideline which support for the claim clearly indicates that dictionaries are reliable sources for definitions and that they trump the works of scholars. As I suggested before, seek an opinion from the Wikipedia community in forums that exists to settle this kind of dispute.

That being said, since I have removed the word “fringe” from the article nor am I advocating restoring it, I am no longer interpreting Barkun. I am simply paraphrasing or repeating word-for-ford what he wrote. Furtheremore, Barkun's book is NOT a primary source since he isn't recounting his personal experience of events he is discussing. On the contrary, he is a secondary source. --Loremaster (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination is Barkuns book a secondary source. It contains his own original analysis. That makes it a primary source. There may be parts of it that qualify as a secondary source but the book as a whole is quite definitely a primary source. Mystylplx (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Since encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources are considered tertiary sources, it stands to reason that dictionaries would be considered tertiary sources. However, Wikipedia guidelines on tertiary sources do not mention dictionaries. Furthermore, even if they did, it wouldn't matter:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

Case closed. --Loremaster (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries are secondary sources. 1. Mystylplx (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia guidelines. See the last sentence of the lead section of the Secondary source article. --Loremaster (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering the Barkun book is a primary source the dictionary still trumps it.

Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

Mystylplx (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As I explained already, according to Wikipedia guidelines, Barkun's book is a secondary source. A primary source refers to a document written, for example, by someone who witness WW2 and discusses his personal experiences during that event. A secondary source is a book written by a historian of WW2 who analyses all the primary sources from WW2. Barkun is a political scientist who wrote a history and analysis of American conspiracism. --Loremaster (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Barkuns book is a primary source according to Wikipedia and anyone and everyone else. The entire book is his original analysis. Mystylplx (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A Dictionary constitues a tertiary source. Tertiary sources "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources [e.g.Dictionaries] can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. "

A unique and original analysis of current word usage and trends constitutes a Primary source. Primary sources. Policy:...primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. ...but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Reputable scholarly work (as secondary sources) clearly trump any dictionary stuff. Moreover dictionary primarily deal with the (crude) meaning of word and not really with detailed concepts associated with it. I mean this is Wikipedia and not Wiktionary. For example no sane person would base an article on the functions on a dictionary or even argue the few lines in a dictionary would trump any reputable math textbook. --Kmhkmh (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories vs Theories of Conspiracy

One of the problems this article has is the same one the Jesus myth article had--the definitions of it that qualify under WP:RS are all over the map.

"Our history books are filled with conspiracies as endurable as the assassination of Julius Caesar and Shakespeare's tale of dark ambition Macbeth. America has had a long history of conspiracies--after all the country was born in the midst of conspiracy." ((1997) A&E's Conspiracies)

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

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

"The fact remains, however, that not all conspiracies are imagined by paranoids. Historians show that every real conspiracy has had a least four characteristic features: groups, not isolated individuals; illegal or sinister aims, not ones that would benefit society as a whole; orchestrated acts, not a series of spontaneous and haphazard ones; and secret planning, not public discussion. This pattern lies at the root of a feminist conspiracy theory of history." (Young, Katherine K.; Paul Nathanson (2010) Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man McGill-Queen University Press ISBN 9780773538733 pg 275)

Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY points out that the label conspiracy theory had been used to try and dismiss what some authors call theories of conspiracy.

The ideas that the Mob had a hand in the killing of JFK or in the disappearance Jimmy Hoffa or the Nazis caused the Reichstag fire have been called "conspiracy theories" but they do not involve the kind of power or influence in conspiracy theories like the US didn't land on the Moon or the UN is trying to take over the world require. Claiming that all things called "conspiracy theories" are cut from the same cloth as Barkun does undermines his argument. It certainly doesn't help that in 2006 David Coady, University of Tasmania, Australia put out a book via Ashgate called Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate as well as Knight's book which curb stomps the idea that there is any agreed on definition for "conspiracy theory".--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well argued. Can we possibly add some of these sources to the article?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, you misunderstand Barkun's argument. I suggest you actually read his book before misrepresenting his opinion as badly as you did. As for adding any of the sources in the article, there is a section for them called Real Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories. --Loremaster (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

@Loremaster. If the title of this wiki article was Barkun's theories on conspiracy theories, then I would understand your point above. But I read BruceGrubb's argument as being about something other than just what Barkun has written on the topic. And that you suggest he read Barkun as a refutation of his argument does rather demonstrate that perhaps what you are unconciously attempting to do here in this article is something other than what the article title declares.

As Crosbie remarked back in July. "Shouldn't we rename the article lead 'Stuff Michael Barkun thinks'? That's what it is." Although jokingly made, I concur with his point. What do you think? Starting immediately with the second sentence, the article as it stands does not discuss the title but concentrates soley on what Barkun says about it.

And the way what he has written is being applied here strikes me as an application of flawed logic. The argument being made by yourself, John Shandy and others as I understand you is that a conspiracy theory has to be a fringe theory otherwise if held by a majority consensus then it is no longer a conspiracy theory. Well what is it then? A factual conspiracy theory? And is that just because a lot of people believe it to be true? And if so where is the demarcation between a factual conspiracy theory and a fringe conspiracy theory? And who decides? Do you see what I'm driving at? The logical difficulties with such a definition are enormous. And, as I have pointed out Barkun, according to you yourself, isn't even saying all that.

Barkun is just one relatively recent voice. Yet the whole article does not make that clear but instead seems slanted to give his view pre-eminence as if it is the only correct view.

