Talk:Conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
Other languages The WikiProject Echo has identified that Conspiracy theory is a featured article at the German language Wikipedia. You may be able to improve this article with information from de:Verschwörungstheorie.
Other languages The WikiProject Echo has identified that Conspiracy theory is a featured article at the Italian language Wikipedia. You may be able to improve this article with information from it:Teoria del complotto.

Previous discussions may be found in this archive.

Talk:Conspiracy theory/archive 1

Talk:Conspiracy theory/archive 2

Talk:Conspiracy theory/archive 3

Talk:Conspiracy theory/archive 4

Talk:Conspiracy theory/archive 5

Contents

[edit]

The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations

The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so?209.208.77.74 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

209.208.77.74 seems to miss what most people mean by conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist, which is not a matter of the details of the story alleged, but one of how that story is structured and substantiated. We know from experience that certain stories, exhibiting similar clusters of features, tend to have their own internal reasons for spreading and growing, ones which have no necessary relationship to reality. Unless the anonymous individualist wishes to argue that all conspiracy theories are true, he must admit that some are produced as a result of, shall we say, human error? If so, it becomes of significant interest to define what the early-warning signs are of such human errors, and to investigate their causes. Adhib 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The "anonymous individualist" is me, James Redford (see http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf for more on me). Indeed not all conspiracy theories are true, such as the U.S. government's lying, self-serving, a-historical, a-factual, and provably false official fairy tale conspiracy theory concerning the 9/11 attacks. Since issues regarding conspiracies are issues pertaining to historical events, we use historical inquiry (e.g., who is recorded as doing what, and when and where are they recorded as doing it; or what is recorded as having happened, even if the "who" of it is not known) and deductive logic (e.g., along the lines of "If A is true, then so also B must be true, because ..."; or "If A is true, then B must be false, because ...") while attempting to answer the standard questions of criminal investigation and criminal court cases, such as who had the motive (i.e., cui bono?), opportunity or ability (i.e., means), modus operandi (if applicable), etc. 209.208.77.70 11:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
But this logic holds in both directions. Unless Adhib wishes to argue that there has never been any instance of actual conspiracy ever, then absent further evidence to substantiate or falsify the situation, there exists the possibility of truth in the claim of conspiracy as there is the possibility of falsehood. Consensus dismissal without any evidence, based solely on an intuition or faith (a faith disproved regularly by historical fact) that large conspiracies are impossible, would ironically exactly meet the charge of a true conspiracy.
This is why it's prudent to return to Aristotlean scientific empiricism each and every time. The conspiracy theorist and his accuser are ironically simply displaying two different possible human instinctual reactions to large-scale events. While the conspiracy theorist seeks to rationalise the senseless (which can lead to human error, as you called it), the anti-conspiracy theorist practices another human instinctual reaction which we can simply dub "denial". The conspiracy theorist tries to attribute malicious conscious sense to the event, the anti-conspiracist seeks suppression and denial.
Amusingly for the empiricist watching, the two forms of reaction feed each other. The anti-conspiracist denies which is viewed by the conspiracist as evidence of cover up which in turn keeps the issue prominent that the anti-conspiracist wants it buried even further.
This can be seen as the basic "flee or fight" human instinct applied to the memetic realm. This instinct is simple. In a moment of crisis - say, attack by a predator (e.g. prehistoric man coming face to face with some dangerous beast, such as a dinosaur or rhino or similar) - there is an assessment of whether it is more prudent to stand one's ground or simply run away as fast as your legs can carry you.
Different situations demand different reactions. But there is an observable tendency to note that some people are more likely to choose one over the other in the general case. Some always flee. Some always fight.
In reaction to a large event, the conspiracy theorist represents the fight. They look for the enemy (one source of the said human error is to attribute an enemy where there isn't actually one or to, for example, lay the blame all on one individual - "it's the President!" - rather than what is a tragic but ordinary systematic failure e.g. the CIA and FBI really did just simply screw up sharing information about terrorism in a unconscious and purely accidental way). They confront the enemy.
The anti-conspiracist takes the other. A rarely recognised category because, yes, the most sensible instinct is "flee", when possible, and a majority possess the instinct to lean to this reaction first and foremost, only choosing "fight" when forced into it. This is the most logic and sensible decision to "flee" in the face of a danger of life and limb. If you can win a fight without actually fighting then this makes the most abundent sense. As the consensus possesses "flee", the resulting paradigm is to see "fight" as extraordinary and often insane, with no critical review made of their own position. The censoring phenomenon that everyone always believes that they are right, whether they are or not. Taking consensus as re-inforcement of this perception. In truth, reality pays no attention to our consensus and if everyone believes the world is flat (though that is itself a myth as there never was a time in recorded history where there doesn't exist record of the acceptance of the Earth being round but further demonstrates how humans take consensus as re-inforcement because a majority likely believes what can be shown by direct evidence to be factually untrue that there ever was a time in recorded history when people believed the world flat. The actual valid example would be to reference a belief that the Sun orbited the Earth, which was actually believed yet false. But this too acts as an example of consensus re-inforcement that bears no resemblence to the truth of the matter either).
