Talk:Conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2006 press source article for details.

The citation is in: Paul Krugman (8/5/2006). "Who's Crazy Now?". New York Times.

Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] proper place for conspiracies to run free

trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

stop deleting my additions to the wikipedia dickhead.

[edit] Evade legitimate criticism

"Most people who promote conspiracy theories reject the use of the term as prejudicial, and argue it can be used in an attempt to evade legitimate criticism." The claim that a charge is a "conspiracy theory" can--and has--been used to divert attention from legitimate criticism. This has been seen in government and corporate responses to charges of misconduct, malfeasance, or illegal actions. The FBI response to charges that it was conducting a widespread spying program on dissidents in the 1960s was dismissed as "conspiracy theories" until the illegal COINTELPRO operations were exposed. So was criticism of the use of DDT and Agent Orange. So even a critic of "conspiracy theories" like me can see that this does happen from time to time. However, it is not the primary reality, so we need to word the claim carefully.--Cberlet 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, Cberlet, but what the article needs is cited cases. The Cointelpro case would seem to be one of those where it ought to be possible to give the exact quote in which the FBI said it's "just a conspiracy theory". Without such concrete examples, the claim is unsupported. Adhib.
You are correct. I understand, but I can't find the cites until I am back at the library. What I did in the meantime was change the text so that it did not imply that conspiracy theorists "understood" that the use of the term was to evade legitimate criticsm--suggesting that those who use the term were either dimwits or agents of the vast conspiracy to evade legitimate criticism.  :-) --Cberlet 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In case my little side issue with Zen-m manages to bury the challenge, let me repeat it down here, where Cberlet, at least, appears sober enough to tackle it: An assumption arises here frequently, unsupported by cited evidence, that valid conspiracy allegations are routinely dismissed as 'just' conspiracy theory by conspirators (or their dupes), as a means to evade the valid accusation. In other words, that the term is frequently, mendaciously applied to explanatory narratives that do not suffer the methodological flaws which would warrant that categorization. For this assumption to carry any weight whatsoever, we need to be shown at least one such case of illegitimate usage. It shouldn't be that hard, now? Just one methodologically sound conspiracy allegation which has suffered such libel from the villainous conspirators it seeks to expose? Adhib 22:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to cite who is accusing something of having "methodological flaws". See List of proven conspiracies. zen master T 05:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, and here's why: Methodological flaws may be so significant and well-established that to attribute them to 'one side' of a 'debate' would in itself be to grant undue weight to those who vehemently defend the tedious guff that bad methodology results in. As NPOV policy clearly explains, beyond a certain level of eccentricity, the encyclopaedic thing to do is to exclude the nutjob's POV entirely. We are under no duty to cite either way, in those cases. Adhib 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if Zen-m's "See List of proven conspiracies" was intended to answer my challenge, above, it does not. It does provide a salutory lesson on the futility of the argument 'plot X occurred therefore plot y cannot be discounted', and displays an entirely typical lack of method. It takes us no nearer details of a valid conspiracy accusation being made, being evaded through dismissal as an invalid 'conspiracy theory', and subsequently proving true. Cberlet, how near are you to that library? Adhib 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Adhib's summary. If we can't find a cite, the list is insufficient. Alas, it turns out I will be away from the library for another week.--Cberlet 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it's over a month now since I set the above challenge (see archive). Acknowledging that Zen-m has been censored out of the debate, I was still expecting some comeback from H88, etc. But nothing? This is most illuminating. Adhib 20:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On 11th November 2001 President George W. Bush said "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th"[1]. He defined such a conspiracy theory as any which shifted blame away from the "terrorists", by which he clearly meant those named by the US Government as the perpertrators. Such an "outrageous conspiracy theory" would certainly therefore have included Mike Ruppert's widely read Crossing the Rubicon (2004) in which he named Dick Cheney as the 9/11 ringleader and laid out a detailed argument to support this claim. Yet, even though much effort has been put into refuting other 9-11 "conspiracy theories", especially the plainly silly ones such as the various no-plane theories (see for instance http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html), no one has directly attacked the arguments made in Crossing the Rubicon. That's not to say that no one has directed criticism at Ruppert himself or his general working methods. Simply that Crossing the Rubicon itself has been left well alone.

Since it is clear that the US government is keen to refute 9/11 "conspiracy theories", yet, even though it has refuted trivial and poorly argued 9-11 theories, it has so far failed, along with both the mainstream and alternative media, to refute Ruppert's argument, we can only conclude that it has failed to do so because it is unable to do so. It was unable to do so despite all the documentation and other evidence it certainly has at its disposal, and despite the formidable investigative powers of its various agencies. Therefore we have to accept that Ruppert's argument is broadly correct and that Bush's characterisation of such accounts as "outrageous conspiracy theories" was a groundless slur intended to divert attention from legitimate criticism. QED Ireneshusband 07:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a fallacious argument. "The fact that nobody has refuted X proves that X is true" is simply not the case in any consistent form of logic. For instance, nobody has refuted that 2 + 2 = 39928. Oh, sure, they've refuted that 2 + 2 = 3 and 2 + 2 = 5. But nobody has bothered to refute 2 + 2 = 39928, so clearly it is true! --FOo 07:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This counterargument is in itself false. For a start, although I have never come across this particular proof, I'm sure that somebody has indeed proved that equations of the form a + b = x can only have one solution because nearly all the mathematics I have learned has rested on that assumption. However this is irrelevant to the matter at hand. What I said was that the US government has failed to refute the argument even though it evidently has a clear and strong motivation to do so. If there is a flaw in my argument, it is that I failed to demonstrate sufficiently clearly that Mike Ruppert's views on 9/11 have gained enough to traction to warrant this. I'm sure I can demonstrate this, but it will take a bit of research and a paragraph or two, so I won't do it now.
What really interests me about this whole exchange is how people who set themselves up as debunkers seem to feel compelled to use such patronising a tone in their debunking. You imply that people like me would doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. It is not only patronising, it makes little sense. We know all about what mental dysfunctions lead to "conspiracism". So what barely acknowledged dread drives the debunkers? Ireneshusband 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not so much dread, as sadness for the gullible. FYI, 2 + 2 = 5. Wahkeenah 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gang stalking

This article, "Gang stalking" has been deleted (by Jimbo Wales, among others) with the ground salted (protected by admins from recreation.) I propose it would be appropriate to merge here into Conspiracy theory. I have a neutral opinion on the veracity. I have offered to request speedy deletion if four admins request it. --James S. 23:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it and removed the merge tag. Discussion here. Tom Harrison Talk 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I withdraw the proposal. So much for trying to reach a bold compromise. --James S. 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Not that I doubt your judgement in the slightest, Tom, but I believe in going equipped with all the facts, and that link has been archived. Any chance you could repair it? I've tried scanning your 500 most recent edits, but you're a busy man! Adhib 20:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed you the text. Tom Harrison Talk 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Pope

I created the entry on the Black Pope as a minor reference for anyone coming across the term. Googling, it appears that there are various conspiracy theories involving the BP, sometimes invoking the New World Order. Anyone care to add a few lines, to the several articles? Jackiespeel 18:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Features

The list of features is here presented as a fact, with no references at all. Is this original research, or is there some kind of consensus among scholars? I think we need to state who has come up with this list of features. Otherwise it lacking sources. --EyesAllMine 10:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You saw Conspiracy theory#References, right? 16:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... which of the many authors has made the list? Isnt it possible to refer precisely, so that any body who wish to verify, can do so, without reading the whole list? Thats a normal thing in the real world, and I guess being an encyclopedia, the same standard should apply here. --EyesAllMine 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that any one author made the list. It's a summary of the current scholarly view of conspiracy theory, supported by those references. Which features do you object to? Also, this article has a long and contentious editing history. If you want to, it wouldn't hurt to look through the talk page archives to get an idea of how we got here, and what issues have been discussed at some length already. Well, it might hurt, but only a little;) Tom Harrison Talk 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to the fact that it seems to be original research done by a lot of contributors, as long as it lacks proper citation. Do you really think that anybody looking at this page should go through the rather lengthy arcives to find out where these viewpoints comes from? --EyesAllMine 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my suggestion to look through the archives was meant to be a seperate issue, just for you personally; nothing much to do with the list of features, but with the editing history of this page in general.
Is it original research? I don't see how. It's a summary of the work of the authors who are cited in the references; That's what the whole article is, and what most articles should be, for that matter. The list of features is not a verbatim copy from any one author, it's a description of conspiracy theory as understood today, by the scholars and journalists who study it; Those scholars and journalists are listed in the references. Are there any features you think contradict the work of those or other authors?
Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison Talk 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No ... I dont know about enough, but look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE. But "The list of features is not a verbatim copy from any one author, it's a description of conspiracy theory as understood today, by the scholars and journalists who study it;" is precisely what at least should be stated in the paragrah then. Otherwise it should be the THRUTH, and a list of features of conspiracy theories is not an absolute truth, but a question of definitions made by people.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore provide references. Any edit lacking a source may be removed. If you doubt the truthfulness of an unsourced statement, remove it to the talk page. Otherwise, just request a source.

