Talk:Conspiracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'''This article is very week versus conspiracy theory who has some serious example of conspiracy ?

  • Well, the conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar is a fairly famous one. Might also want to mention criminal conspiracies - there's a wealth of examples of that type. -- April

It nonetheless#REDIRECT image runs the risk of becoming submerged if particular instances of alleged conspiracy are allowed to be described here (the Conspiracy Theory article requires constant pruning to remove extraneous gibberish by paranoid vandals). I am deleting Northwoods and Phoebus from here, and referring specific theories to story listing conspiracies: List_of_conspiracy_theories. There's no need to detail specific theories here. Adhib 09:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Is "conspiracy" neutral?

When used in a descriptive context is the word "conspiracy" neutral and ok to be used inside wikipedia? Please help discuss the issue over on Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Note there has been previous discussion on the related Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory issue and some will try to turn any discussion on the neutrality of the specific word "conspiracy" into a discussion of "conspiracy theory". Also note, "theory" is already a word to be avoided according to current wikipedia policy. Further note, even if a theory literally alleges a conspiracy that doesn't mean the phrase "conspiracy theory" is neutral (watch out for those that might trick you into focusing on only the literal aspect of the phrase). zen master T 17:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The history of the conspiracy to assasinate Julius Caesar either deserves its own page or should be merged into for Julius Caesar. It has very little to do with the current legal doctrine of conspiracy. Perhaps there should a list of historical conspiracies that have been proven to be true. Likewise with Other Uses section, which should be put into the list of conspiracy theories page. The legal doctrine of Conspiracy, and a Conspiracy Theory are two seperate concepts. This is reflected by the disambiguation page. Cdogsimmons 21:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the common usage definition?

It seems the conspiracy article has been disambiguated into civil and criminal law versions, why? It seems the common usage of "conspiracy" to simply mean "a group secretly working together" has been ambiguated? zen master T 19:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)nvml hklaa kjhl df

I see you also changed the definition of conspiracy theory; I've changed it back. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy, dontchaknow. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I do think Zen-master was right to include the common usage. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better synopsis definition of "conspiracy theory"

  • Conspiracy theory, either any hypothesis that alleges a group secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose, or, a collection of folklore and rumor similar to urban legend.

Just by looking at the incomplete conspiracy theory article, it will show that Tom's definition of "conspiracy theory" is itself very incomplete and confuses, perhaps inadvertently, the literal/theory meaning with the folklore type and rumor dismissal usage. Also note Tom's definition: "conspiracy theory, a theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events..." can be read more than one way, and can be interpreted as an uncited POV judgement call. Is Tom subtly trying to obfuscate "conspiracy theory" as meaning "defies ... understanding"? If so, nice one. The List of proven conspiracies article is proof "conspiracy theories" do not necessarily disagree with "common historical or current understanding of events". And Tom's "...manipulations by one or more secretive powers" needlessly evokes the type of eccentric folklore (which Tom fails to even mention). All actual theories and theoretical speculation should be investigated using the same scientific and factual analysis, whether a theory disagrees with "common or historical understanding of events" is tangential at best, tainting at worst. Why are theories grouped into the "conspiracy theory" category on the basis of whether they disagree with some sort of presumed "common historical or current understanding of events"? Seems like a way of discouraging a serious consideration of that theory to me. zen master T 07:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For background, any interested editor may want to look at Talk:Conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "conspiracy theory" as contradicts

Hello Tom, I thought we agreed on this synopsis definition of "conspiracy theory":

Conspiracy theory, a hypothesis that contradicts what was or is represented as the popular explanation for one or more historic or current events, and alleges the actual cause is by a group of people secretly working together usually for an illegal or wrongful purpose.

The "conspiracy theory" definition and common usage text I have over in Talk:Conspiracy theory is better and more complete, I note that in many notable cases the hypothesis contradicts what is represented as the mainstream view but it doesn't have to since any theory that alleges a conspiracy can be labeled with "conspiracy theory" regardless of other criteria. The above synopsis definition fails to mention the folklore usage, the controversial dismissive usage, and the ambiguity. zen master T 17:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we disagree; but I don't know that we need to define conspiracy theory on this page at all. We could take out everything about conspiracy theory, except for a link under See also. Of course others who follow this page may disagree. What do you think? Tom Harrison (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a good suggestion, but I have an ever more radical question and suggestion. Why don't we go back to the December 1st version of this article, or, can someone explain their motivation for completely reformatting this article into only a disambiguation page, lots of content was deleted, why? zen master T 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I am surprised; that version's coverage of conspiracy theory seems to be contrary to your preferences. Anyway, I think a wholsale revert to Dec 1 is not the best idea. Breaking out civil and criminal conspiracy as legal terms seems to have been acceptable to several editors who have put more into the article than I have. The content is still present in Conspiracy (civil) or Conspiracy (criminal). The page as it stands is better than it was, and the editors who worked to make it this way are likely to be antagonized if their work is swept away. You have floated the idea; If others are interested in reverting to 1 Dec (and I am not), they'll speak up. I suggest we go slow. Let's just remove the definition of conspiracy theory and add a link to Conspiracy theory under See also. Tom Harrison (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Moving conspiracy theory to the see also section without attempting to define it is ok with me. I don't think the "civil" in Conspiracy (civil) sufficiently disassociates, it's more accurately described as the "common" or "non-legal" definition, right? There are civil court cases too you know. Perhaps the legal definition of conspiracy should be moved to Conspiracy (law) or something similar? zen master T 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there are two legal definitions: one for criminal law, discussed at Conspiracy (criminal); and one for civil law, convered at Conspiracy (civil). Tom Harrison (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
So the common non-legal usage of "conspiracy" just gets a definition and not a full article? Ok by me. Does a civil conspiracy really mean "to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions"? I suspect this disambig page doesn't sufficiently disassociate between criminal and civil conspiracy only because I don't yet understand, please explain.zen master T 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. All I could do is read the pages. You might ask on the talk page there, or maybe someone else will answer here. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
After reading Conspiracy (criminal) and Conspiracy (civil) I get the idea but the synopsis distinction in this article may be incomplete. zen master T 22:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy usage