The anti-conspiracist chooses "flee". This is the generally most sensible policy, as he who runs away does indeed live to fight another day. The human error that can be introduced from this alternative choice, though, is that of "deny everything". To run too far away from the danger. To not stop running, even when the danger has clearly passed. This can produce "bury your head in the sand" behaviour which, dependent on context, can be as idiotic and dangerous as the ranting "fight" conspiracy theorist.
It exhibits itself in, say, a public apathy to known corruption. The tolerance and acceptance of it. "There's no point voting as it makes no difference" / "there's no point protesting as they won't listen" / "that's just the way things are". To retract into a seige mentality. As her recent sad death reminds me, Rosa Park's refusal to sit at the back of the bus was a "fight" reaction. But the majority reaction is "flee" and seige mentality. Not to cause a fuss. Not to draw attention to yourself. Not to do anything that might bring danger to the door. To accept the situation as the way things are (both blacks and whites did this because not all whites necessarily thought segregation was a good idea but "it's the way things are" so they would not rock the boat and provoke danger to the door).
But logically it is as wrong to automatically dismiss every conspiracy theory as wrong, as it is to automatically assume everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Therefore, logically, an "always flee" or an "always fight" instinct is going to be wrong at some point. The choice should not be made automatically but be made as circumstances determine.
Certain facets of human behaviour need to be taken into consideration in the assessment. Humans, even if we're always loathe to admit it, are generally incompetent and lazy. This, by the way, is another survival instinct and not a value judgement. It is a sensible energy conservation strategy (most appropriate in ancient times when humans might not have known when and where they would next eat, before the development of agriculture solved that problem). Humans also disagree far more than they agree. Just follow conversation on the internet to gain empirical proof of that. We are not a very conspiratorial species by nature. But our intelligence grants the ability when necessary.
Consider the construction of our large cities. This is a conspiracy. A conspiracy of architects, builders, plumbers, electricians, town planners, politicians, accountants and so forth. They conspire to build the city between them. This is rarely thought of as a conspiracy because it is a benevolent one. It is for good altruistic as well as selfish purpose. But when necessary, we are more than able to "conspire" to some pretty impressive levels. The construction of one of the most impressive cities of the world - Las Vegas - in the middle of a desert (on the strength of a gambling law or two alone). Placing men on the Moon (but ultimately only as a status symbol of an ideological battle in the Cold War).
My secondary comments there are delibrate. Because these extraordinary achievements are ultimately most often grounded in rather ordinary goals. Which is typically human in nature. I make these observations on the grounds that it is a mark against actual conspiracies in general (the "flee" is the majority instinct with good evolutionary reason) because they are very difficult to pull off. The secret conspiracy with hidden agendas often nigh-on impossible from the strength that if it involved thousands or tens of thousands of people, good old human nature would undermine it because someone would screw up, someone would turn whistle blower, someone would make a mistake and leave evidence of conspiracy out there in the wide open public gaze (fail to clean up the evidence properly). But the ability to pull it off relates to what the conspiracy is. The Nazis were able to pull off the Holocaust conspiracy in a relative form of "secrecy" because ordinary communications between nations are broken off in times of war (it was secret outside Germany, even though it couldn't possibly have been made utterly secret to everyone inside Germany).
Churchill's insistance to British Parliament that Germany was secretly re-militarising was laughed off as "conspiracy theory" and "war mongering" at the time. Until it eventually become clear he was absolutely right and then become the natural choice of war leader. Churchill, without doubt, had nothing but "fight" instinct in him. Even in personal affairs, he was known to be grossly stubborn. "Fight" instinct was in every fibre of his being. As there was an actual conspiracy afoot then his instincts were on-the-mark and we needed him.
The basic rule of thumb, I would venture, is to simply not react instinctually at all. Make a conscious choice based on available evidence. To exercise the logic of the subject heading and the principles of empiricism. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. If there is no evidence then you don't know whether there is or isn't a conspiracy. You will have your beliefs. But beliefs are not facts. Reality is typically always uneffected by what we might wish or not wish to be the case. PetrochemicalPete 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."