References (sources) can be provided by linking to the source if it's online, giving a brief citation in brackets after the sentence if it isn't (called Harvard referencing), or using a footnote system."

This is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, and actually states my point. --EyesAllMine 19:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of features is well supported by citation to the references below. Are you saying that it is not supported in the references that conspiracy theories are, for example, "Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence?" If you want to, make a few incremental changes that move the article closer to what you think it should say, and see how those changes are received by the other editors. I'm not entirely clear on what you want to change; maybe we don't really have a substantive disagreement. Tom Harrison Talk 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Remember though: the most important thing is to enter comprehensive reference information — that is, enough information so that a reader can find the original source with relative ease." This is what is lacking. If the list is a collection, taken from different sources, it should be more clear, and easier to find. It could be easily done by using a footnote system. I cannot and should not do it, but the authors of the articel should do this.--EyesAllMine 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see Tom's point, but for myself, concede that it's a less than ideal situation. I introduced the summary features list, and Zen-m raised a similar objection to this one of EyesAllMine's shortly thereafter. I thought I'd have time to go back over the sources I had in mind and detail them, but more pressing tasks (notably, protecting the rest of the article from Zen-m's dogged attempts to turn it into something more accommodating to his beliefs) have got in the way. As it stands, there's a weakness remaining. I'll attend to it when I can, with very limited time resources. If anyone else cares to riffle through their library (Cberlet?!) and paste in any appropriate cites, that would be extremely helpful. Adhib 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
My attempted changes to this article are my (and others') interpretation of the phrase and how it is used for: obfuscation, to thwart a scientific or logical analysis and dismissal -- not a "belief". Characterizing an interpretation as a "belief" is a convenient way of attempting to obviate the need for an investigation and analysis. Wikinfo.org has a much better "conspiracy theory" entry that might seem familiar, see here. zen master T 20:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It is familiar because it was a version of this article filled with the ludicrous pro-conspiracy theory POV you continuously try to cram into this article. Circular argument goes into circular file.--Cberlet 23:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
If you are interested in debating and discussing this issue please do so, merely nebulously stating without evidence my interpretation is a "circular argument" doesn't count. You seek too absolute a portrayal against criticism and you ignore how "conspiracy theory" is being used. Any discouragement of investigation and iterative testing perpetuates errant or incomplete belief. I challenge anyone to come up with an argument that successfully defends the phrase "conspiracy theory" (when used in an attempt to describe another subject) from a charge of bias and unscientific presentation. At the very least the phrase "conspiracy theory" is ambiguous which should be more than enough to exclude it from encyclopedia article titles (when used in an attempt to describe another subject). zen master T 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You keep making the same claims over and over, and they keep getting rejected, and yet there is no progress up the learning curve. Hundreds of authors have written about conspiracy theory. You ignore them. You dismiss any attempt to point out their work, and then you claim others are not engaging in actual discussion.--Cberlet 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A vote against my interpretation doesn't mean the phrase "conspiracy theory" is neutral or even unambiguous. The lack of any argument that successfully champions the phrase is exponentially indicative. And I have not dismissed authors within the genre of "conspiracy theory", I merely note the phrase isn't appropriate in the title of encyclopedia articles (when it is used in an attempt to describe another subject). Even the current incomplete version of this article states "Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial, and argue others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject." which should be more than enough to show that use of the phrase is almost always disputed. Titles of encyclopedia articles shouldn't conclusively choose sides, and definitely should not utilize presumption inducing language. zen master T 03:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A broken record seldom can play a new tune.--Cberlet 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yet another carefully crafted response that fails to address the issue. You are certainly free to choose not to debate but when you repeatedly discourage any analysis of the issue, by using nothing but presumption inducing words and portrayal, you've crossed the line into obfuscation. zen master T 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Titles of encyclopedia articles shouldn't conclusively choose sides, and definitely should not utilize presumption inducing language." Thanks for this comment zen master. It makes a lot of sense. Bov 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The list of features should be more clearly attributed, at least with footnotes for each one. It is very unclear who, if anyone, actually proposes each one, and it is presented as established fact. 67.40.249.122 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. I have an Ivy phd in social science (not econ), and tenure at a major US university. I don't feel like identifying myself here, for professional anonymity, but this list of "features" which purportedly helps identify "conspiracy theories" in fact describes much of non-positivist social science research. That's especially true of "Feature" #s: 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. I.e., 2 (broad historical or emotional impact), 3 (simplifies complex morality), 4 (identifies individuals as causal agents), 6 (inductive reasoning), 7 (appeals to common sense -- God forbid! ;-) ). These should be deleted from this list because they do not adequately differentiate conspiracy theories from others. Indeed, these are goals which many social scientists strive for. The remaining ones are more clear and distinctive: #s 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 in this version. I.e., limited evidence, superhuman talents, fallacies, by anonymous outsiders, false concepts, zero credibility, ignores rebuttals or elaborate twists (see Lakatos). #11 is dubious for other reasons -- namely, academics are inherently cautious in hypothesizing, because they are penalized heavily for rocking the boat (don't get tenure) or for being wrong. #4 is dubious because it feeds into academics' self-aggrandizement and incentive structures to conclude that individuals do not matter, only the grand social forces that we study, teach, and write about. --HTJ

For what it's worth, I always use the term 'conspiracy theory' to mean, simply, a theory of political conspiracy that requires an improbably large number of people to all conspire in secret with no leaking occurring; for example, I would call the theory that the Apollo 11 landing was filmed in a studio in the complete absence of an actual moonshot a 'conspiracy theory'. This usage is alluded to in the last of four aspects under 'The truth of a conspiracy theory', but may I suggest that a definition along these lines is included in the first couple of paragraphs? I find it a good antidote to the casual perjorative usage of the term that I have noticed with increasing frequency since March 2003.

[edit] Psycologist Quote removed

Hofstadter also noted that "sexual freedom" is a vice frequently attributed to the conspiracist's target group, noting that "very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments."[1]

  • ("those that find such secret oaths distasteful and unamerican they are just psycotic and need medicated?" Delight there is a NPOV word huh?)

Dear fellow editors: I restored the above-referenced material to the article. The material is a quotation with a footnote reference to its source. I'm unclear how the statement would constitute a cogent explanation of the edit. Non-neutral point of view in Wikipedia does not mean that we remove quotations merely because they express a particular point of view. Exactly why was the material taken out? Yours, Famspear 15:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I reverted some additional stuff by that IP address due to his bracketing of "may also", which smacks of vandalism. However, he implicitly raises a question: When the article says "higher animals", what exactly does it mean? Does it mean humans? Or are apes also capabable of constructing conspiracy theories? I wonder what Koko's take was on the JFK assassination. Wahkeenah 15:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychological Aspects of Conspiracy Theories - No sources, lots of speculation

If this has already been discussed at length that someone is aware of, please post a link or info here. As someone with a degree in psychology I find the assertions on this page unfounded, uncited and without basic specifics, suggesting that people without any background in psychology are writing these.

The article states:

"If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions."

Paranoid delusions are not the only outcome of an altered 'danger sensing ability,' but nothing like that is mentioned here, leaving a distorted view of what the relationship of this is to conspiracy theories. In fact, having paranoid delusions is a serious disorder generally involving brain changes and often requiring permanent medication. When such details are not noted, the suggestion is that average people who believe in conspiracies are also probably having paranoid delusions. The fact is, people experiencing delusions are generally either institutionalized, taking an anti-psychotic medication, or homeless. The single most definitive criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia is delusions -- but you are probably not working next to a schizophrenic at work. However, you are probably working next to someone who questions the many assassinations of high level figures by 'lone nuts.' The gist of the terrible psychology section here is that questioning what most believe to be true is something for the realm of the real crazies.

Statements say things like "Psychologists believe" but provide no citations.

While a statement like "Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief," suggests that someone does know what they are talking about, we are left in the dark about who said such a statement and how they came to say it because it has no citation.

The statement: "Evolutionary psychology may also play a significant role" doesn't make sense as is. A role in what?

The statement: "A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability." As a researcher working in the field of psychology but questioning the official story of 9/11 I'm forced to be labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' according to wikipedia, but I hardly see 'danger everywhere' or have delusions or brain malfunctions -- I am a paid researcher and am published in my field, but statements like these suggest I'm 'crazy' and delusional.

Similarly nonsensical is the next statement: "Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger." Sure, those tendencies can be associated, but not always. The implication is that there is a direct relationship, but again, we have no citations. Even the page on wikipedia on Paranoia says nothing about evolutionary psychology or animals' abilities to sense danger, so why is such an depth effort being made here?

Psychopathologizing is also a common form of an ad hominem attack to shift the focus of a discussion from the content of the discussion and instead try to focus on alleged character flaws.

from wikipedia's Ad hominem Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions; argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.

Example:

"You can't believe Jack when he says there is no god because he doesn't even have a job."

or, in this case:

"You can't believe Jack when he says there is no god because he's a 'conspiracy theorist,' and therefore probably delusional and paranoid."