In summary: as BruceGrubb has previously written "The article has NPOV issues in that it implies that all conspiracy theories are off in tin foil hat land until you get way down in the article." I would like to change that. I'm just preparing you for that before I do anything. Er... What do you think of my argument so far... --Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am only arguing that multiple scholars (not limited to Barkun) have clearly expressed that conspiracy theories originate from fringe ideas and gain initial acceptance among fringe audiences. As I've said multiple times, I'm less concerned with the definition of conspiracy theory in the first sentence of the lead and more concerned with the parts of the lead thereafter that characterize conspiracy theories in further detail. However, I do think it's silly that anyone is insisting that the defining statement include the word usually. John Shandy` • talk 23:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys keep saying that but haven't given any examples from published reliable secondary sources. Who are these "multiple scholars?" Mystylplx (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you simply didn't read the replies to the Fringe theory? discussion on this talk page. I gave several examples from at least 4 scholarly authors secondary to Barkun (Jane Parish, Martin Parker, Martha F. Lee, & Simon Locke), and Tgeorgescu gave an example of an author secondary to Barkun (Terry W. Colvin) and a synopsis of Barkun's book by Richard Landes. By all means though, please cantankerously continue refusing to acknowledge our points and discard any sources we've brought to the table. cantankerous adj. : difficult or irritating to deal with [7]. John Shandy` • talk 02:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you find this difficult to deal with, but the fact is that, at least in the quotes you gave, Parish merely quotes Barkun and none of the others say what you are saying they say. (that conspiracy theories are by definition "fringe" and/or that there's a difference between conspiracy theories and theories of conspiracy. Mystylplx (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being disingenuous. I didn't say that conspiracy theories are by definition fringe and/or that there's a difference between conspiracy theories and theories of conspiracy, as if you step upward two replies from this one you'll see I said that scholars have argued that conspiracy theories originate from fringe ideas (such as fringe science) and often gain initial acceptance among fringe audiences. I clarified what my argument was, because Mystichumwipe misrepresented it (probably by mistake). The excerpts I pasted are stating quite clearly that conspiracy theories, while they may not remain fringe, originate from fringe ideas and gain acceptance initially among those out on the fringe. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if a source quotes Barkun, because that only further demonstrates Barkun's notability in the discourse. These books themselves can be considered primary sources that engage in some level of synthesis within, but in a large sense they are mostly literature reviews characterizing the topical landscape and what other scholars have argued (and in that sense they are secondary, just as the literature review section of an academic journal article is secondary research, summarizing and characterizing previous original research); then they offer original analysis and synthesis of ideas. The more citations and direct quotes they use from one another, the more apparent that they are secondary to one another. Your argument seems to revolve around the fact that you don't like these sources and think they're not good enough. However, they are reliable sources published mostly by reputable university presses, and contain the scholarly discourse of notable mainstream political scientists and sociologists/psychologists. Not liking what sources have to say is ridiculous and frankly irrelevant. Further, no collection of sources is going to contain the exact wording that Loremaster or I use in our points on this talk page - such absolutism is an unrealistic expectation that would get us nowhere. John Shandy` • talk 04:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are deliberately misunderstanding. Look, (again, in the quotes you gave) Parker is talking about "conspiracy culture" and not saying all conspiracy theories come from that culture. Lee is talking about essentially the same thing, saying that conspiracy theories have been around a long time in politics and that recently they have become more a part of "popular discourse. That is not saying all conspiracy theories originate from fringe ideas or that there's any essential difference in meaning between "conspiracy theory" and "theory of conspiracy." And Locke says some conspiracy theories originate out of fringe science.

None of those make the kind of hard statement about a definitive difference between a conspiracy theory and a theory of conspiracy or a real or proven conspiracy. I.e. they are talking about particular types of conspiracy theories but not saying all conspiracy theories fit that type. Yet this article does make such a hard definitive distinction.

And I'm not saying Barkun isn't a notable voice that should be represented, just that he's not the only voice. This article is really more aboutconspiracism than about conspiracy theories per se, and maybe that is a solution--I suggest changing the name to Conspiracism then including a redirect. 05:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Mystylplx (talk)

*sigh* I'm getting quite tired of this debate which is pointless since I've accepted the deletion of the word “fringe” from the definitional sentence in the lead section of the article! I've only been trying to explain to you what the word meant and why it was a legitimate word to use.

Regardless, I am not opposed to making changes to the lead section so that it better reflects an overview of the article. However, since the entire article needs revamping (that I've never gotten around doing) it is the only reason why I resist changing the lead until we actually start and finish revamping the article.

That being said, the source of this dispute and the perception that the article is NPOV comes from the inability of some people to understand that there is a difference between a “claim of conspiracy” and a “conspiracy theory”. The former can be rational/factual/historical/scientific/ect while the latter isn't. The article probably needs to do a better job of explaining this. When I find the time, I will try to enlist experts to help us do just that.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good post. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg. --Loremaster (talk) 01:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the exact dispute--that "conspiracy theory" really means something different from a theory of conspiracy. BruceGrubb cites a reliable source that even includes secondary sources which disputes this. So far all I've seen from you is one guy (Barkun) who even arguably agrees with your definition. As far as I can see (and as far as you've shown) even Barkun doesn't say that. You are 'interpreting' Barkun that way, but this is exactly why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources rather than Wikipedia editors interpreting primary sources on their own. Regardless of whether Barkun says that or not, there are most certainly more reliable sources which don't define it that way, and sources which are more reliable for definitions. (Dictionaries.)Mystylplx (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if you were right that I am misinterpreting Barkun (which I am not), there is no doubt that this is exactly what Domhoff is arguing. That being said, I think you are the ones guilty of misinterpreting some of the sources BruceGrubb found and/or mistakenly thinking that they are at odds with what Barkun says on the issue. Regardless, it doesn't change my plan. --Loremaster (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Domhoff's book is self-published and doesn't count as a reliable source unless he's an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Mystylplx (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Domhoff's book Who Rules America? is NOT self-published. It was published by Prentice Hall, a major educational publisher. He is a notable mainstream scholar and a well-known expert on this topic. --Loremaster (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, you are part right. It (the edition being linked to Who Rules America? Power, Politics and Social Change) was published by McGraw-Hill. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. Mystylplx (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is as I have demonstrated before McGraw-Hill has quality control problems:

"Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory."(Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine") McGraw hill; Page 159)

"Today the medical and dental professions agree that there is no relationship between endodontically treated teeth and the degenerative diseases implicated in the theory of focal infection" (Ingle (2008) Ingle's endodontics 6 McGraw hill pg Page 222)

"And even today, cancer and neuroropsychiatric disorders are blamed on focal infection". (Ingle (2010) PDQ Endodontics McGraw-Hill Medical; 2 edition pg xiii

The following shows just how out to lunch the research department at McGraw hill was regarding Ingles 6e:

"The central hypothesis of "periodontal medicine" is that infections from periodontitis present as a chronic inflammatory burden at a systemic level. At various times throughout history, the concept that infections of the mouth could influence systemic health has been debated." ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001))

"It is now realized that oral bacteria and their products and their products, particularly ipopoysccharides and proinflamunary cytokine, induced local in response in oral infections, enter the blood stream and may subsequently activate systemic response in certain susceptible individuals" (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich (2009) Textbook of Endodontology Wiley; page 136)

"It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

"Several other studies reported that that the systemic disease could result from improper placement of silver filling or after root canal treatment" (Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188)

McGraw hill normally has a reasonable research department but as the above shows when they drop the ball they really drop the ball. They also put out little gems like Easy Homeopathy so you know all divisions are not holding to the same standards.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter whether you are misinterpreting Barkun, you shouldn't be interpreting him at all. Paraphrasing yes. Interpreting no. See Reliable Sources Scholarship (And he is still just one guy. The title of the article isn't Barkun's theories on conspiracy theories. -Mystylplx (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I have removed the word “fringe” from the article and I'm not advocating restoring it, I am no longer interpreting Barkun. I am simply paraphrasing or repeating word-for-ford what he wrote. That being said, Barkun is not “just one guy”. He is considered one of leading experts on the subject. It would be foolish not to use him as one of our most reliable sources for both a definition and other content in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming the "nuh uh" defense. We make solid points and then we receive what amounts to "nuh uh" in response. I think all of our time could be better spent if Mystichumwipe and Mystylplx would either: (a) propose a rewrite of the lead section here on the talk page, supported by what they consider to be notable reliable sources (meaning, they need to write a lead that does more than just define conspiracy theory using the verbatim text from Merriam-Webster - they need to characterize the scholarly discourse on conspiracy theories) that accurately summarizes the article at present; (b) leave the lead alone for now and instead of "nuh uh'ing" our sources and arguments, assist in adding to other parts of the article, referencing what they consider to be notable reliable sources, so that then we can have a more useful debate about the lead section that incorporates some concrete edits from other sections of the article. I do not feel like we're being met at the half-way point here. John Shandy` • talk 05:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

When you put up sources that don't say what you claim they say then when we point that out it is easy for you to claim we are just saying "nuh uh." And I already suggested a solution. The article is really about conspiracism and so should be renamed accordingly. Mystylplx(talk) 05:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw the suggestion for the name change as I had based that on reading (and believing) the definition of "conspiracism" in this article. After looking a see that definition is also... non-standard. Mystylplx (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"At the most basic level, a conspiracy theory blames the current, undesirable state of affairs on a concerted conspiracy by a secret group." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 16)

"Looked at the other way, a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 16)

"Watergate is a Ur-text of US conspiracy theory, evidenced by the ubiquitous use of the suffix “-gate” to denote any major conspiracy." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 725)

The fact of the matter is that before it was proven to be true the Watergate case was a "conspiracy theory" and some people still refer to it as such and no amount of word games by Barkun and other is going to change that referenced fact. Watergate was and is a conspiracy theory that really happened.

Another point against Barkun comes from no less then the New York Times: "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" By Kate Zernike April 30, 2011.

"The Dreyfus affair is a concise example of the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t nature of conspiracy theories. Alfred Dreyfus, a young Jewish artilleryman, was wrongly imprisoned in France in 1894 on accusations of treason.

Military officers argued that his handwriting appeared on incriminating documents, writes Louis Begley in a book on the subject. When one expert doubted the handwritings’ similarity, the government produced another to argue that dissimilarity was proof of his guilt — Dreyfus had altered his writing to throw people off his trail."

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

When you have The Dreyfus Affair, the Mafia, and MK-ULTRA call called "conspiracy theories" and somebody esle saying there are no conspiracies something has clearly gone wrong (likely in the definition-some advocates seem to be using a very different definition from some of the detractors and that is always a problem).--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

“conspiracy theory” versus a “theory of conspiracy”?

The following (which comes from Loremaster) I think gets to the root of the issue of debate here:

"In other words, “conspiracy theory” is now a loaded term that no longer refers to simply a “theory of conspiracy”.