Confucius

[edit]

Let's be serious

As it stands, the article has no logical structure or narrative cohesion, rambling from one side of the debate to the other, making no clear statements of much value to a general reader, and is generally a blot on the 'pedia landscape. I propose that we try to rationalise the entire article along the following lines:

[edit]

A brief introductory paragraph

One sentence sharply defining the term, and one follow-up sentence noting its controversial application.

[edit]

Features

A list of features commonly identified as characteristic of conspiracy theory narratives, eg:

  • Initiated on the basis of limited or partial evidence
  • Concerns a topic of widespread historical / emotional significance
  • Reduces complex phenomena into simple good v. bad morality play
  • Attributes extraordinary skill or intelligence to the conspirators
  • Key steps rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning
  • Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies
  • Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders'
  • Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities
  • Rebuttals provided by expert communities are ignored or accommodated through new twists in the narrative
[edit]

Origins of CT

A summary of the sociopolitical and psychological theory addressing the genesis of false theories.

[edit]

Controversies

All the griping that is currently smattered through the article

[edit]

Endmatter

Links, etc

Any thoughts? Adhib 19:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I would add to your list:
  • Attributes extraordinary skill or intelligence to the conspirators
(the conspirators always seem so much more clever than, say, the Watergate burglars)
–Shoaler (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Good observation! Any more suggestions? I'm aiming for a pretty comprehensive list of features, of which we can say that several such features must be demonstrated in a narrative for it to be legitimately described as a conspiracy theory, and the more such features demonstrated, the more confident the description can be. Adhib 07:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Nazi government conspired to murder 6 million Jews. The Soviet government conspired to murder over 50 million of their own citizens. The Communist Chinese government conspired to murder over 50 million of their own citizens. Mainstream history records that the Nazi, Soviet, and Chinese governments were all successful in conspiring to put to death the aforementioned numbers of their own subject people. But then again, massive government conspiracies don't exist--I heard it on the TV.209.208.77.74 19:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Watching TV is where so many people go so tragically wrong. I recommend books, myself. Adhib 23:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Somewhat less frivolously, 209.208.77.74 is wrong to imply that the features list amounts to a confirmation of government blamelessness - it has no bearing on such issues. The features are simply a rough guide to whether a particular story is cooked-up from froth, or hard evidenced. It might be that anti-government cynicism such as (his?) is fully justified. But that could never have any bearing on whether or not it is right to make up scary tales about evil politicians and attempt to pass them off as true. Adhib 23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Works for me; I look forward to reading it. Presenting it as one type of narrative among others might defuse some of the concerns about bias. Tom harrison 22:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good, I look forward to it as well. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
For use in a descriptive sense the phrase "conspiracy theory" and the entire conspiracy "genre" or "narrative" are illegitimately and improperly tainted and tainting beyond hope of repair for use in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. Why do you need a phrase to describe this "narrative" all at once, why not list each of the above "features" individually and directly where ever you notice them in what you consider to be a dubious theory? What of the plan to simply present things using clear language and the scientific method and keep any debunking simple using the novel concept of facts and logic? "Enjoys zero cerdibility in expert communities" is stating things directly without using confusing language (if cited and absent counter citations), why can't we just do that? I think we should add "perhaps illegitimately" to the last paragraph of the article "...is used to disparage", and the first two seemingly new paragraphs need clarity work. Scientifically speaking, descriptive words should never connote that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration. zen master T 16:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
My instinct is to concentrate the article on the 'serious consideration' that sociology, psychology, etc, have given to the question of conspiracy theory, ie, to what the invention of conspiracy theories might tell us about the human condition. For the purposes of those academic disciplines, disparaging a particular story is a side issue - rather, they are attempting to trace the genesis of a kind of folklore, to draw wider conclusions about the social production of meanings. As with many questions in the human sciences, serious consideration of what happens in a perverse case can shed significant light on how the norm functions. Adhib 07:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I read somewhere that conspiracy theory, especially on the web, has elements in common with fan-fiction. Is there some sort of taxonomy of narratives that we could use to put 'conspiracy theory' in context? Tom harrison 13:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Interesting question. I'll pursue it. Adhib 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, that was a wrong turn (but an interesting one!). It heads off into all kinds of issues around semiotics, structuralism and poststructuralism. See Narratology. I'd love for there to be a taxonomy of narrative, but academia wouldn't stand for it! Adhib 10:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the article again, it seems like most of the so-called "griping" comes down to two assertions:
  1. That some conspiracy theories are valid because they are eventually proved correct - I doubt that the percentage is very high but we should have a place to list CTs that have been proved correct. (Watergate doesn't count because it was not generally called a CT)
  2. That "conspiracy theory" is sometimes used to discount a theory - Yes, this is true and we should say so.
A lot of the bulk in this article, though, consists of confusing "conspiracy theory" with "conspiracy." The latter is common and generally accepted. The former is frequently an extraordinary explanation for an event requiring, as they say, extraordinary proof to be accepted. --–Shoaler (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
There's definitely a place under the 'controversy' heading to discuss how a narrative exhibiting the features specified under 'features' might yet stumble onto something that happens to be true. I'm working on extracting relevant pars from the existing and arranging them accordingly in my off-line draft. IMHO, those which prove true (such as the Dreyfus example) would probably not qualify as CTs to begin with, since they tend to be methodical investigative journalism, not speculation of the order of a typical CT. Was MKULTRA in fact a viable CT before exposure by the New York Times? Furthermore, when a narrative with such features happens to express something that is in fact true, does it matter to us whether it does so more or less at random, ie by chance? There's at least one sense of true in which the CT is false despite the facts it alleges being true, since it alleges them on false premises. Adhib 08:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Adhib, you are resorting to disinformation tactics by constantly bringing up a tainted genre and ignoring the core issue which is the fact that "conspiracy theory" is a biasing and non neutral way of presenting things. zen master T 15:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Zen-m, I have no idea what you're implying by 'disinformation tactics', but I assure you that all I'm attempting to achieve here is a reasonably objective account of the category, Conspiracy theory, such that we can all agree on what it means, the better to determine whether it legitimately applies to a specific conspiracy story. I have proposed some features, and am working on some more, which together help identify true members of the set. These features, taken together, indicate that a story has been constructed according to the formula of the genre, not driven by evidence and logic, so I am not in the least ignoring that membership of the genre correlates with long odds against being true.
The way I see it; either you are interested in differentiating viable conspiracy accusations from the ramblings of crackpots (in which case the 'features' list will be a positive help to you), or you are committed to defending a story that does exhibit many of the warning signs listed (in which case you might well hate me for mentioning them, but can't seriously expect to deny them). Adhib 11:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again you have resorted to disinformation tactics. You consistently misdirect from the core issue that duplicitously discrediting literal language is insuffient evidence to establish whether a particular theory belongs in a dubious, tainted and tainting "genre", let alone justification for violation of the scientific method to unfairly present even a dubious but cited theory. The first step towards differentiation is to use plain non duplicitous language. A good definition of "conspiracy theory" I found on the inet states that if there just one shred of evidence for a theory then it is not a "conspiracy theory", I think that is a good standard for us to follow. What do you think? We also have to consider the possibility and plausibility that the entire dubious and tainting "genre" or "narrative" was itself created for disinformation purposes. zen master T 13:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Zen-m, I can only invite you to consider the listed criteria and make your specific comments - these general objections appear to me to be failing to move your case forwards. BTW, I think you're wrong to suggest thatWe also have to consider .. x,y & z. If x,y & z are frivolous or fringe, our priority has to be to avoid giving them undue weight, unless we are hopelessly beguiled by such notions ourselves... Adhib 13:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Uhhh the discussion moved here because of all the illegitimate "conspiracy theory" titled articles. Instead of trying to rationalize situations where "conspiracy theory" is ok my specific complaint is that we should instead move towards using clear and direct language in descriptive contexts. Concerns of illegitimately biasing presentation trump concerns of undue weight, and "undue weight" can't possibly justify a 100% discrediting method of presentation. Perhaps you should take your argument to the wikipedia guideline that deals with presenting allegations which have citations and evidence (hmmm, is that the NPOV policy perchance?). zen master T 13:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Watergate

the article says the following about Watergate, is this accurate: " but which only existed as a series of initially-unbelieveable allegations in newspaper reports for several years". When it first came out I didn't find it "unbelievable". It was reported by many of the major news organizations. It wasn't unbelievable in the way the moon landing conspiracy theory is unbelievable. I don't ever remember Watergate being called a conspiracy theory. Bubba73 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

"Conspiracy theory" etymology

Colloquially the term "conspiracy theory" is used to disparage any non-mainstream theory about current or historical events, often with the connotation that the theory is unfounded, outlandish, irrational or in some way unworthy of serious consideration. It is never used by a theory's proponents, only by its detractors. -From the article

The Online Etymology Dictionary (as well as the 1997 Oxford English Dictionary) lists "conspiracy theory" as dating to 1909, and there is one usage in a newspaper in 1877 on record; but does anyone happen to know when the colloquial (disparaging) use began?