In general, I would say that the psychology sections of this page look more like an overreaching effort to pathologize those labelled as 'conspriacy theorists' (for questioning the word of the Bush Adminstration!), than a real effort to neutrally inform readers. This is shown by the poorly stated, incorrect and deficiently referenced material on psychological and brain disorders. Relationships between psychological disorders and 'conspiracy theories' are essentially nonexistant on any of the internal wikipedia pages this article refers to, or should refer to, further suggesting that this page engages in an inordinate effort to pathologize those who question official versions of events, rather than neutrally inform readers:

I write this as a preface to making changes to these areas to establish a more neutral and accurate point of view. Bov 03:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a list of indications that give cause to believe a factual conspiracy may be in progress based on past uncovered conspiracies? Or something like that. To balance the POV Features of Conspiracy Theories section. I figure it might be worth a thought. SkeenaR 05:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is outrageous to claim that there are no sources cited in this entry for the section on psychology. Here are the books cited that discuss this aspect:
  • Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0520238052
  • Fenster, Mark. 1999. Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 081663243X
  • Goldberg, Robert Alan. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0300090005
  • Hofstadter, Richard. 1965. The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0674654617
  • Melley, Timothy. 1999. Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801486068
  • Mintz, Frank P. 1985. The Liberty Lobby and the American Right: Race, Conspiracy, and Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood. ISBN 031324393X
  • Pipes, Daniel. 1997. Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes from. New York: The Free Press. ISBN 0684871114
  • ---. 1998. The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312176880
  • Popper, Karl R. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691019681
  • Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House. ISBN 039453512X
Any attempt to gut 60 years of social science and replace it with a marginal original research POV text crafted to defend proponents of conpiracy theories is not appropriate and violates numerous Wiki guidelines. Please discuss this proposal here before changing the text. If antisemitism is the socialism of fools, then conspiracism is the analytical frame that fools dissidents. --Cberlet 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting you should insert a comment using antisemitism to try to defile conspiracism.
'60 years of social science' is precisely the problem -- the article brings together schizophrenia and psychiatric issues, not social science alone, and then makes no meaningful distinctions. This is misdirecting a reader.
There are no links to the references you cite above, on the front page. If you believe that blanket statements like "A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere" are supported by studies in your references, then you should provide the links.
No one is gutting and replacing with original research (sounds like you're coming up with your own conspiracies about that). Comments have been put forth objecting to the current state of the section on the discussion page. If no response is acted on except to insert threats about violations to the person commenting, action will be taken. Bov 05:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right, this article seems way off track. It's all about Freud and his buddies. Maybe a Freudian psychologist was trying to get his mind off something when he wrote it. SkeenaR 06:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is well-supported by the references included. In the past editors have tried to make changes here, to use as a lever to change other articles. I would be disappointed to see that happen again. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
"using antisemitism to try to defile conspiracism" LOL. Calling Dr. Freud?--Cberlet 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the oldest tricks in the book Cberlet. Being a propaganda expert I assume you are aware of this. SkeenaR 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

>>"I think the article is well-supported by the references included." So Tom, have you read those books? Can you show me that the information I am concerned about -- psychiatic (not Freudian psychoanalytic) aspects of 'conspriacy theorists' -- is in those? Bov 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm only somewhat familiar with Melley, and Fenster, and Richard Hofstadter's essay. My interest (and that interest has waned fast in the last six months) is in the political and social-narrative aspects of the subject. I would not welcome any attempt to recharacterize conspiracy theory to support, for examle, implausible speculation about 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 19:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ps-excuse me if I don't respond promptly. Tom Harrison Talk 19:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
>>"I'm only somewhat familiar with Melley, and Fenster, and Richard Hofstadter's essay." So it sounds like you haven't read anything on the entire subject I'm discussing . . . the generalizing being put forth in this article about psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and paranoia -- which often involve powerful anti-psychotics, inpatient treatments and include unique behaviors such as hearing voices -- and 'conspiracy theories,' but appear more interested in simply discouraging any changes I might be considering making because you believe I want to add 9/11 speculation. I have said nothing of 9/11 on this page. I also happen to work in the area of psychology and find that the conspiracy theory page makes overreaching generalizations which are not held to any standards for specific referencing -- I suspect if they were the psychology areas of the page would need to be changed. Bov 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Do I want to discourage any changes you might be considering? Well, I have to admit, your earlier remark was troubling. If you think Zen-master's comment "makes a lot of sense," I have some concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read all the books, and many more on the subject. Most of these books are not talking about psychosis. They speak of the similarity in tropes between sociological paranoia and clinical paranoia, some underlying psychological tendencies that seem to be common among people who believe conspiracy theories, and common themes that refelct folklore and myth. So, Bov, how about citing a reputable published work that is critical of the majority view (reflected on this page) among scholars who study conspirqacy theory? Zen Master has been unable to do this for months. Surprise us!--Cberlet 22:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

>>"Most of these books are not talking about psychosis."

This is my point. The ct article currently makes no distinction between people who lead functional lives and hear no voices, but question what officials tell us, vs people who take anti-psychotics to function or, if not, hear Satan talking to them each night . . . and also question what officials tell us.

>>"some underlying psychological tendencies that seem to be common among people who believe conspiracy theories"

The article doesn't clearly make a distinction between underlying psych tendencies and psychosis.

>>"So, Bov, how about citing a reputable published work that is critical of the majority view (reflected on this page)"

The majority view within psychology is not that among those who question official versions of events, there is no difference between those who hear voices and those who do not - one can cite any psychology 101 text book for that. But the article implicitly suggests this is the case by not making any such distinction.
In its current form, the article suggests that those hearing Satan talk to them every night are no different than the guy in the next cubicle from you who sorts out your company's network problems, if they both question Bush in ways that the majority don't. In reality, 1) some hear voices and believe in a great deal of unconventional things, 2) some have never heard voices but may suffer from 'psychological tendencies that seem to be common among people who believe conspiracy theories,' and 3) some suffer from neither voices nor psych tendencies but believe the government is lying to them about certain events, typically whose evidence is concealed from the public, etc. This or some similar distinction needs to be made if psychological and psychiatric assertions are going to be included. Bov 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

>> When you have seen how some conspiracy theorists will not listen to any logical argument against their beliefs, it is not suprising for people to believe they are delusional or paranoid. Much like trying to hold a logical conversation with a Jehovah's Witness. You can't brand all of these people as suffering from psychosis, however, I think there is some merit in the "paranoid" discussion as there is apparently something psychological going on. I am not qualified to say what but I would guess a kind of self induced neurosis. Interestingly while researching conspiracy theorists, I came across some people who started believing that conspiracy theories were un-truths spread by the government to hide the "real truth" - a kind of conspiracy within a conspiracy... at which point one guy was suffering kind of burn-out on conspiracies. B

[edit] Recent change, with edit summary 'clarity'

SkeenaR cited President Bush saying, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty." The change SkeenaR made was from this:

Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial, and argue others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject.

to this:

Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial. Others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject.

I suppose the idea is that the President's quote is to be understood as using 'conspiracy theory' in an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject. But that only might be so if the terrorists were not in fact guilty; if the conspiracy theories were true, and President Bush knew it. The quote cited does not constitute "an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject." SkeenaR's citation of the quote does support the original formulation, which I have restored. Tom Harrison Talk 04:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


I concur that it would be unfortunate for this were to devolve into a debate over 9/11 issues. This happens to be a very good example of using the term "conspiracy theories" to evade analysis of a subject. Osama bin Laden has been 'officially' blamed for masterminding 9/11 despite denial on his part, and the Bush Administration admittedly lacks enough evidence that would convict him in a court of law. Whether or not the purported terrorist is guilty in this case is not proven by any means. Even so, this is irrelevant to the discussion.

One of the conspiracy theories that has been the subject of intense focus, and has had major discussion in the media is the matter of whether or not "Bush Knew"' or that Bush had foreknowledge of the impending attacks. This is a conspiracy theory, and it is indisputably detrimental for the Administration to have this discussed openly. When Bush states "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th", and even though the matter of whether 'he knew' didn't arise 'mainstream' until after he made this statement, it cannot be in doubt that he is attempting to evade analysis of the subject of culpability on his part through the use of the term 'conspiracy theory'. SkeenaR 05:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

President Bush was only 'attempting to evade analysis' if the outrageous conspiracy theories were true, and he knew they were. He said they are "malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists" (I do not think they are malicious, or so intended, in all cases). He said he does not want people to let conspiracy theories stand unchallenged, becuase they are attempts to shift blame away from the guilty. A man may think President Bush is a liar, and that he is only saying this to 'to evade analysis,' but the quote does not support that. Neither do I think it is indisputably detrimental to the administration to have this discussed openly. I do not want to make this partisan, but some politicians have been able to advance themselves with their constituencies by promoting conspiracy theories, while others, who hoped to appeal to a more national audience, have lost support by doing so. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As an example, it is impossible to suggest that it could be anything but detrimental to be investigated for murder. It is logical to assume an individual would attempt to avoid this, regardless of whether or not they were guilty. Also, he didn't suggest that conspiracy theories should not go unchallenged, but instead stated bluntly that in this case they were not to be tolerated. SkeenaR 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Even allowing the applicability of your analogy, the innocent man does not want to be investigated for murder not because he wants to evade analysis, but because there is a real murder out there. You are using this quote to attribute to President Bush a motivation you cannot know, and one he denies. He says specifically that outrageous ct's should not be tolerated becuase they are attempts to shift blame away from the guilty. Your interpretation of the quote relies on the assumption that an investigation would be damaging to him; then you cite this quote as proof that he wants to avoid a damaging investigation. His quote only supports your use of it if we accept that the outrageous ct's he refers to are true. You're using your conclusion to justify your assumption. Tom Harrison Talk 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A man would be concerned with stigma attached to himself because of an investigation. An example of this could be a priest accused of pedophilia. Even if found innocent, the fact that he had been investigated for such a crime can be time consuming, chaotic, taxing both mentally and physically, as well as permanently damaging to reputation and career. Thus, it is logically to be avoided. This is not an assumption. It is of course an assumption that someone might be concerned about 'a real murder out there'. Nonetheless, this observation is not requisite to the change discussed.