Unfortunately some contributors are working on matters that they seem to know very little about. There is a group of people that are apparently fascinated with a concept called "conspiracy theory" and appear to believe this is a highly important area of study. That is fine, but conspiracy is a very well established area in both the criminal and civil law system of the United States and most legal systems for a number of reasons.

The concept of "conspiracy theory" that some seem to want to develop is that of some wacky hare brained idea and use the term as a form of derision. Why this is being attempted is unknown. But, in a reference work one should give deference to the normal and presently important use of words and traditional topics rather than confusing the reader with some insider humor.

It is surprising that those working on the article seem to have little or no understanding of the importance of conspiracy law and how it fits into our legal system. Before attempting to write about this area one needs some amount of education in the area plus a good dose of experience in the area. Why anyone would start out making decisions for the layout of a reference work and writing about a subject that one only has a passing interest, is unknown. RPJ 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not demean the work of other editors. I have restored the previous definition of conspiracy because it more clearly distinguishes between civil and criminal. If you want to talk about Conspiracy theory, the place to do that is Talk:Conspiracy theory. I see no need to address conspiracy theory in this article, other than to point the reader to it as an item to 'See also.' Tom Harrison Talk 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One reason for the change is that conspiracy law in the criminal system and civil system is not distinguished in the way the article states. The major difference is when used in criminal law one has to prove the violation beyond a reasonablew doubt and in civil law by a preponderance of evidence or in some situations by clear and convincing evidence. The test is not that for one the wrongdoers must agee to use illegal means and in another they must agee to an illegal end.

It appears reasonable, as you point out, that "conspiracy theory" as used in the link be treated elsewhere rather than confusing the reader with that idea when the reader most likely would want to know about traditional conspiracy concepts.

However, breaking up conspiracy into subparts of civil and criminal does not appear well taken because usually the laws are used in tandem because the elements are not different and civil actions often follow in the footseps of criminal actions. If the elements of the civil and criminal conspiracy were different, the application of collateral estoppel and res judicata would not be available. This two step approach is often used in commercial crimes where, if the conspiracy is proven beyond a reasonable doubt there, is no need for a civil trial where it need only be proven by a lesser standard of proof such as a preponderance of evidence.

The same case law is often used for both since they are interchangeable except for the amount of proof needed.

As it stands now, the subject matter of conspiracy has been fragmented into three parts: Criminal- Civil- and "Conspiracy theory."

Criminal and civil should be rejoined because the concepts applied to one apply to the other, and the "conspiracy theory" concept junked or put somewhere that it doesn't confuse the reader. RPJ 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like we agree that conspiracy theory needs no more than a mention here. We probably don't need any external links to conspiracist sites.
I do think that Conspiracy (civil) and Conspiracy (criminal) are both solid stand-alone articles. I would not be eager to see them recombined. Tom Harrison Talk 01:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User RP's assertion that the criminal and civil laws are usually used in tandem is an entirely U.S.-centric point and does not match European or Commonwealth experience at all. I am aware that the DOJ and SEC often conjoin criminal and civil actions in the Federal courts, but this is procedurally impossible elsewhere. Further, unlike the U.S., conspiracy laws are not used to prosecute large corporations so the rationale of criminal conspiracy is somewhat different, being restricted to crime rather than criminalised commercial activity. In Europe, for example, anti-competitive laws do not apply conspiracy provisions. Finally, the norm would be that criminal action must be completed before civil action may proceed. Because the burden of proof is to a higher standard in the criminal case, findings of fact resulting from the conviction may not be reopened in the civil case. But relatively few conspiracy cases are heard in the civil courts because most criminals do not have enough money to make such actions viable. The few that are pursued are settled and the civil case law is relatively underdeveloped. Thus, I split the civil and criminal conspiracies because that is how the European and Commonwealth lawyers view the matters, and because the detail of the principles is not exactly the same between criminal and civil. I would view any proposal to reintegrate the material as inappropriate. David91 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I'm removing many of the external links that deal specifically with conspiracy theory; these can go in that article if anyone wants to put them there. Tom Harrison Talk 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VRWC?

Would it be appropriate to add a reference to Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? It's a fairly well-known term dealing with conspiracy. RazorChicken 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) ''' I didn't know where else to write this, but a page needs to be made for "Conspirator," in reference to the musical group of the same name which includes Aron Magner and Marc Brownstein of the Disco Biscuits as well as DJ Omen. I would make the page myself, but i don't know how. Will someone in charge please pick up on this? Typing "Conspirator" in the search field leads to the Conspiracy page, and they are neither the same word nor related in this context.