Or, what's the earliest-dated disparaging use anyone can find?

[edit]

New article structure

Please see the brief discussion concerning this restructure under the Let's be serious heading above. My guiding principle here has been - what if a 15-year old kid needed to find out what 'conspiracy theory' is about, and came to this article to find out? How do we set things up in the appropriate order such that s/he gets a clear grasp of the material, ie, moving logically from the simplest abstract definition ever-deeper into the details and complexities of the subject?

I have attempted to find a place for every item of content that has been re-jigged, but if a cherished detail has slipped through my fingers, please respect the new structure (at least, for a while!) and try to reinsert it where it fits best into the flow of the article. In particular, if it seems to you that the article's objectivity is questionable, please discuss here first, or consider placing your correctives within the Controversies section. Adhib 13:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I dispute your version of the page, it downplays the other definitions of "conspiracy theory" and the way the phrase is improperly and non neutrally used to discredit. zen master T 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m has rv'd the entire article, which is a tad more serious than simply disputing it. Still, we have some concrete points to proceed from:

  • The second sentence of the article makes plain that the phrase can be used and understood as discrediting. There is then a section under controversies further discussing the issue of 'Legitimate usage'. I'm happy to expand on that somewhere else if you have any clear suggestions?
  • What other definitions of conspiracy theory are excluded? If you want to tell me, I'll put them in, or you can do it yourself.

Adhib 13:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your intro seemingly plays up the whole dubious tainting "genre" angle. Also, the secondary discrediting definition should be mentioned in the intro. The phrase does indeed "connote that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" and that is a key to understanding it, please put back the last paragraph of the old intro. Additionally, the secondary definition needs to be more explicitly stated as that should make it obviously clear the phrase is not appropriate for use in descriptive contexts where neutrality is the goal. zen master T 15:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Zen-m, I really want to understand and incorporate your POV, but I need you to respond to specific questions with specific answers, trying to avoid wider issues. I've beefed up the discussion in 'Legitimate usage', and note that the 'discrediting' aspect is already right up there in the intro. Adhib
[edit]

Socio-political origins section

The following passage is not accurate: "The believer [in a conspiracy theory] is then excused any moral or political responsibility for remedying whatever institutional or societal flaw might be the actual source of the dissonance." This totally disregards the social justice movements that are often strongly linked with and based on conspiracy theories. It is totally inaccurate to accuse conspiracy theorists of excusing themselves from moral political action when, for example, the 9/11 Truth Movement actively seeks to identify, expose and bring to justice those who they believe perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. These are not lunatics huddling in a smoke-filled basement afraid of the outside world; they are actually doing everything in their power to reverse the perceived injustice of 9/11 as they see it. -- James

It's an accurate account of some academic work, which I will provide reference for as soon as I have time to go back to notes. The basic thesis is that, having explained a complex phenomenon as orchestrated by baddies, all one has to do is to convince people that those baddies are baddies, and bingo, the crisis is solved (whereas, of course, if those complex phenomena are due to complex causes, working out and applying the necessary complex solution requires a much more serious and committed engagement with politics in general). Adhib 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
(For the time being, I have incorporated James's point into that paragraph). Adhib 09:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You mean "baddies" such as al-Qaeda? It's good that you're taking this critical view of the U.S. government's promulgation of conspiracy theories. But to add to James' above point--and this is also from an academic--as Prof. Murray N. Rothbard wrote: "It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any 'conspiracy theory of history'; for a search for 'conspiracies' means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane 'social forces,' or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ('We Are All Murderers,' proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on 'conspiracy theories' means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the 'general welfare' reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A 'conspiracy theory' can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda." (From the article "The Anatomy of the State" by Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, Rampart Journal, Summer 1965, pp. 1-24.)209.208.77.74 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Murray sounds like just the kind of guy who should be quoted in the controversies section and referenced in the article's notes - care to put him there? Adhib 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Problems with recent changes

The concept of a "conspiracy theory genre" is tainted and tainting. We need evidence of "conspiracy theory" allegations being applied falsly, and evidence the "genre" was encouraged to reach dubious heights to make it even easier to discourage an objective analysis. Also, the old definition sentence "connotes that a subject is unworthy of serious consideration" is a key point that should be retained. Also, the features list should be rewritten into paragraph format. We also need to make it explicitly clear that an allegation merely theorizing a conspiracy is woefully insufficient evidence that the tainting "genre" is applicable to it. Overall clarity and word choices also need to be improved. zen master T 17:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. This argument has been discussed on numerous pages, and those who share your views lost the only vote on the matter. The fact that you re-appear endlessly starting the same dispute over and over shows a lack of respect for a democratic editing process.--Cberlet 18:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? The changes I have a problem with in the article were made in the last week, so I don't see how a months old vote is applicable on multiple levels? Regardless of where people stand on the "conspiracy theory" in titles issue I think we can all work together to have a Conspiracy theory article as NPOV as possible. Of my criticisms what do you specifically disagere with? Cberlet, you are an "conspiracy theory genre" author right? Is it possible you've been tainted by it? zen master T 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Zen-master, people have bent over backwards to accommodate every reasonable point you have made. Adhib worked with you very patiently to address your concerns. Still you persistently revert and modify the page in ways you know very well are contrary to what most other editors want.
Your last edits are hardly even substantive, and are badly written to boot. You have taken a paragraph that was a model of clarity and balance and with each edit made it more sophomoric and inane. I am prepared to accept technically poor writing that is at least informative. I see no reason to work hard to create something that is neither.
Clearly you are an intelligent and well-informed person. I'm sure there are many areas where you could contribute constructively. I hope you will choose one and do so. Tom harrison 18:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Please respond to the points I raised in the first paragraph of this sub section. Should we go through the article line by line? zen master T 19:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Welcome back, Zen-master. Before I get onto these additional points, would you kindly respond to those which were left hanging in your enforced absence? - there are two specific queries in the section above for your attention - your precise responses there would enable me to incorporate your concerns more fully.
Now, on these additional points:
(a) I agree that the single feature 'alleges a conspiracy' is not in itself grounds for labelling - the label concerns a style of narrative construction, not its particular content.
(b) The genre concept is perfectly viable and well-understood, as I believe Zen-m pretty much conceded in the discussion over on Words To Avoid.
(c) Making the features list into paragraph form would make it less accessible, to my mind. What are other people's feelings on that? Adhib 08:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
What does "...the label concerns a style of narrative construction, not its particular content" mean and how does that justify any of your changes? I don't think I conceded (nor understand) what you are claiming and I don't see how that can be justification for any of your changes here. The "genre" or "narrative" exists yes but it is tainted and tainting in the context trying to define the phrase in a neutral encyclopedia. As I pointed out below the features list is original research. What is wrong with defining the phrase with the succinct "irrational theory" or "self rationalizing theory"? zen master T 09:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Zen-m, if you recall our discussion of Urban legend, you may remember that it is possible to consider a particular story according to its formal features, ignoring its specific plot details. That is roughly what genre identification always does. Conspiracy theory is no different. me