Whether or not Bush is telling the truth or believes he is telling the truth when he makes the claim that conspiracy theories regarding this matter are attempts to shift the blame away from the guilty, he is directly using the term conspiracy theory to state the case that alternatives to his explanations, all of which are conspiracy theories, are not to be tolerated. Any analysis that comes to different conclusions than his own is, of course, a conspiracy theory. This is not an assumption on my part. That is all that needs to be presented in support of the change in the article. SkeenaR 01:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't find that persuasive; it seems to me you are arguing in circles. Still, there's no point in repeating ourselves. The current version reflects your preference, and I'm not going to restore the wording unless someone else has an opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 14:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Between the two of us we have established that he was using the term to evade analysis of a subject. It is not important who commited the crime, nor if the conspiracy theories were true and President Bush knew it. SkeenaR 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we have established no such thing. I do not agree that 'he was using the term to evade analysis of a subject.' I think your application of the quote supports the original language, "Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial, arguing that others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of the subject." I'm just not going to restore that wording until/unless someone besides me wants it restored, and I'm not going to repeat to you arguments I have already made, which have failed to persuade you. Tom Harrison Talk 20:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I was arguing just for the sake of arguing Tom. It really is the way I see it. I would welcome someone else to state their case for the change either way and (predictably perhaps)revert it if they see the need. I'm also tired of arguing. SkeenaR 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mumia Abu-Jamal

Why is Mumia Abu-Jamal listed in the "Regularly produce allegations of conspiracies" section?--DieWeibeRose 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This google search suggests that he is often the focus of conspiracy theories. Do you think he should not be listed? Tom Harrison Talk 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Unless he is the creator of those conspiracy theories, I think his name should be taken off the list and, perhaps, the title should be changed to "Frequent Creators of Conspiracy Allegations" or some such. There is another separate section for people who are the focus of conspiracy theories but are not the creators of them. Perhaps, his name should be moved there. What do you think?--DieWeibeRose 07:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Many of the Google hits are from critics disparaging Abu-Jamal's defense arguments as "conspiracy theories." Whether you believe his defense arguments or not, I don't think they fit the standard bill for a "conspiracy theory."--DieWeibeRose 07:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the man; I'm prepared to defer to those with a deeper interest. Tom Harrison Talk 14:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert either and for what it's worth I think he probably shot the cop. Unless someone objects I'll go ahead and make the changes discussed above in the next day or two.--DieWeibeRose 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC).
I don't see why he is on the list. It doesn't make sense to me. I support removing it.--Cberlet 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Completed changes discussed above. Not sure I used the best wording for the new section heading, though.--DieWeibeRose 10:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few proven conspiracies

  • Ohio Gang - A group of politicians who achieved high office during the presidential administration of Warren G. Harding and who betrayed their public trust through a number of scandals. Quite a few of the conspirators were later indicted and convicted for fraud, conspiracy, and bribery.
  • Edward Marcus Despard - British army officer and colonial administrator and organizer of a conspiracy against the British government. While in prison Despard began to organize a conspiracy in which he hoped to combine an army mutiny with a rising in London to assassinate King George III and capture the Tower of London and the Bank of England.
  • Amboise conspiracy - Failed plot of young French Huguenot aristocrats in 1560 against the Catholic House of Guise.
  • Pazzi conspiracy - Unsuccessful plot to overthrow the Medici rulers of Florence; the most dramatic of all political opposition to the Medici family. The conspiracy was led by the rival Pazzi family of Florence.
  • Eric XIV of Sweden - King of Sweden who died in prison. According to folklore, his final meal was a poisoned bowl of pea soup. His body was later exhumed; forensic analysis revealed evidence of arsenic poisoning.
  • Gustav III of Sweden - King of Sweden who fell victim to a widespread aristocratic conspiracy. Shot in the back by Jacob Johan Anckarström at a midnight masquerade at the Royal Swedish Opera in Stockholm, on March 16, 1792, he died on March 29.
  • Anjala conspiracy - A conspiracy of Swedish and Finnish army officers that undermined the Swedish war effort in the Russo-Swedish War of 1788–90.
  • Hoshea - In the Old Testament (2 Kings 15:30; 17:1–6), son of Elah and last king of Israel (c. 732–724 BC). He became king through a conspiracy in which his predecessor, Pekah, was killed.
  • Whiskey Ring - In U.S. history, group of whiskey distillers (dissolved in 1875) who conspired to defraud the federal government of taxes.
  • Catiline conspiracy - An attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic, and in particular the power of the aristocratic Senate. When Catiline fled Publius Cornelius Lentulus assumed leadership of the remaining conspirators. He planned to murder Cicero and set fire to Rome.

Woxie Ninian 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to list these actual conspiricies under conspiricy, or under the more specific conspiracy (crime) or conspiracy (civil). Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Woxie Ninian is no longer an active user, so maybe someone will want to list these in one of the other articles. Bubba73 (talk), 19:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this list strike anyone else as somewhat off-topic? Conspiracy theory is not concerned with this or that specific criminal plot, is it? It's generally concerned with mass deception, ie, the suggestion that mainstream beliefs concerning an event or organisation are false, and false as the consequence of deliberate deception by conspirators. A list of plots has little bearing on the topic that I can see. Adhib 22:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that critics of "conspiracy theories" try to discredit them by arguing that such wild, crazy plots don't really happen. There used to be a detailed section, "Real life imitates conspiracy theory," that detailed several plots that were dismissed as conpsiracy theories only to be proven later on. Most of those validated conspiracy theories have now been erased. -- James
Which plots specifically were dismissed as conspiracy theories and later proven to be true? Tom Harrison Talk 14:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What about real life conspiracies such as the AlQaeda conspiracy to hijack airpanes on 9/11? Or Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators' plot to blow up Parliament? Or John Wilkes Booth et al conspiring to kill Lincoln, Seward, and Andrew Johnson? Or Aaron Burr's conspiracy to foment a civil war in the Burr conspiracy? Or Nixon's conspiracy with the "White House Plumbers" to discredit his critics, right before Watergate? There really have been conspiracies in every era. Some failed, and some led to changes of government. Does it have to be fictitious to be a "conspiracy theory?" Edison 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly there have been conspiracies. Which of those you named was dismissed as a conspiracy theory? Tom Harrison Talk 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. A conspiracy theory runs counter to the conventional explanation. Booth and his confederates (pardon the ironic metaphor) conspired to attack several government officials. That's conventional history. The conspiracy theory is that Booth was acting on someone else's orders, and the reason he was later killed was to keep him quiet. Wahkeenah 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy wikis

Those two wikis are not at all notable, and there's little content. Click 'random page' a few times and see what's there. I don't think linking to them improves the page, and makes the section look like a link dump. Tom Harrison Talk 19:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Is THAT supposed to be funny ? They're non-notable except to insult those who have had a strange experience, as persuant to the Robertson Panel and/or the Brookings Report protocol.

I've seen them both. I have investigated both the famous and not so famous paranormal matters all accross the US. I am currently in a rural area of the US and these people will shoot and kill anything they percieve as a threat. Why is it that people cannot comprehend the fact that rural residents will shoot and kill tresspassers, and will shoot anything they consider a threat? Getting shot for tresspassing is not a "conspiracy theory". It is a fact. Martial Law 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I am not trying to offend anyone at all, if so, I do humbly apologise. Only stating what I've seen and have been told, no more no less. Martial Law 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Libelling Bush

Others use it in an attempt to evade an analysis of a subject.[2]

I have to concur with Tom Harrison, above. SkeenaR, I think you're maybe just a tad too heated up about this issue to take a cool judgement on it. The cite certainly does not establish what you need it to establish to support the claim I moved here from the article. This claim concerns motive - with the link, it imputes a particular motive to George II, that his use of "Conspiracy theory" demonstrably has the intent to evade analysis. But it just can't establish that. Bush's intention might have been any number of things - intentions are more slippery than you seem to acknowledge. That you read their goal to have been evasion is your reading of his intentions, nothing more, I'm afraid. Adhib 23:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Researchers

There is already a link to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, so there is no need to link to every other page about 9/11 -- those don't focus on the theories themselves so there is no reason for them to link here.