Says who? I see that as a circular and self-referential argument as who decides which is which? I argue that that has NOT been the consensus view and still is not, as is demonstrated by current dictionary definitions. In my opinion this article should not be used to promote a one-sided and current attempt towards making that non-consensus view more mainstream. Barkun represents, as I understand him a minority view, even if it is a respected and scholarly one that is gaining in acceptance. Wikipedia should represent current consensus. So include Barkun's argument, sure but do NOT present him as the most authorative and final word on the matter.

Here's another quote from Loremaster:

"there is a difference between a “claim of conspiracy” and a “conspiracy theory”. The former can be rational/factual/historical/scientific/ect while the latter isn't. The article probably needs to do a better job of explaining this. When I find the time, I will try to enlist experts to help us do just that."

Ok. Fine. But... Who is making that claim/distinction? Is it Barkun again? What is the source that you intend to be using for that distinction? Are you going to "explain" this by using Barkun as your verifiable source? If so, then the title of this article perhaps needs to be changed. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In light of how busy I am with work and some personal projets and how tired I am of dealing with your intransigeance, I will no longer edit this article. So feel freeto do whatever you want with it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should Mystichumwipe yield or compromise on a matter that he is basically right about? The following sources showed that “theory of conspiracy” and “conspiracy theory” were and are often synonymous to each other:

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

Clarke, Roger (1985) Industrial economics Wiley-Blackwell Page 64

Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing

Fenster Mark (2008) "Conspiracy theories: secrecy and power in American culture" University of Minnesota Press

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

Jones, Gareth; Rick Arrandale (2007) The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology Wiley-Blackwell Page 360

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

Parker, Martin; Jane Parish (2001) "The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences" Wiley-Blackwell

The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 Wiley-Blackwell Page 119, 305

Vallabhaneni, S. Rao (2005) Wiley CIA Exam Review, Conducting the Internal Audit Engagement: Volume 2 Wiley-Blackwell Page 430

Young, Katherine K.; Paul Nathanson (2010) Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man McGill-Queen University Press ISBN 9780773538733 pg 275

Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times

Take a good look at Alex Jones InfoWars list www.infowarscom/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/ “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True”]. If we take "Barkun (and others) is indeed saying that all conspiracy theories are fringe theories" and Domhoff's "there are no conspiracies" to heart the following Conspiracy Theories ("any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy") in reality either DO NOT EXIST or are fringe:

The Dreyfus Affair

Sicilian Mafia

Project MKULTRA

Operation Mockingbird

Watergate

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

Operation Northwoods

Nayirah (testimony)

Iran-Contra Affair

CIA drug trafficking

Business Plot

Project Valkyrie

1953 Iranian coup d'état

Operation Snow White

Operation Gladio

Black Sox Scandal

Really? All these either did not exist or are fringe theories. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! How on earth are we supposed to take Barkun and Domhoff seriously when the above are called conspiracy theories and are in a list that also contains stuff like New World Order (conspiracy theory)? The answer is we can't.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. People used to say the world was flat. Some still do. When most people thought the world was flat, it was the truth, and now, it's not and fringe. In common English usage the phrase "conspiracy theory" has the connotation of fringyness, whereas "theory of a conspiracy" or "claim of conspiracy" don't. The whole new world order thing may turn out to be true, but right now, according to reliable sources, it's not considered to be such and is thus fringe. Mystichumwipe, you claim that Barkun is a minority view, leaving aside that that's not necessarily relevant, what source do you have that supports that assertion? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

His viewpoint differs from definitions taken from tertiary sources. (Actually, I have already adressed this under the discussion topic Online dictionaries as sources.Please read that for more detail). Dictionaries constitute a tertiary source and represent the consensus viewpoint.

Sure, many conspiracy theories are fringe theories. But not all. As we know from history, some conspiracy theories came to be seen as factual. Assuming for the sake of argument that all those 'theories' were regarded as "fringey" at somepoint, at what point did they stop being "fringey" and become mainstream? Did they at some point become "theory of a conspiracy" or "claim of conspiracy" prior to be proven fact? And who decides that? And how? Can you adress these points? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, a number of those scandals or affairs listed weren't necessarily theorized about before they were brought to light. I think it's erroneous for us to point at something like Watergate or Project Valkyrie and say "Look, those are conspiracy theories that were proven to be true!" when there was really little (if any) speculation before those events came to fruition or achieved public disclosure. I think expanding the definition of conspiracy theory to include just about any kind of scandal, affair, fraud, or organized criminal/malevolent activity, is particularly extravagant and inaccurate, especially when labeling them as such ex post. How then, would someone distinguish between quackery and genuine inquiry? That is why Domhoff and others have delineated claims of conspiracy and conspiracy theories. I think this is quite clear and easy to comprehend. There's a grand difference between a theory that explains actual facts, versus a theory that strings together speculations and "evidence" that don't withstand scrutiny from scientists and researchers, and which gain acceptance only among those out on the fringe. The latter is the kind of explanation for an event that is inherently fringe because it so diverges from mainstream views that have withstood the tests and scrutiny of skeptical inquiry. John Shandy` • talk 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "a number of those scandals or affairs listed weren't necessarily theorized about..." etc. Yes. I agree with you. But it only needs one that was, to prove my point and to undermine your argument. Exceptions to a proposition do NOT prove the proposition is false, only that there can be exceptions to it ;-).