The second sentence of the article makes plain that the phrase can be used and understood as discrediting. There is then a section under controversies further discussing the issue of 'Legitimate usage'. I'm happy to expand on that somewhere else if you have any clear suggestions?
Basically, the old introduction and article was vastly better and more clear in my interpretation. The new one is less explicitly clear that the phrase can be used to bias or unscientifically present a subject and it does not note the specific mechanics of how it does that ("connotes that a subject is unworthy of series consideration"). Also, "body of arguments" and "eccentric individuals and faulty reasoning" sounds cliched and has more than a tiny hint of "genre" or "narrative" (Slim's argument) to me which is tainted and tainting (we should endeavor to describe the phrase and concept without using words from, or otherwise risking illegitimate guilt by association with, its "genre", at least initially). Also, the reference to "popular culture" seems too conclusive and perhaps unencyclopedic or at least out of place for the intro. Overall, the new intro and your other changes don't really seem to be saying anything, don't have a theme and are too bland, "making the term controversial in application" is an understatement. The phrase may be in our "popular culture" but the "narrative" is by definition "fringe", right? Here is another good clear sentence from the old article you deleted "The term 'conspiracy theory' is typically used disparagingly to undermine confidence in an interpretation of facts that is counter to the one being promoted.", what did you find wrong with it? Where is the explicit mention of the fact that the phrase is used disparingly (perhaps justifiably but never justifiable in scientific or emphiric contexts) in your version of the article?

I'll take bland as a compliment - the article as I found it was rather too 'spicy' to be encyclopaedic. I removed claims that the phrase necessarily is used 'disparagingly' because such claims are false. The phrase 'can be used' disparagingly, but it is also used in NPOV circumstances, just as Urban legend may be. me

What other definitions of conspiracy theory are excluded? If you want to tell me, I'll put them in, or you can do it yourself.
When the phrase was defined as "connotes that a subject is unworthy of series consideration" it was obviously clear to me that the phrase was woefully inappropriate in scientific and scientific method contexts, the new article is not obviously clear of anything at all (except it seems to be advancing the same ridiculous argument or emphasis on "narrative" that Slim made long ago in Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory minus the "prescriptive motivation"). What was your motivation for making all the changes?

'scientific method contexts?' Whatever are you referring to, here? me

Additionally, the features list has got to go, its list format is biasing and not as conducive to criticism and is of poor quality and way overly complex. I hate to quote wikipedia guidelines but that list strikes me as obviously original research now that I think about it. From what source did you get the list of conspiracy theory "features" from? zen master T 09:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Wider pool of examples

There are too many examples that reference the 9/11 event.

This could easily promote individuals to suspect the rationalisation (as they would see it, dismissive rationalisation) of the phenomenon of "conspiracy theory" in this article to be itself a conspiracy, designed to undermine their claims of 9/11 conspiracy. The article then becomes a governmental propoganda exercise by government agents posing as ordinary Wikipedians to "explain away" their claims. The tone and rambling nature further re-inforces the very phenomenons that it warns of, where individuals fail to grasp such high-minded concepts and re-interpret them in a more simplified fashion (e.g. the article is delibrately unfocussed as a distraction tactic to disguise its methodical planning by governmental officials because a more chaotically written article throws off a more amateurish tone by which is to hide the systematic and methodical footprints of large governmental conspiracy, as one possible interpretation that could be taken).

On a different note of concern, the over-use of 9/11 conspiracy examples suggests possible personal subjectivity of the article's author towards this particular event, risking accusations of a failure of NPOV objectivity in its writing. A general article would and should carry generalised examples from across history and the globe. As per generic historical reporting conventions, comments on recent events should be avoided as far as possible because interpretations too close to an event are usually clouded from personal involvement on some level. The very choice of multiple 9/11 examples and references itself screams of an underlying personal involvement. Such involvement doesn't necesarily automatically confer a misinterpretation, I do recognise, but it risks such and could be seen that way irrespective of whether it is or it isn't clouded.

All of which suggests that it is only prudent and wise to distance the article from any recent events. I would also recommend that the range of examples is made wider to include no repeats and broadened internationally (e.g. JFK, 9/11, the Philadelphia Experiment, Roswell, etc. are all examples that usually place specifically the American government in the malevolent role and can thus be considered enumerations of the same example in one sense, as indeed the conspiracy theorists themselves often string these together in a complex narrative where one event feeds into the other events in a complex web of conspiracy).