I also notice no one has bothered to remove the 'left gatekeeper' page link -- it doesn't even talk about conspiracy theories at all. Bov 23:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out the left gatekeeper link; I didn't see a link to researchers quesioning... I don't see a need to include one, but links to Michael Hoffman and Alex Jones are clearly appropriate. I added Thierry Meyssan.

While I agree that there was no point having a link to a site about "left gatekeepers" without any explanation as to its relevance, I do think that a look at the issue of "left gatekeepers" is relevant here, insofar as it is sometimes cited as one of the reasons why so many people are unwilling to believe in particular "conspiracy theories" or in "conspiracy theories" in general. There are those who make the argument that many conspiracies do not come to light because certain figures who are perceived to be prominent figures of the radical left go to great lengths to make sure that those "conspiracy theories" are not taken seriously. This accusation has been levelled at Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman, for instance. It is for this reason that both of these people have been called "left gatekeepers". This is worth discussing here. Among those who believe in left gatekeepers, opinion is divided as to how deliberately or consciously these prominent leftists are attempting to disinform people. - Ireneshusband 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

Just a few too many of them. It's all right to say that "Some people say (xxxx)" only if you then go and list off some people who actually do say (xxxx). Otherwise, you know, "some people" say a lot of things. And don't forget to check this one out: Encyclopedia damatica entry. Tenebrous 23:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this one a "Conspiracy theory ?

Check this out. It says that the NSA is spying on people. Martial Law 22:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Occurrences of real conspiracies

The two examples of actual conspiracies were reverted, I'm putting them back and explaing what they mean exactly, because I think Aiden misunderstood : - the Dreyfus affair : Dreyfus was innocent, the conspiracy was not on his part, but on the military officials who, on discovering that he was innocent, decided to cover up the truth to protect the army -the Elders of Zion : again, the conspiracy is not fomented by the Jews, the document is a fake, the conspirators are the one who forged the document, in an effort to make people believe there was a Jewish conspiracy. Unmitigated Success 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. I made a few edits that I hope are helpful and consistent with your meaning. Tom Harrison Talk 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


    • "the 'one' who forged the document" if it was just one it haint a conspiracy no?. My point being who and why. The Albert Pike mentality crowd are, according to his plan of action, using the 3-world war/clash of civilzations methods to bring about the age of reason stuff and such... by fomenting war between catholics jews and arabs. Using this perspective it certainly seem clear the real reason the Ratzinger/Pope BenidictXVI? called for a hitlerian "New World Order" at new years 2006 and more reciently hit the hive of bees with his islaam is spread by violent conquering scholarly remarks. The Talmudic perspectives on Mary and [Jesus] are enuff to suggest tendency for conspiracy against Christians for me who needs the "protocals of the learned elders of sion/zion" for that anyway.

[edit] Little Green Men and conspiracy theories

Has anyone tried to bring "aliens" into some of these conpiracies (eg the person on the grassy knole was a Little Green Man and teleported away etc)?

Might be interesting for a spoof (or Uncyclopedia)

GIYF: [3] Ronabop 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Should be a mention in the text then.

[edit] Merge

Conspiracism is a POV fork of this article and little more than a dictionary definition. It should be merged into Conspiracy Theory. There is no reason for a separate article since Conspiracism is merely a term to describe belief in conspiracy theories. Furthermore, Conspiracism is not a commonly used term outside of the remote corners of academia. It is a neologism invented by academic intellectuals. The widely used and commonly understood term is Conspiracy Theory. 70.108.57.95 02:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge.--Cberlet 21:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Support merge. The "Conspiracism" article seems to be promotional; touting the opinions of some editorial writers as a matter of academic research. In Wikipedia jargon, I think that makes it a POV fork. --FOo 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support merge per FOo, and because Wikipedia article naming convention is to use the better known name. No need for 2 articles on the same topic KleenupKrew 10:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support This article addresses "conspiracy theories as social phenomena" while Conspiracism is the term for "conspiracy theories as social phenomena." The treatment of the subjects of both articles would be greatly improved if discussed together.--DCAnderson 16:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support in agreement with 70.108.57.95 and all other statements for support here so far. SkeenaR 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. and the other comments above. --Charles 06:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. It is not clear to me that the term conspiracism is a frivolous neologism created by a marginal group of eccentric scientists. The article is informative and brings a perspective to the other article, conspiracy theory, which in my view doesn't need to be part of that page. As for the initial argument that "Conspiracism is not a commonly used term outside of the remote corners of academia" that seems to me to be hard to evaluate and besides, if that should be considered a pertinent point then most protosciences would never get exposure to a wider audience. __meco 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page content from merged article Conspracism moved here
< -- begin moved text -- >

It seemed to me that demonising a scapegoat is over-egging the pudding; either one demonises or one scapegoats a person or group. If I've missed a point in making my edit, could someone let me know so that I can find a way to correct it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, it's a fine point. Scapegoating usually involves demonization, but not all demonization is scapegoating. Yet, for this article, it's a little over the edge.--Cberlet 02:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Cite your sources

The "neologism" quote doesn't come from "critics." It comes from a review of Daniel Pipes' Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, written by Lyndon LaRouche, and here is the quote in context:

  • Otherwise, relative to the myth about "conspiracy theories" popularized by liberal ideologue Richard Hofstadter's 1967 "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," there is essentially nothing axiomatically new in Pipes' argument. What is new, is the book's effort to popularize a fruity neologism, conspiracism, now recently adopted by such conspiratorial denizens of the Internet's left bank as Dennis King crony John Foster "Chip" Berlet. In short, matters have come full circle: rather than simply rejecting what the irrational Hofstadter classed as "conspiracy theories," Pipes et al. have spun the thread of Hofstadter's dogma into a "conspiracy theory," the theory of "conspiracism."

I propose that this quote be incorporated into the article, rather than the present, somewhat misleading attribution to "critics." --HK 15:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

HK, weren't you banned from inserting material from LaRouche into any article on Wikipedia? And in any case, the term probably was first popularized by Mintz in his 1985 book, not by LaRouche, who as usual has his facts wrong.--Cberlet 15:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The unattributed quote from LaRouche was added by Kaibabsquirrel in this edit. I am merely suggesting that, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, the quote be properly attributed. And if you would be so kind as to go back and read the quote, slowly, you will discover that LaRouche says nothing about who first popularized the term. He does, however, say that Pipes et al. have spun the thread of Hofstadter's dogma into a "conspiracy theory," the theory of "conspiracism. --HK 21:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify something about the "unattributed quote from LaRouche". I didn't have LaRouche in mind at all with that edit, but rather Adam Parfrey. Methinks some people overestimate LaRouche's unimportance in the grand scheme of things. Kaibabsquirrel 05:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, LaRouche writes: "What is new, is the book's effort to popularize a fruity neologism, conspiracism, now recently adopted by such conspiratorial denizens of the Internet's left bank as Dennis King crony John Foster "Chip" Berlet." He has it backwards, like most things. King and I were both using and popularizing the term "conspiracism" for years before the Pipes' book was published. --Cberlet 21:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

The way I see it, there are three ways to make this article neutral. Number one, take out the link to LaRouche because he is being implicitly accused of being a "conspiracist." Number two, restore the rebuttal quote from LaRouche, which is useful as an all-around rebuttal quote. Number three, put in an NPOV tag. --65.38.182.100 20:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

No response, so back to the previous version. --65.38.182.100 16:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the LaRouche quote. Tom Harrison (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious tags

A number of tags flagging "dubious" section have been added, but where is the discussion? It is not useful to tag and run.--Cberlet 15:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

==Dubious tags REASONS==

HI, my name is NORTHMEISTER and I tagged this page as dubious!

The reasons below are the same for the 'producerism' page as for this page.

Posting on Wikipedia a 'word' not in the general lexicon or language of use by professionals or political scientists for that matter and then using GUILT BY ASSOCIATION to attack individuals or groups is against the rules and wrong on principle and morally.

Therefore, I will again post my reasons as they are basically the same, except (Conspiracy Theory is a legitimate topic of discussion, not 'conspiracism' which not a generally accepted word, but made up by the author or those in association with the author to discredit legitimate historic movements or men. Such men, like the Lyndon Larouche inclusion in the links might hold to a conspiracy theory about Britain or Globalism, but not listing other's more prominent or known in the links is obvious in its defamation attempt, unless the others glaringly overlooked men like Alex Jones, an admitted Conspiracy Theorist on the New World Order.

Lyndon Larouche's economic beliefs or studies are accurate in so much as their history as they are backed up by historical evidence and primary sources. As far as his theory about globalism or British royalty behind it or whatnot, I do not concur with him; but that does not take away from his economic studies.

Your pages seem a disguised attack on one American Citizen and organizations similar to views] in order to discredit their economic beliefs...with references to fascism, conspiracy etc. etc. This is not what Wikipedia is about.

You can contribute to Conspiracy Theory by doing your research and applying factual information a neutral manner on that page.

That said below is a excerpt to a posting I made concerning the 'producerism' page which essentially sums it all up about what I said above concerning both pages and other pages on this site that are attempts to discredit other people or beliefs in various forms and disguises.

You are a Synarchist?