Regarding the difference between "claims of conspiracy and conspiracy theories", who decides which is which? Wikipedia editors??? :-0 Obviously not. But that is what you appear to me to keep attempting to do. Basically you keep arguing: "No, no that's a 'claim of conspiracy'; we are talking about 'conspiracy theories' here". As if the difference was obvious. You even write: "this is quite clear and easy to comprehend". But I argue it is not clear cut. Its obviously a question of opinion only. E.g. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who decides if they are a group who "explain actual facts that withstand scrutiny from scientists and researchers" or not? You? Other wikipedia editors? Of course not, that would be original research. Yet they are described as conspiracy theorists on the Wikipedia page about them. According to the definition that you here suggest we apply, they arguably should not be so regarded as they arguably ARE presenting "actual facts that possibly withstand scrutiny from scientists and researchers". The case is still undecided for many. Their evidence points to a conspiracy theory other than the officially excepted Al Qaeda conspiracy. The narrow definition that you want the wiki article to reflect here does not allow us to say that. You would have us say that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are 'conspiracy theorists' (although they are not saying anyone conspired but only that the official version does not withstand close scrutiny). And yet at the same time you want us to say that anyone who believes members of a group called Al Qaeda conspired together to make the 911 attacks are NOT conspiracy theorists but only claimants of a conspiracy. Why? Because their viewpoint is not 'fringey', but mainstream? I see that as a quite monty-pythonesque distinction. Its ludicrous. You are torturing the language --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course we don't decide, mainstream scientific and academic consensus decides. I never said Wikipedia editors should make the distinction, but source authors have explained what the distinction is and why it exists - we've only tried to further convey those points. I think it is rather obvious that 1,540 Architects & Engineers (out of how many on the planet that have rejected their nonsense?) don't constitute a consensus or even legitimacy. Mainstream science has overwhelmingly rejected their "evidence" and "facts," only to be consequently ridiculed as disinformers and parties to some cover-up. Whether or not Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are labeled conspiracy theorists, it's clear that their theories are fringe theories perpetuated by a fringe group of architects, engineers, and other supporters. There are probably far more than 1,500 biologists who accept ideas like Intelligent Design/Creationism in favor of evolution as an explanation for biodiversity on Earth, but that doesn't legitimize those ideas or establish a consensus capable of uprooting the overwhelming consensus on evolutionary theory. You seem to take issue with the weight given to mainstream views when you say "Why? Because their viewpoint is not 'fringey', but mainstream? I see that as a quite monty-pythonesque distinction.", to which I can only remind you that Wikipedia exists to characterize mainstream views and significant minority views, only in proportion to the weight they hold in the academic and scientific community, and Wikipedia also holds a position on fringe views. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. If you think it's ludicrous, then maybe your issue is with the project, not this article. As for torturing the language, that's a ridiculous argument. John Shandy` • talk 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia exists to characterize mainstream views and significant minority views, only in proportion to the weight they hold in the academic and scientific community..."

Actually it's in proportion to the weight given in reliable sources, which may or may not reflect views held in the academic or scientific communities. Mystylplx (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is probably not such a good example. They are not wp:rs in any way, are certainly not scientists or credible researchers, and thus pretty clearly "fringe." But I agree that is not why they are conspiracy theorists--even if they had published material in reliable sources by credible researchers they would still be conspiracy theorists because they are promoting a theory of a conspiracy. Mystylplx (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, they are not wp:rs, I quite agree. Maybe it was too sensitive an example and raises too much obscuring 'dust'. I wanted to use an example of a c.s. that was current. But my point appears to have been lost, at least on Mr Shandy. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are what demonstrate the academic/scientific discourse, so of course they are where consensus is established and reflected, and over time evolved. Let's avoid needless semantics since we already have a grand dispute that doesn't need further tangents. This distinction is made by notable academics in reputable publications. Whether Mystichumwipe doesn't like it and thinks it is "torturing the language" is of no consequence. Others among us see it as a very useful distinction, helping to further map the lay of the land for genuine inquiry into real malfeasance and malevolence versus outlandish speculations originating from incompetent or incomplete inquiry accepted among thinkers out on the fringe. Regardless of either of our takes on it, it's reliably sourced.

Further, I don't care at all about the lead paragraph right now - I'm only concerned that there may be some misguided good faith agenda to remove credible conspiracy theory scholars from the article based on an underlying disagreement with those scholars. I'm not getting through and neither was Loremaster, so do what you will with it and we can revisit the lead when there's something more concrete and updated for us to hack away at and poke and prod with all of our and your concerns. However, I would recommend updating more than the lead, since you have both alluded to issues you have with other parts of the article. I would also recommend quite strongly, even if you disagree with Barkun or Domhoff, that you incorporate their positions into the lead paragraph.

This is a long and tedious content dispute built around only a few lines in the article. I'm starting to grow tired and busy with work and grad school just the same as Loremaster, so this simply isn't worth my time anymore, at least not until there are some more substantial edits to discuss. I also have other areas of interest on Wikipedia to which I must tend. There appear to be few other editors interested in this dispute discussion - I would have liked to see more editors chime in with some suggestions, especially since there have been a number of editors reverting edits and making changes who have not commented at all on this talk page. So do what you will with the article. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You wrote: "You seem to take issue with the weight given to mainstream views". No, not at all. You misunderstand me. I take issue with the criteria that ignores the primary definition of conspiracy theory so that the term only refers to the more vague and less easily defined category 'fringe theories'. Yes, I know the word 'fringe' has now been removed. But the 'fringe' criteria remains the unspoken basis for 1. most of the Barkun sourced material in the intro and 2. the arguments put forward here for its inclusion. I regard him as a primary source and wiki policy states 'primary sources ...may be used ... but only with care," etc. Thus I'd like to move his distinctions from the intro where they are given such authoritative prominence to after the sub-section entitled terminology.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you can feel whatever you like, but by our guidelines Barkun is a reliable secondary source. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Again I point to WP:WEIGHT as the following secondary and primary sources all disagree with Barkun's definition of "conspiracy theory":