Further in the interests of NPOV, the article should be more clear of distinctions between actual conspiracy and conspiracy theory. There is a tendency in mocking the more irrational conspiracy theories (which are often so perposterous that one cannot help but be unable to take them on a level of any seriousness) to dismiss the general concept of conspiracy as a valid possibility at all.

But actual instances of true conspiracy (not theories but factual conspiratorial events) include examples such as the Nazi Holocaust which includes the burning of the Reichstag as a trigger event, the 17th century Gunpowder Plot on the British Parliament (as well as historians considering whether the whole event might even have been a 17th century "sting" operation to organise the plot, merely to smoke out the traitors from hiding. Such "sting" operations - old and modern - are, on this level, entirely conspiratorial yet exactly real) and it is generally accepted by historical experts that Roosevelt most probably delibrately goaded the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor as the only means to get the American public to back entering the war (not responsible for the attack itself but behaving delibrately neglectfully in recognising the political expediancy that an attack could provide).

NPOV demands a fair hearing in both directions that, for example, when Churchill repeatedly warned the British Parliament of secret German re-militarisation that had him laughed at and shouted down in the Commons on numerous occasions, that would have been a "conspiracy theory" by Churchill at that time. The prevailing "Peace in Our Time" treaty secured by Chamberlain considered to be the non-conspiratorial consensus truth.

As history now records, Churchill may have been shouting theories of Nazi conspiracy to the British Parliament but he was absolutely and entirely right to do so. His conviction to never surrender in exposing and fighting the Nazi conspiracy (which, yes, was entirely a scheme of "world domination" and included what is generally regarded as the greatest acts of human evil thus far ever perpertrated), arguably saved the world from oppression and a majority of its citizens from systematic extermination or slavery.

Hence, we should not be so hard on the conspiracy theorists both for NPOV and because there have been rare examples where they turned out to be right - as conspiracy is a phenomenon that can exist - that we live in freedom and democracy today.

I enjoyed the article thoroughly but it might need a more neutral and objective revision - a small tweak or two - which obsesses less on the recent event of 9/11 and only conspiracy theories involving the American government. PetrochemicalPete 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a weakness of the article as I left it that 9/11 is used in illustrations on more than one occasion. This is an artefact of my trying to respect and preserve content from the article I edited, in which such examples featured prominently. We should certainly widen the pool of illustrations.
On the remainder of PetrochemicalPete's commentary, I think there's a serious problem with the restrospective claiming of certain narratives as conspiracy theories. Did Churchill's allegations of German rearmament, for example, really display any of the features we take as definitive of a conspiracy theory? Was the rearmament as secret as PetrochemicalPete presents it here? What precisely did people say at the time in response to Churchill's warnings? The article as it stands leaves it open for anyone to add referenced evidence of such a conspiracy being warned about as a conspiracy and dismissed as just a 'conspiracy theory'. It merely notes that such reference is not forthcoming from conspiracy theory boosters. Adhib 18:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Britannica 1(911!)

That antisemitism article from the 1911 Britannica seems interesting, but it's horribly garbled. Does anyone have a "clean" version of it? Bastie 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Other features

It seems to me that another feature of a CT is that it never gets any closer to being proven. They can go for decades and never amass any evidence in their favor. Bubba73 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

redundancy vs need to disassociate between allegation and "genre"

I think my intro sufficiently disassociates between allegations and the genre (though the entire article still needs work), what are Tom's "redundancy" reasons for reverting my changes? Do you acknowledge the need to disassociate between a specific allegation and the dubious genre? zen master T 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Disruptive editing

Zen-master, you really should stop reverting the page to your preferred version after everyone else's edits. You must know very well, from the extended and repetitive discussions here, that the viewpoint you are trying to inject is not widely supported. I am trying hard to maintain a presumption of good will on your part, but I am running out of generous explanations for your behavior. Your zeal for what you no doubt sincerely believe is becoming disruptive, and making progress on the page difficult. Please slow down give the edits time to at least be reviewed by others. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

In your interpretation what "viewpoint" am I trying to "inject"? In my intrepretation the relatively recent changes to the article weren't "progress" at all, I am merely trying to salvage the introduction. zen master T 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

As a gesture of good will, I am going to limit myself to no more than one edit per day. I invite you to join me. As far as substantive discussion, I don't quite know what to say that has not already been said. I see no point in each of us repeating ourselves. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting Bubba73 always shows up when you need reverting. Some points/questions:
  1. Conspiracy theories (plural) should be bolded too to clearly disassociate between an argument type and association with a dubious narrative genre. (or we should disambig between the two concepts by creating two separate articles)
  2. Adding "(and possibly paranoid)" seemingly taints the definition too far to exclusive association with the dubious narrative genre, this should be fixed somehow.
  3. In your interpretation, what is wrong with explicitly stating "...especially in scientific contexts" and "The phrase is used primary by detractors rather than proponents of a theory"? zen master T 20:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
'Especially in scientific contexts' is a complexification that is unsuitable at this introductory paragraph level, where the objective must be to present a clear, simple description of the primary aspects of the topic. It is unsuitable because it suggests qualifications and differentiations within the genre which require further explanation and reference, but cannot (and should not) go into such refinements in the introductory sentences.
But there are larger problems with Zen-m's version of the intro; the phrase is used by people with no commitment either way to a particular story's veracity, eg, in academia, where it is used to identify a species of narrative in conversations about the species, not about individual members of the species. Use of the label, there, demonstrably lacks the intent Zen-m's intro alleges, to dismiss a specific conspiracy theory. It has a completely different intent, one which Zen-m's introduction naively denies, which makes Zen-m's 'improvements' to the intro unencyclopaedic. me
The intro already discusses usage appropriateness of "conspiracy theory" so how can "in scientific contexts" not be relevant? The "in scientific contexts" applies to the argument type, not the genre. Oh goodness, I just realized you are giving me the run around with this game since no action is taking place fixing articles mistitled with "conspiracy theory". The title of an encyclopedia article is a woefully inappropriate place to signify whether a dubious, tainting and unscientific genre applies to a subject. Feel free to write all the "narratives" you want in your own user space. zen master T 15:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at Paranoia, which says that there is a link between paranoia and conspiracy theories. I checked the last 100 edits of Paranoia, and I didn't see any edits by people who are editing here. Therefore, the independent set of editors on Paranoia agree that there is a connection between paranoia and belief in conspiracy theories. I moderated the tone by saying "possibly", and "possibly paranoid" was in parentheses. If you do a Google search on the exact phrase "Paranoid conspiracy theory" you get over 10,000 hits. If you look for "paranoid" plus "conspiracy theory", you get 192,000 hits. Bubba73 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the point of that link and how does it relate here? I agree that "paranoid" is related to the genre of "conspiracy theory" but not the argument type, but it doesn't belong in the intro of this article. zen master T 02:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought it should go there because the intro mentions "eccentric" people. It could go somewhere else. The purpose of the link to Paranoia is because there is a close link between it and the topic of this article. "is often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories." - from Paranoia, independantly edited. Bubba73 (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
My impression is that paranoia usually includes a belief in conspiracies, but that most conspiracy theories have other origins. But, in popular perception they are associated. Someone could come here on the way to paranoia (no implication intended), and it might be helpful to have the link more prominently featured. Maybe something like "Popularly, conspiracy theories are associated with faulty reasoning, eccentricity, and paranoia. Labelling an argument..." I'm not sure I have a preference. It is included further down under clinical payshology.
Seperately, is it informative to say, "The term tends to used by detractors rather than proponents?" Should we dispense with that, or move it down to Controversies? Tom Harrison (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard anyone who believes in a CT call it a "conspiracy theory". Bubba73 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
"My impression is that paranoia usually includes a belief in conspiracies, but that most conspiracy theories have other origins" In recent years I've been wondering if perhaps many of these theories are made up by people just to have fun, knowing that a lot of people will believe them. Bubba73 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