HERE IS AN EXCERPT OF MY REASON'S for 'dubious' challenge on 'producerism'... "

and

"

  • Seventh, an article in Wikipedia should be as neutral as possible, simply description with true example etc. It should not be made up stuff, (any 'ISM could be proposed then!) in order to attack people like Mr. Larouche (your personal page states your crusade against another 'ism Larouchism? Everything isn't an 'ism!) or Perot or Buchanan or by association some of America's Founder's like 1st U.S. Treasury Secretary Hamilton or America's Father's like President Lincoln who believed the same way as the before mentioned men on economic matters. READ Report on Manufactures, Harmony of Interest for historic examples of the American System or traditional capitalism practiced in the USA to see primary sources. You may also check out the Wikipedia link to American System) which I've also been editing to make it accurate and up to date on facts, though it still needs improvement so as to be neutral in points and to add links to the historic examples and primary sources available on the web from credible sources like Universities."

NORTHMEISTER

[edit] Violation of Policy

I will still stand by my assertions as to this page as follows (on producerism I concur with the vote)...

As per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so-called "experts" are not to cite themselves and avoid neologisms. The Conspiracism article was created by User:Cberlet, aka Chip Berlet, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&diff=38669244&oldid=9289545 Berlet cites himself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracism&diff=25614686&oldid=25614043 and an external link from the Chip Berlet article, "Finding Our Way Out of Oklahoma", by Adam Parfrey, Alternative Press Review, Winter 1996 http://www.altpr.org/apr7/oklahoma.html attributes this neologism to Chip Berlet, in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms Other sources available on the internet also corroborate Chip Berlet is the author of this neologism.--Northmeister 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC) --Northmeister 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I did not invent the word conspiracism, as anyone with a library card could easily determine. That Northmeister invokes a conspiracist analysis to decry the failure to delete this page is, of course, marvelous.--Cberlet 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

< -- end of moved text -- >

[edit] Conspiracist literature

Is Mein Kampf a work of conspiracist literature? If so, should it be listed here? Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Protocols of the Elders of Zion might cover it well enough allready. Though I'm not familiar enough with Hitler's writing to be sure how much of it was crazy conspiracist ranting.--DCAnderson 22:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed one word about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion from "forged" to "fabricated". It's not a forgery because there is no real document to forge. -Sean Kirby

[edit] The Conspiracy Theory/Conspiracism merger again

As I read this article today it looks like conspiracy theory and conspiracism have already been merged. I think this is unfortunate and I believe there are good reasons to consider separating them again, and for offloading a good deal of the content from the former conspiracy theory site (i.e. as it was before the merger) onto conspiracism.

A quick google reveals 20,000 or so results for "conspiracism". This means that it is a word in relatively widespread use.

I also think that "conspiracism" has a clearer meaning than "conspiracy theory". If you talk about conspiracism there can be no doubt that you are talking about a propensity (real or supposed, and largely pathological) to see conspiracies everywhere. When people talk about "conspiracy theories" such a propensity is implied, but not always explicitly stated. And because any belief in a conspiracy among members of the ruling classes that goes beyond a certain depth or level of audacity is automatically labelled a "conspiracy theory" and therefore, by implication, is pathological rather than rational, it becomes impossible to believe in such a conspiracy without being labelled a nutcase. The English language, as we know it, makes it so.

Nevertheless, even though I emphatically reject the idea that any belief in an influential conspiracy can automatically be dismissed as the misfirings of a deranged mind, I still think that there is legitimate need to look at the psychological and sociological forces that encourage belief in such conspiracies, not only because other people believe in them, but because they do really exist, even if they don't (as I have already said) easily explain away all "conspiracy theories." I think "conspiracism" is as good a heading as any to lump together these various psychological and sociological explanations.

I think that "Conspiracy theory" should concentrate on looking at the origins of the term itself, because it is carries such a strong political charge.

For instance Noam Chomsky, whose view of conspiracy theories has been very influential on the left, dismisses them out of hand because they supposedly focus on personalities rather than structures. However Chomsky has at various times, said that the CIA restored the Italian mafia after World War II, that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked, etc. By any reasonable standard one would say that what he is referring to are conspiracies. Yet somehow these are not conspiracy theories. Similarly, it has been pointed out that a plot to hijack airliners and crash them into important buildings is also a conspiracy by any reasonable standard, yet it is not a conspiracy theory. How so?

One explanation is that a conspiracy theory is, by definition, false. That is why no one who believes that the Nazis were responsible for the 1933 Reichstag Fire is labelled a conspiracy theorist. If anyone can come up with a better definition of conspiracy theory that legitimately excludes the Reichstag Fire, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the September 11 hijackings, but still manages to include "9/11 was an inside job", the JFK assassination etc,, then please do. And edit this article accordingly.

If it is not possible to do so, then clearly it is necessary to acknowledge that "conspiracy theory" has no precise meaning, and to give space to the thoughts of those who try to explain why it is so. The charge that the term "conspiracy theory" is a "thoughtstopper" (David Ray Griffin's analysis, if I remember rightly) is too serious to be dismissed flippantly before launching into a psychobabble hatchet job on anyone who does not conform to a "sensible" point of view.

Naturally the historical provenance of the term is also very important. My understanding is that it came into mainstream use in the wake of the first Kennedy assassination, but I'm not entirely sure. If anyone knows better, then please let us know.

Ireneshusband 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We do have a page on Apophenia; Maybe some expansion there would be useful. Conspiracy theory is a well-defined term used by academics and journalists. Clearly a conspiracy theory is not just any theory involving a conspiracy. It's a mistake to suppose that conspiracy theories are necessarily false, or are presented so in the literature, or to exaggerate the pejorative use of the term. For it's current use I recommend Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. For the origin of the term of course there's Hofstadter. Tom Harrison Talk 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Apophenia is only one part of the psychological picture. There are also social pressures leading people to believe in "conspiracy theories", and much stronger pressures towards disbelief. Conformism has a lot to do with it.
I do not accept that the term is well-defined in practice. In other words the definitions that people consciously profess to hold, and the definitions that they adhere to in actual fact, are often wildly at odds. I am sure that Chomsky believes that his thinking around "conspiracy theories" is consistent and logical, but clearly it is not. As with the slippery word "terrorism", if a discussion of a term limits itself to a theoretical dictionary definition and ignores how a word or phrase is used in practice, it will not help us increase our understanding of the phenomenon in question. It will merely reinforce our lack of self-awareness and our ignorance. - Ireneshusband 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Original research, weasel words and undue weight

The section "Origins of conspiracy theories" is entirely original research and is full of weasel words ("many psychologists", "psychologists says"...). Moreover it violetes the undue weight policy because of the collocation and the POV pushing that it contains (it suggests the idea that a "conspiracy theory" is generally something irrational to be studied by psychologists).--Pokipsy76 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The section is not properly cited, but it is hardly original research. I have problems with many of these psychological theories, but the section accurately summarizes the position of published scholars. It needs cites. It is actually the majority view among older scholars, with the work of Fenster and others (looking at power relationships and agency) being the emerging model.--Cberlet 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the citation, but I am hoping someone can tell me what it says in Johnson's book about "certain naive methodological flaws". I am interested in what it says but I have no access to a library with this kind of info. SkeenaR 07:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched and read it online at Amazon. It's not a word-for-word quote. I'm satisfied that it summarizes Johnson's point, but others should look too. Also, you may have access to inter-library loan, or it may be on Google Print. Conceivably I could do some kind of screen-capture from Amazon and email it to you, but that might verge on abusing copyright. Tom Harrison Talk 14:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be good if we could all see what it says without going down for an inter-library loan. I would appreciate that if we could see what it says somehow. A paragraph or two doesn't violate copyright does it? SkeenaR 10:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Amazon Online Reader not work for you? It's possible that they require a credit card number. If you can't read it at Amazon, best is to do the nice interlibrary loan:
  • It's good for you;
  • It's good for the library, because they get more funding if more people use the service;
  • It's good for George Johnson, who will be amazed at the sudden leap in his popularity as all the regulars here rush to order his book;
  • Nobody has to wonder if I've cherry-picked pages to support my position.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from Johnson:
The conspiracy theories share not only the same villains, but also a remarkably similar structure. The paranoid tradition is not simply a mishmash of irrational hysterias that have survived in America's political underground. The extremists construct their fantasies according to a coherent set of rules. Since the beginning of our country, fears of conspiratorial elites have been rationalized with superstructures so complex that they have a vocabulary and an internal logic - an architecture - of their own.
One favorite device of conspiracy theroists is to confuse label with object.
An example follows.
Another excerpt:
Documentation in these works relies heavily on pseudoscholarship: pages are heavily footnoted with references to dubious documents; chasm of logic are leaped in a single bound; coincidence is elevated to the status of cause-and-effect. If occult organizations of the twentieth century share ideas with similar groups that existed during the Enligheenment ... it is assumed that they are part of a single, monolithic force.