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

Clarke, Roger (1985) Industrial economics Wiley-Blackwell Page 64

Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing

Coady, David, (2007) "Conspiracy Theories" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology - Volume 4, Issue 2, 2007, Edinburgh University Press E-ISSN: 1750-0117 Print ISSN: 1742-3600 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0019 pp. 131-134

Fenster Mark (2008) "Conspiracy theories: secrecy and power in American culture" University of Minnesota Press

Cubitt, G. T (1989) "Conspiracy myths and Conspiracy theories" Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford Vol 20 No 1 pg 12-26

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

Jones, Gareth; Rick Arrandale (2007) The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology Wiley-Blackwell Page 360

Keeley, Brian L. ["Of Conspiracy Theories"] The Journal of Philosophy (published by Columbia University], Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126. ("Conspiracy theories as a general category are not necessarily wrong. In fact as the cases of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair illustrate...")

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

Parker, Martin; Jane Parish (2001) "The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences" Wiley-Blackwell

The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789 Wiley-Blackwell Page 119, 305

Vallabhaneni, S. Rao (2005) Wiley CIA Exam Review, Conducting the Internal Audit Engagement: Volume 2 Wiley-Blackwell Page 430

Young, Katherine K.; Paul Nathanson (2010) Sanctifying misandry: goddess ideology and the Fall of Man McGill-Queen University Press ISBN 9780773538733 pg 275

Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times

Yet we are repeatedly being told that we should ignore WP:WEIGHT and accept Barkun' views as more reliable than material published by ABC-CLIO, Ashgate Publishing, Columbia University, Edinburgh University Press, McGill-Queen University Press, University of Oxford, and Wiley-Blackwell.

That idea is more insane then the guy hiding in his basement in fear of the black helicopters piloted by Gray Aliens who are led by Elvis and call Area 51 home. Yes, Barkun meets WP:RS but by the above his view and the few that share it are a minority view and NOT the defining view.

I should also point that focusing on Watergate or Project Valkyrie and dismissing then as examples of "Look, those are conspiracy theories that were proven to be true!" because there was really little (if any) speculation before those events came to fruition or achieved public disclosure ignores the examples of the Dreyfus affair (as early as 1898 there were ideas that there had been some sort of conspiracy to frame Dreyfus), Sicilian Mafia (G. Robert Blakey stated that when he became part of the Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section "They told me the Mob does not exist."), MKULTRA (the hippy culture bragged how LSD came from the CIA), and Iran-Contra (where speculation ran riot on who all was involved in the mess) also given which were speculated on for years or even decades before finally coming to light.

Also what of the Kennedy Assassination where the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations decided in 1979 that the assassination likely had indeed been the result of a conspiracy? Sure they did not validate any of the large scale conspiracy theories out there but the core conspiracy theory that Lee Harvey Oswell had not acted alone had been in part vindicated.

Then there is simple fact that nearly all conspiracy theories are after the fact interpretations of historical events (Cubitt 1989).--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Alan Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and the author of Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America has written that eighty percent of Americans believe that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, rather than a lone gunman. [8]. 80% means that is not a 'fringe' theory. So according to Barkun and supporters here, does that mean it can no longer be called a 'conspiracy theory' but is something else?

Nuujinn writes: "by our guidelines Barkun is a reliable secondary source." Can you provide some evidence for this OPINION of yours. Or should we just accept your say-so? ;-)

Here is how wiki policy defines sources: "Primary sources are ...often accounts written by people who are directly involved. ...[such as], a scientific paper documenting a new experiment." Michael Barkun is regarded as a political scientist. As such he appears to me to be expounding a new 'theory'.

So if his work A Culture of Conspiracy is not a primary source as you assert, then which primary source is he investigating/anlaysing/paraphrasing to make his work a secondary source?

"Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, ...They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research."

Can you explain why you think his book fits that secondary source category. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, he's look at the works of others (primary sources for his work) and analyzes them, "making analytic or evaluative claims". He's not documenting an experiment, it's not a diary, and he's not offering an insider's view. BruceGrubb, what you're arguing is basically OR--for example, that Goldberg says 80% of amis believe Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy (A) cannot be linked to assertions by Barkun (B) to draw a conclusion about what a conspiracy is (C)--that's SYNTH. A New York Times article is RS, but doesn't carry the same weight as a book by an academic specialist. But we might be able to use, for example, the Goldberg quote that "a conspiracy theory is a belief that cunning forces are seeking to bend history to their will, provoking terror attacks or economic calamity to move the world in the direction they wish," if we first go to his work to make sure we're not misrepresenting it out of context. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the Goldberg stuff comes from Mystichumwipe not me so I have no idea why you using that to back up your claim of me doing OR. Again I refer to my list of sources as showing that Barkun's definition of conspiracy theory is not supported by the majority of WP:RS. Please note that Keeley is in The Journal of Philosophy published by Columbia University; mine telling us how a Journal article by a University press does not qualify regarding the WP:WEIGHT problem (which you seem to be ignoring).--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You write: "he looks at the works of others (primary sources for his work) and analyzes them, "making analytic or evaluative claims". I asked if you can provide evidence of that ( not just proffer another unsubstantiated opinion). And I'm sure he does that to an extent but is that the main body of his work? Isn't the book a synthesis of different sources and his own ideas/understandings to form a new thesis? The book is an original work. If he's just explaining someone else's material in a different way, that would be no new thesis and he wouldn't be an authority on the subject. His book is his own original research. He is NOT reviewing or anlaysing someone else's thesis. He is presenting and promoting his own. He is a professor of Political science not a reviewer of others works. So his work is a primary source that also refers to other primary sources. But its not just a secondary souce analysing someone else's thesis.