please justify recent massive changes

After thinking about it I see no justification for all the recent changed which is why I added the equivalent of the {twoversion} template to this article which goes back to a version of the page before the recent whitewash (in my interpretation). zen master T 16:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the notice. You can refer to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Twoversions for many reasons why such a notice shouldn't exist. The fact that you're not using the specific template (although I'm not sure what's different about yours) isn't the point. Carbonite | Talk 16:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The TfD is on going, it should not be speedy. And anyway deleting a template sets no precedent for an individual article. zen master T 16:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
There's overwhelming support for deletion and agreement that its not helpful in any way. Adding this notice (that's on the verge of deletion) is a demonstration of bad faith. Carbonite | Talk 17:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Then you are your buddies should propose a wikipedia policy that says "twoversion-esque" notices in an article aren't appropriate, a mere tfd isn't enough. zen master T 17:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? There's general agreement that such a template isn't appropriate. Is it your contention that users oppose the use of the template, but support the use of a notice that looks exactly like the template? You've been made aware that the notice is not appropriate. Continued reversions which re-add the template (whether subst'd or not) are a demonstration of bad faith. You need to make your case on this talk page, not by plastering a notice on the article itself. Carbonite | Talk 17:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The TfD is on going, I just voted keep, it most certainly should not be speedy, and there should be a lengthy transition period (assuming deletion passes), and some effort should be made to help resolve the disputes on all the articles that use it before it is deleted. But more fundamentally, to change what is approprite at the top of an article you need to change wikipedia policy through the normal proposal route, instead of sneakily speedy deleting a template. zen master T 17:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Inserting this tag is basically content forking, and it's a bad thing. Even if use of this template were not an intrinsically bad idea, it's factually wrong in this case. There are not two competing versions. There is just one version, and an editor who doesn't like it. I see no reason why the page should reflect anything but the consensus view of the editors. Zen-master finds himself on the wrong side of that consensus and can't seem to accept it.

I do not want to make this a bigger deal than it has to be, but isn't there some formal mechanism to deal with Zen-master's rapid-fire reverts? They are making it almost impossible to work on the page, or even to see what it says. Is there someone I should notify about this? I would rather not do that, and again I invite Zen-master to join me in agreeing to edit the page no more than once a day. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have reported ZM for a 3RR violation for making six reverts in less than 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zen-master. Carbonite | Talk 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The article was acceptible to many people for months until massive changes were made 1-2 weeks ago, I added twoversions as a courtesy instead of reverting back to the old version of the article (since you should justify massive changes on the talk page before you make them). Content forking can be a problem, but not signifying when an in good faith dispute exists is a bigger one. zen master T 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It was not acceptable to me, but I didn't want to do the major editing it needed. It improved greatly when there was a major revision on Oct 15. Bubba73 (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It was acceptable to very few people. Most people gave up trying to salvage the article. Now at least it is beginning to reach an acceptable standard rather than an embarrassing one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old version of the page specifically? The previous version made it obviously clear that the phrase "connotated" things which makes it inappropriate in scientific contexts, in my interpretation. Also, I think there is a mistake in the intro currently, please fix "The term tends to used by detractors rather than proponents" (missing "be" and "term" should probably be "phrase"). zen master T 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Zen-m, I'm sorry you missed the discussion I initiated proposing the changes, and the earlier work I did on this article with the eminent User:Cberlet before the vandals got to both him and me. However, your suggestion here that the faults in the previous version were not discussed, or justified, is false. Nor is the existence of dispute 'not signified': there is an extensive section on 'controversies' in which such issues are clearly laid-out. Adhib 09:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
In my interpretation the massive changes made to the article around Oct 15th were not an improvement but a step backward. With the previous version of the article is was obviously clear the phrase is inappropriate in scientific contexts, it almost seems like you and others were trying to befuddle that point. The controversies section is woefully insufficient (as usual). zen master T 15:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
the phrase is inappropriate in scientific contexts is not a statement we should accept as neutrally true, as it denies scientific status to all social science that deploys the phrase. That is the opposite of encyclopaedic. I have asked Zen-m for an example of what he means, specifically, with this 'scientific contexts' exclusion of his. Perhaps I missed his answer? Adhib 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it the scientific method for a scientist/researcher to employ tricky language to connote that something is discredited because of an implied association with a dubious genre or would they use simple plain language and state facts directly? I am not saying "conspiracy" allegations can't be dubious, I am saying to follow various wikipedia policies you have to label subjects using simple plain neutral language, especially in titles. We are also required to note who is counter claiming a non mainstream allegations is dubious, we shouldn't just regurgitate in titles the mainstream's subtle POV that certain politically sensitive allegations are dubious. zen master T 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Zen-m, the issue here is whether you are correct in stating that the phrase, conspiracy theory, is inappropriate in scientific contexts. I am conscious of scientific contexts in which it is perfectly appropriate. Adhib 19:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the "Real Life Imitates Conspiracy Theory" section? Does real life no longer imitate conspiracy theory, ever? Who decided that? -- James