Tom Harrison Talk 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that. I find this subject extremely interesting. I'm going to try and find some scholarly literature that is in disagreement with the general thrust of this article as Ireneshusband suggested, because it's out there. I can't say I disagree with the book because I haven't read it, and I'm sure that at least some of the material in it is good, but this article seems heavily slanted. It gives the impression that all conspiracy theories come from a brain malfunction, when this has been repeatedly shown to be false as evidenced by many exposures of real conspiracies, many of which would never have been thought of without theorizing. I think this article needs more cites too. SkeenaR 05:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems in section "Real conspiracies"

We can read in this section:

On some occasions particular conspiracy allegations turn out to be real[...] Where such success is due to sound investigative methodology, it is clear that it would not exhibit many of the compromising features identified as characteristic of conspiracy theory, and would thus not commonly be considered a 'Conspiracy theory'.

This make no sense at all: it is suggesting that there may exist "theories" about "conspiracy" that are not "conspiracy theories" because they don't exibit the alleged "compromising features" of "conspiracy theories" expressed in the article!! It makes no sense at all and makes the reader think that the writer is playing with words to try to keep negative point of view about conspiracy theories (builded up in the rest of the article) even when it is clear that it is not possible.--Pokipsy76 08:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a self-abandoning argument. "Conspiracy theories are wrong; therefore, even if we said something was a conspiracy theory before, if it's proven to be right, then it isn't a conspiracy theory." --FOo 08:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it ridiculous?--Pokipsy76 08:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

An urban legend is not any story that takes place in a city. A conspiracy theory is not just any theory about a conspiracy. If a journalist has a theory that a bank teller conspired with a Brinks guard to rob the bank, that's not a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 12:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

An urban legend is any *lagend* that take place in a city. A "conspiracy theory" is any theory about conspiracy. If you think that the term "conspiracy theory" has a different meaning from "theory about conspiracy" please provide a definition of "conspiracy theory" that can make the difference more clear and provide some reference that support the consistency of your definition with english language.--Pokipsy76 14:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems many assertions in this article about "Conspiracy Theory" are not testable, because the minute an event X is likely the result of a conspiracy, the "many psychologists" who put forth the assertions about "conspiracy theory" would find a way to exclude event X being the subject of a true "conspiracy theory."

Here is an example: writing in the years immediately following the JFK assassination the "many psychologists" (how many is "many") would label anyone who came to the conclusion that Oswald was not the lone gunmen to be a "conspiracy theorist." I.e. some sort of paranoid nut whose views had to be explained by resort to fancy theories that they were happy to concoct to explain in hindsight the "conspiracy theorist pheonomenon." By the late 1970s, the U.S. Senate's Church Committee concluded that JFK was most probably the victim of a conspiracy. Most Americans believed it was a conspiracy (e.g. ABC News poll). The "magic bullet theory" was commonly regarded as almost a punch line in a joke. So our intrepid "many psychologists" would now no doubt find a way to exclude the JFK assassination from their study: people who researched it and came to the conclusion that, say, JFK's brain was not the one examined at Bethesda (see "Assassination Records Review Board" under JFK assassination) article are not TRUE conspiracy theorists. When the facts don't fit the theory, just change/remove the facts. What about other events, Say the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy or MLK? Who blew up the USS Maine in a Cuban harbor in the 1890s? Did the US gov't have specific foreknowladge about the Pearl Harbor attack? As time passes and more is learned, and more and more of these events turn out to be likely the result of conspiracies. Some even involving elements of the federal government. But then the "many psychologists" can just remove those events as objects of "conspiracy theories" psychological study. So much for a testable theory. There is a big difference between a theory with PREDICTIVE power and an attempt at POST-HOC EXPLANATION consistent with currently popular assumptions. In short this artcile needs major revision because the real world is a bit more complex (and dangerous) than the "many psychologists" would have us believe. --JustFacts 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a media trope?

This term is not explained in the article trope and I am not able to ascertain a clear perception of what it denotes from this article. I'm sure many others are bewildered by it also. Could someone please insert a short definition (perhaps even a sourced one)? __meco 05:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand it as 'trope' in the sense of a narrative device; a verbal leitmotif. In this sense, "Jewish masters of the media" is a media trope; "violence in movies and sex on tv" is another, as are "liberal media" and "corporate media". Confusingly, these are all media tropes about the media. A different example of a media trope (that you may already have seen) is "The line has been something of a media trope in recent years: Methamphetamine is spreading across the country like a brush fire." Maybe someone else can correct or expand on my description, or give better examples. Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Time Immemorial

I've removed the reference to From Time Immemorial. The link doesn't work, and while there is general agreement that the book is flawed, I haven't seen any references to support a conspiracy involving the Israeli secret service. Tom Harrison Talk 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Features

As far as I'm concerned, there is way way too much unsourced material in that section. While some of it may very well be true, there are many strong statements there, and we need citations. Don't we? This article seems slanted to be an ad hominem attack. SkeenaR 05:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, whos idea is this? "Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited" If it was in the DSMIV or something it could be cited, but otherwise, it is just opinion. SkeenaR 05:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Features needs a bad fixing

Unless we can get some citations, I'm removing the entire Features section as entirely original research. Items such as "Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities; Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving" are broad, vague and obtuse. Uncited speculative junk that has no place in an encyclopedia. Really, shouldn't this article, as prominent as it is, be held to the high standards that are called for in the rest of the encyclopedia? SkeenaR 05:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The features are all well supported by the references in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How so? Features has not a single reference. Not even one. And it needs them according to the rules. Or is this article special? It is not enough to say "Oh lookit all the books we list here. If you read them all, you'd agree that all this fluff is accurate". I know from experience that this is not how Wikipedia works. Here is an example of how it has to be[4] SkeenaR 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alteration

The section entitled “Features” should be removed in its entirety. It is without citation and appears prejudiced. For re-inclusion the section should include citations and be placed under the heading of “Criticism”, or moved under an alternative article entitled “Anti-conspiracy theory”. Additionally as the article stands at the moment, the majority of literature presented is actually a condemnation of so called “conspiracy theory” rather than a neutral presentation of it. XSentinelx 01:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom, please don't revert without discussion. Still no citations were provided. Besides that, I find it doubtful that anyone would find it reasonable to include things which have absolutely no meaning on their own and could apply to nearly every idea under the sun, such as "Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science; At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.". I don't know how this stuff was even allowed in here, never mind being defended. Clearly not encyclopedic. In any other article, this junk would be nuked from orbit. I'm sure you must realize this too. SkeenaR 05:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all in the archives, and further up the page. I see no point in each of us repeating arguments the other has found unpersuasive. You're removal of the features section will either be supported by consensus, or not. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully this will help clear things up. If you take the time to look all the way up this talk page, citations and neutrality are the only recurring themes. Every other article on Wikipedia needs citations. In no other article would it be sufficient simply list a jumble of references at the bottom and say that if you read the hundred or so books listed at the bottom, you could glean all this knowledge from there too. And Wikipedia policy requires that the material in references and citations be easily found so that they can actually be read-like that Kennedy one that you asked for, for example.(I actually wasn't the one who ended up removing the features.) SkeenaR 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random sentence in lead

The lead of the article mentions History has shown that crimes carried out by a group of people (a "conspiracy") are not uncommon. Does this somewhat mix the different meanings of the word "conspiracy"? If the police have a theory that two guys robbed a shop that isn't really a "conspiracy theory" even though the crime would technically be a "conspiracy". In conspiracy theories the hypothesis contradicts what was or is represented as the mainstream explanation (clip from Wiktionary), in conspiracieslegal meaning there is no "mainstream explanation". Would it be ok to note that such legal conspiracies are a different meaning of the word and not really what conspiracy theories are about? The "History has shown..." sentence accidentally only obfuscates things. Weregerbil 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that sentence does mix the meanings, and somehow implies "conspiracy theories are not uncommon". There's a difference between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory", with the latter being a theory. The former could be a conspiracy, in a legal sense, such as "conspiracy by Enron executives to defraud investors...". These accounts are accepted by mainstream, reliable sources, and are litigated in a court of law, with evidence presented, ... Conspiracy theories run counter to mainstream accounts, are more speculation (or theoretical), and aren't put on trial in a court of law. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's misleading and basically a red herring. You've got it right. "Conspiracy theory" by definition is an alternative to the "conventional" explanation of some event, and typically not widely accepted due to the apparent lack of evidence. Example: Conventional history is that Oswald killed JFK by himself. Conspiracy theory is that others were involved, and maybe Oswald not at all. However, there is virtually no real evidence that contradicts conventional history, just enough questions to make some (or many) people doubt it. Wahkeenah 17:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is plenty of solid evidence to support a good few of the most well-known "conspiracy theories". There is certainly enough evidence to prove that the official story in those cases is absurd. The "apparent lack of evidence" is mainly due to the shortage of people, especially among those in positions of influence, who are willing to risk their reputations, their incomes, or even (in extremme cases) their safety, to bring that evidence to light. Instead, all too often, those people will resort to ritualised mockery of "conspiracy theorists" in order both to forestall social opprobrium and also, perhaps, in order avoid acknowledging to themselves the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their conformism. On such a foundation is "truth" built. Ireneshusband 10:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


  1.  An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
  2. A group of conspirators.
  3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
  4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