Regarding the 80% point. The primary source for that is the academic Goldberg (not the NYT). And its just an example to show the difficulty with the interpretation of Barkun that compromises the basis for the intro which still implys ALL conspiracy theories are 'fringe' theories. It was a rhetorical question: if that is correct, what do we call the belief that the Kennedy assasination was the resuly of a conspiracy if not a 'conspiracy theory'? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)f

Regarding your first paragraph, I disagree with your assertion that because Barkun has opinions and presents his views that it is a primary source. I think you misunderstand WP:OR--he's not editing here, and he can engage in OR, that's his job. We are the one who cannot engage in OR.

Regarding your second paragraph, I believe I noted that Goldberg is the source. I don't agree with your analysis of the lede's implication, and I think the fact that Goldberg asserts that 80% of people believe X affects how we should treat the lede. What Goldberg say about what conspiracy theories are could very well be relevant, but we should consult his work directly for that information. But drawing conclusions about what conspiracy theories are based on Goldberg's statement about the numbers of people who believe Kennedy was assassinated by a conspiracy is clearly OR. We don't do that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm saying his work is his own original work based upon his own original research and therefore is a primary source. You seem to be confusing this with wikepedia's definition original research. That was not my intended meaning.

You wrote"A New York Times article ...doesn't carry the same weight as a book by an academic specialist.". Goldberg is an academic specialist.".

And again you appear to have misunderstood me, this is a discussion page, so no question of WP:OR applies here. If you want to understand my point, can I please I ask you to re-read, as I haven't the time to reformulate the same idea just now. ---Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I brought the question of whether Barkun is primary or secondary relative to this article up at WP:RSN. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Which as I pointed out was NOT the real problem. The real problem with Barkun is WP:weight and should have been brought to Wikipedia:NPOVN; wrong problem and therefore wrong board.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you have a different concern. Do you object to me trying to address my concern? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New lead - consensus and undos

To Arthur Rubin and Eldamorie. To date there have been six people involved in discussions on this article. So at present its three against three. I therefore don't see how you can fairly argue for a consensus against the lead as it is.

Of the three of them who were involved in the discussion about inclusion of the word 'fringe' as a definition in the intro, two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have not contested nor expressed any difficulty with the new lead. So again how do you suppose it goes against consensus? In fact its even been edited and adjusted slightly. None of these three has expressed any difficulty with it.

One of these three has even explicitly accepted the lead as it is ("I don't care at all about the lead paragraph right now - I'm only concerned that... " John Shandy), so he has accepted it.

Two of them (John Shandy, Loremaster) have since suggested we other three go ahead and make whatever changes we think and when they have more time, they intend to discuss: "do what you will with it we can revisit the lead when there's something more concrete and updated for us to hack away at and poke and prod with..."

So my change is totally in accordance with what two of the main people have suggested we do so and is therefore TOTALLY in concord with those involved in the discussion and therefore can not be fairly undone on a claim of reverting to consensus view. Its three against three without any of the above and both the main protaganists have accepted changes being made till they have more time.

Please do not now stop us moving forward by edit warring after this agreement with Loremaster and John Shandy. To do so mean we we get nowhere. And if you disagree please discuss first, then we can all see what the consensus is. It is very frustrating that after all our discussions you feel you can come in without discussing or contributing at all except to revert and undo.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, you've misrepesenting Loremaster's view of the situation, and I think Shandy's also. This is not a battleground, and so far I see no actual discussion, just attempts to browbeat other editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Again that is mererly your opinion, which you are of course welcome to. The facts remain that six people have been involved in the discussion and two of the most vocal proponents have suggested that we ""do what you will ....we can revisit the lead when there's something more concrete and updated for us to hack away at and poke and prod with..."

So please, I am asking you to not undo edits that it has been agreed we can make.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you need a consensus to change the lead, which you clearly don't have. And please don't tell me dictionaries should override anything, in too many cases they are wrong. Eg I saw a dictionary which defined archaeology as the study of prehistory, which is just nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Who involved in the discussion has been against the new lede? Can you name someone?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one clearly prefer Nuujinn's suggestion (or any other variation based on scholarly work rather than dictionaries).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. YOU haven't been involved in the discussion. And therefore how could Dougweller know what you thought? So my question remains unanswered. And therefore HOW the hell can he decide what is the consensus here based upon the opinions of 'silent' editors who are uninvolved in discussion? Holy moly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I produced books and peer reviewed articles published by ABC-CLIO, Ashgate Publishing, Columbia University, Edinburgh University Press, McGill-Queen University Press, University of Oxford, and Wiley-Blackwell that show that Barkun's definition is a minority view and was labeled as doing OR by Nuujinn for my trouble I find that position a little wonky.