A discussion of the merits of treating rigorous investigations into actual conspiracies, on the one hand, with Conspiracy Theory in the common usage sense on the other, is preserved in the controversies section. James, like anyone else, is free to expand on it if he feels he has some NPOV material to contribute. Adhib 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
"Common usage" is precisely non neutral usage, hence within descriptive contexts the phrase should be inappropriate inside an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. We can certainly say "person X argues theory Y is a conspiracy theory" when cited as usual but we shouldn't use the phrase directly ourselves. zen master T 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This argument has been made by you, and the majority here at Wiki has rejected it repeatedly.--Cberlet 22:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Isn't neutrality a more lofty goal than mere majority? Also, by what logical rationale do you and the majority reject it? zen master T 22:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do you think it is OK to continuously misrepresent the history and outcome of this debate, especially since you have repeatedly failed to convince more than a tiny handful of other editors that your position in the dispute has any merit whatsoever? Is that appropriate? I certainly do not think so, but am interested in your justifications.--Cberlet 22:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Please point to instances of misrepresentation on my part with citations. I thought neutrality was more than a "position" on wikipedia? You seem to be arguing we should just ignore the problems with "conspiracy theory" and move on? Feel free to come up with a logical argument the refutes the charge that "conspiracy theory" is a biasing and unscientific method of presentation. Do you deny that labeling a cited allegation a "conspiracy theory" is an attempt to associate it with the dubious "conspiracy" narrative genre? Would a (neutral) scientist resort to such techniques to "disprove" something? zen master T 03:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
That there is a "problem" with the concept of the "conspiracy theory" is an idea that exists primarily in your head. This page bends way over backwrds to point out the issue of when it can be used to delegitimize a claim. That you refuse to accept the will of the majority, even as it agrees to include the POV of the minority, is evidence of your rejection of the democratic process, and your arrogation of your own views into an interminable series of confrontations that sap energy from editors who could be writing and improving text.--Cberlet 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I repeat my question from above, please point to instances of misreperesentation on my part with citations. All I am asking you to do is come up with an actual logical argument that defends "conspiracy theory" from a charge of lack of neutrality. It's rather tangential when you attack me or play the mischaracterization game. I dispute your characterization that the page "bends way over backwards", the issue here is lack of a logical justification for non neutral presentation. Please summarize exactly what the "will of the majority" here is besides some vote you keep referring to to do whatever you want to. And please stop resorting to disinformation tactics and simply come up with an argument in favor of "conspiracy theory" (as a starting point for future honest debating). When you don't debate honestly I interpret that as you seeking to hide something. zen master T 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless Zen-Master can explain how he reads the thoughts of hypothetical people who label things as conspiracy theories, he should not write that "Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory is as an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it". The non-opinionated version of that sentence is "Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory may be seen as an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it". Rhobite 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone is trying to imply a specific allegation is dubious because of association with an outlandish narrative genre what other accurate way of describing such a situation than it is "an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it" is there? The key point is no neutral or non-duplicitious person would seek to "ridicule" or "dismiss" someone else's allegation. And an [allegedly] neutral encyclopedia shouldn't regurgitate the ridicule or dismissal, I dare say that is POV. zen master T 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
How about this "Labelling an argument a conspiracy theory is an attempt to ridicule or dismiss it, perhaps justifiably, leading many to consider the phrase controversial in application"? That is actually what you are trying to say but unfortunately you can't really come out and say it like that. Although "justifiably" is incomplete, "with political motive" or "with duplicitous motive" is kind of better. zen master T 17:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you a mind-reader? Rhobite is correct. Your version is not accurate nor is it NPOV. --Cberlet 17:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The key insight is not mind reading but trying to understand motivation behind word choices. Can we put back ", especially in scientific contexts"? I can't think of a situation where "ridicule" would be appropriate in scientific contexts. I agree "may be seen as" initially seems more NPOV, but the question remains what other valid ways of interpreting discrediting usage of "conspiracy theory" in descriptive contexts is there than interpreting it as "an attempt to ridicule or dismiss"? zen master T 17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

List of quotes

That's an enormous number of quotes. Should those go in Wikiquote, or should they be pruned back? Tom Harrison (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I cut the quotes - and "ameliorated" some text. Massive POV selection of quotes not appropriate for this page. Feel free to create a page Quotes selected by those favoring a conspiracy theory of history. --Cberlet 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The list of quotes is far too long, and many of them have nothing to do with conspiracy theory. It's possible that one or two that are illustrative of some point could be integrated into the article; Given the history of editing here, that should be worked out here on the talk page. Until then, I support reverting the page. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous poster, please join us on the discussion page. Most of the quotes you post do not appear to have anything to do with the topic of this page. Your editing appears to be highly POV. Please discuss here.--Cberlet 19:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I have reported User:209.208.77.224 for violating the three-revert rule Tom Harrison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
To anyone who might be following the discussion, let me say that things like the recent attack on the page accomplish nothing. They divert people's time away from actually working on articles, and they poison the atmosphere. Surely we would all rather spend our time in some other way. Tom Harrison (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conspiracy_theory"
Personal tools