There is nothing misleading about that sentence and it is used in good context. SkeenaR 17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate to present conspiracy theory as theory involving a conspiracy. The definition of conspiracy is barely relevent to this page, and then only to correct what seems to be a common and persistent misunderstanding. Tom Harrison Talk 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So what is a "conspiracy theory" for you? And where did you take your definition?--Pokipsy76 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are merely describing a Conspiracy (crime), which we have a separate article for. "History has shown that crimes..." might belong in the other article, but not here where we are talking about conspiracy theories. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I got it. SkeenaR 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I mistakenly supported the merge of Conspiracism here. There are two or more divergent fields covered in this article. The sections conspirascism and proposed origins would be better placed in their own article. SkeenaR 22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsifiability - Add References or Delete

This whole paragraph needs sources because it contains many broad statements and generalizations of questionable accuracy: "Falsifiability has been widely criticised for misrepresenting the actual process of scientific discovery by a number of scholars, notably paradigm theorists and Popper's former students Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos. Within epistemological circles, falsifiability is not now considered a tenable criterion for determining scientific status, although it remains popular. Most philosophers of science continue to maintain that there are some rationaly justifiable methodological premises, in terms of which some theories can be criticized, while they reject the idea that falsifiability alone is a sufficient criterion." Offhand, the only main groups of which I know which contest the idea of falsifiability as the demarcation line of science/non-science, are string theorists and ID'ers (Intelligent Design advocates). Also, to say "...widely criticized... by a number of scholars" seems to me to be self-contradictory. (I will not no go into the question of whether falsifiability is a matter of making scientific discoveries or rather testing scientific theories.) Hi There 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

1)Feyerabend, lakatos and Kuhn are not a string theorists nor ID'ers
2)Do you know any "group" of people which accept the idea of falsifiability as the demarcation line of science/non-science?
--Pokipsy76 20:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The man has nothing to do with it

It has been noted, however, that "attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself," constitutes the logical fallacy known as ad hominem. See the entry on "argumentum ad hominem" at Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, maintained by Professor Glen Whitman of California State University.

While true, this misses the point. It's not that a conspiracy theory is false, it's that it constructed by a flawed methodology. The theory might even be true; even a blind sow will find an acorn. Conspiracy theories are objective, identifiable things. One of their ID features is that they satisfy a psychological need. Further, to observe that a theory satisfies such a need is not to attack the character of the person proposing it, any more than observing something about a narrative's use of archetypes is an attack on the writer. Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an entire section that offers ideas about the psychological origins of conspiracy theories. Fine. Interesting observations.
But here what the article says is that the question "Does the conspiracy accusation satisfy an identifiable psychological need for its proposer?" should be one of the "common standards" for assessing a theory's "likely truth value."
That's an ad hominem argument in classic form.
O Govinda 20:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In retrospect: I was too soft on the fallacy. I have reworked the section accordingly.

O Govinda 16:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Conspiracies vs Petty Conspiracies

Among skeptics, they tend to like to separate conspiracies into petty conspiracies(involving few people, and are therefore more plausible and in fact occur all the time) and grand conspiracies (involving many people over many years in many different supposedly independent institutions). Should we add this to the article? --Havermayer 03:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of that... Unmitigated Success 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed origins of conspiracy theories

This whole section appears to be based on the flawed premise that conspiracy theories are always wrong. If there are more facts to support a "conspiracy theory" than there are to support the official version of events, then this is the "origin" of the conspiracy theory. Every subsection in this section refers to a different way in which conspiracy theories can be wrong, without considering the possibility that conspiracy theories are not infrequently based on facts and valid reasoning. In this regard, I believe the neutrality of this section is highly suspect. Ishmael1125 03:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The tag disputing the neutrality of this section was removed without comment (at least, I couldn't find any comment); therefore, I am replacing it. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if the reason it was removed is because there is a neutrality dispute tag at the top? If that is Wikipedia policy, then I apologize, but I would appreciate if someone would inform me of this policy (I couldn't find any mention of it in the help pages). I believe that a tag targeting the neutrality of this section in specific is warranted for the reasons outlined above.

Also, I would note that several relatively minor edits I added to the section in attempt to counterbalance the overwhelmingly one-sided nature of this section were deleted as "commentary" without further explanation (at least I couldn't find any). I have replaced these as well, and hope that, if they are deleted again, an explanation will be provided as to why the apparent one-sided nature of this section is being defended.

I could not find any indication in the definition of "conspiracy theory" that this term is limited to theories which have been demonstrated to be false; therefore, this section seems to run afoul of NPOV by insinuating that conspiracy theories only have personal / psychological origins (i.e. that all conspiracy theories have no basis in reality), and might not instead be based on access to different information. If efforts to counterbalance the one-sided nature of this section are to be removed without comment, then the least we can do is indicate this bias at the top of the section and by providing alternative perspectives where possible. Ishmael1125 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the references supporting these alternative perspectives? Tom Harrison Talk 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Some are internal to the article, i.e. "A number of true or possibly true conspiracies are cited in making this case; the Mafia, the Business Plot, MKULTRA, various CIA involvements in overseas coups d'état, Operation Northwoods, the 1991 Testimony of Nayirah before the US Congress, the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, the General Motors streetcar conspiracy and the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate, among others." To take Pearl Harbor, for instance, claims of advance knowledge would likely be labelled a conspiracy theory, yet there is evidence to support these claims. Similarly, one's belief or disbelief in this conspiracy theory is likely to be heavily influenced by one's access to information (i.e. one relying on mainstream media sources would be much less likely to believe this conspiracy theory, because of lack of exposure to facts conflicting with the official version of events).
I will attempt to find sources for the additions I made as soon as possible. However, although I agree that all facts need to be sourced, I am wondering whether all arguments or rebuttal arguments need to be sourced. If so, there seem to be a number of other statements in this section that should be marked as needing citations, i.e. "Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms," or "Events which seem to resist such interpretation—for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable—may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction," or "At the level of the individual, pressing psychological needs may influence the process, and certain of our universal mental tools may impose epistemic 'blind spots'. At the group or sociological level, historic factors may make the process of assigning satisfactory meanings more or less problematic."
Thanks for engaging in constructive dialogue with respect to my concerns :~) Ishmael1125 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome; There is plenty more dialogue in the talk page archives. Have you had a chance to look through the references cited in the References section? Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

--Larean01 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Some months ago this article included a list of criteria that conspiracy theories meet (belief in an omniscient, all-powerful, hidden entity; appeals to common sense rather than experts, etc). I can't find it now. Can somebody tell me why it was deleted and how it can be recovered?

The features list is present in the revision as of 02:36, 9 August 2006. I support including it as a reasonable summary of the literature, others oppose including it as not supported by citation. The discussion should be above, and in the archives. Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes

The title of the above article was today changed from 9/11 conspiracy theories- it seems totally inappropriate to me that a neologism is being used in an article title- even if most people do think they are hoaxes, the usual term is "conspiracy theories" not "conspiracy hoaxes". Please see my comments on the talk page Talk:9/11 conspiracy hoaxes. Right angle 10:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been restored to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any controversial renaming should be done through requested moves. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tom harrison"

It would seem that Mr. Harrison has monopolized edits on this issue. My last single word edit of "'Many' conspiracy theories lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously." was reverted to "'Most' conspiracy theories lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously." with the notation that "Most" was "generous." This would imply that, in reality, ALL conspiracy theories are false, but for the sake of niceness, we'll let "most" slide. Previous Harrison reversions include mention of the Egyptian nilometer. Mr. Harrison aught to permit this page to explore at least the basic elements of actual conspiracy theories - or at least be "generous" enough to allow mention of them. JLMadrigal 16:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories, pretty much by definition, are not falsfiable: they lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously. That is part of what makes them conspiracy theories. I don't know what you mean about the nilometer. If you object to my editing, I am involved in a current request for arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. You can comment there if you like. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the material about the nilometer and how powerful special interests have always monopolized information to keep the people down because it was uncited commentary, though interesting. Tom Harrison Talk 16:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, an investigation of "Seabhcan", whoever that is, would seem an inappropriate venue for commentary regarding your edits. Are you suggesting that I initiate an arbitration hearing with you as subject?
Secondly, since you brought it up, even conspiracies that are neither verifiable nor "falsfiable," are conspiracy theories nonetheless, and deserve mention alongside the "falsfiable" theories which you now claim do NOT exist (along with the verifiable ones which it would seem you suggest do not exist either). JLMadrigal 14:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The arbitrators look at the conduct of all involved parties, but please yourself. Certainly there is no need to weigh in unless you want to. I did not mean to suggest that arbitration was an appropriate step.
It is a common misconception that any theory involving a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. This is not the case. There are any number (potentially) of falsifiable theories about conspiracies. Conspiracy theories, by their nature, are not falsifiable. I think this is well supported in the references included in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

Tag was placed by 70.8.56.126 on 11/29 yet there is no corresponding discussion alleging lack of neutrality. Tag removed. --Valwen 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page has long, rambling, uncited POV essays

This page is now filled with claims that are uncited, dubious, and POV toward pro-conspiracy theory edits. I am restoring the tags. Paragraphs with fact tags will be deleted in early January unless specific cites are added.--Cberlet 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagged the "Controversies" section.--Cberlet 15:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConspiracy_theory_89dd.html"