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, pg 730)--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page) I'd just point out that consensus is not a vote. The last time I checked the talk page, Loremaster had stated that he was frustrated with the editing environment surrounding this article and was taking a break. Not to mention that consensus seems strongly against giving a dictionary more weight than experts in the field - which is my primary concern, not the usage of the word "fringe" which seems to have become something of a straw man in this discussion. eldamorie (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries are tertiary sources, not secondary; there are not preferred to reliable secondary sources like Michael Barkun's book. Mystichumwipe, please stop trying to insert these changes against concensus; in particular, you have no source whatsoever for the claim that there is a "primary meaning" and a "secondary meaning" - that appears to be something you've invented. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I would also point out to BruceGrubb that Knight's work as an encyclopedia is also a tertiary source, and that the quote presented does not define conspiracy theory as a concept or term--rather it asserts that the real conspiracy of Watergate provides validation of conspiracy theories. The distinction is also maintained in Knight's preface, which opens with "Conspiracy theories (and from time to time, actual conspiracies) have played a vital role ...." and which clearly distinguishes the conspiracy theory as a "popular explanation of the workings of power, responsibility, and causality in the unfolding of events." --Nuujinn (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually as Knight explains on page xxii the encyclopedia is broken into three section with "The final section of the encylopedia contains approximately 100 excerpts (with brief headnotes) from original source documents that illustrate the range of conspiracies and conspiracy theories in US History." Furthermore every entry in the second section has references and many were written by other people--the Watergate entry for example was done by Karen Gai Dean of University of Bellarat. So despite being called an encyclopedia Knight's book is actually a tertiary (first part), secondary (middle section), and primary source (end section).--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To Jayjg. I have myself previously stated that a dictionary is a tertiary source and quoted wiki policy to support its use in this context: "A Dictionary constitues a tertiary source. Tertiary sources "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources [e.g.Dictionaries] can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other". You can read this under the topic here untitled: Online dictionaries as sources. I.e. wiki policy states that their use can be helpful. I have been suggesting that this is such a case.

And I haven't invented anything! I provided a reference for that. (Do you actually read before you weigh in? :-o)

1. A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public. [9] So can I please ask you to apply some good faith, cease attacking without even bothering to read either the discussions or the edit's citations, and maybe even offer an admission of error (+ an apology would be nice too;) for writing this "you have no source whatsoever".

Ironically the lead at present, despite all the objections to using dictionaries, relies on a bastardisation of a dictionary definition originally added by Loremaster. He merely deleted the cited reference to the dictionary. So the lede relies on a dictionary definition, but one that is partial, as no hint is made of the dual application: one being the original broad meaning, and the other the relatively recent narrower pejorative usage. I think that distinction gets to the heart of what this discussion and dispute is actually about, as I am seeing it. People here appear not to want to allow that distinction of the dual usage to be alluded to in the introduction and want only to allow the pejorative usage to be discussed by relying heavily on a minority (as opposed to consensus), primary source viz. Barkun. (See WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PRIMARY "must be used with extreme caution")

Most reputable dictionary definitions ONLY define the words using the first of these definitions. [10], [11], [12] This article's lede (after the initial bastardised and exaggerated definition) then ONLY discusses the secondary relatively recent meaning.

Finally, the lede at present states: "a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end".

Compare with "A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" [13]

It appears to me that what we have at present is just a slightly exaggerated form of the merriam-webster definition.

Are you people OK with that? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I decided it was best to throw out the dictionary quotes and use the Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies definition as that definition not only stated what a conspiracy theory is ("idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit") but also defines its scope ("as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government")--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Well done. A great improvement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted BruceGrubb's edits. The for dummies series is nice, but is not on par with academic sources. We need to develop consensus, not edit war, so please try to work with other editors to form consensus. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, the fact of the matter is not all academic sources agree as to what the definition of conspiracy theory even is and per Tertiary sources in WP:SOURCES "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." Hence the use of Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies for the definition.

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

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

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

Is an entire book published by the State University of New York written by an Associate Professor in the Journalism and Media Studies as the State University of New Jersey academic enough for you, Nuujinn?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, but you don't have consensus for the changes you wish to make. Note that I'm not the only editor reverting you. We need to work towards consensus together, it's not up to you alone to decide what is best for the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeat: Ironically the lede at present, despite all the objections to using dictionaries, relies on an amended version of a dictionary definition that was originally added by Loremaster. He merely deleted the cited reference to the dictionary. I.e. the lede relies on a dictionary definition.

The lede that keeps getting reverted to states: "a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end".

Compare that with "A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" [14] What we have at present is just a slightly exaggerated form of the Merriam-webster definition.

Can you people who are OK with the lede as it was (and is again now) yet who are against the use of a dictionary definition as it is "not on par with academic sources" explain that inconsistency of objection? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a summary of how academic experts define the term. Jayjg <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Bratich, Coady, or Young all of whom were published by University Presses. You are still trying to use one source to define all others.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we all avoid making absolutist, bold assertions without supporting them. It doesn't really help us go further.

I have shown why I think it is NOT "a summary of how academic experts define the term" but is - as I have attempted to demonstrate - an amended and exaggerated Merriam webster definition, that has had its citation to that source removed. Look at the archive if you doubt this. Please respond to this point without just saying "no, you are wrong".

My suggestion is we use a version combining the definition that Bruce Grubb added on 08:08, 27 August 2011 and/or mine of 22:31, 25 August 2011. Leaving aside the question of a consensus among editors, what was wrong with these? The reliance on tertiary sources doesn't seem to be a problem as we are still using the Merriam-webster tertiary source? Can someone opposed explain? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Make a wording suggestion and we'll discuss it. Right now, we have a proposal from Black Kite, if you don't like it, suggest something else. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)