Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 30 May 2012

Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Paul Krugman (8/5/2006). "Who's Crazy Now?". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

“Conspiracy theory” versus “Theory of conspiracy” (again)

Ok this IMHO is where this article has the biggest problem. We just don't have anything that separates lunatic Conspiracy theories (the Moon landing was hoaxed) from “Theory of conspiracy” (the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag fire or the Mod killed Hoffa and buried him somewhere) and there are several sources that call both "Conspiracy theories". Until this is address this article will remain a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" almost always refers to the former, not the latter. This has been discussed many times before on this talk page. The article cannot "remain" something that it is not currently. Jayjg 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't writing "almost always" (which without supporting evidence appears to be expressing a personal opinion) ironically confirming BruceGrubb's point. I.e. if it is NOT "always" then your (Jayjg's) statement acknowledges that there IS a distinction. Therefore shouldn't we be seeking to clarify/explain that distinction rather than instead seeking to deny it exists. Otherwise the article is unbalanced and misleading. Which is a point that ALSO "has been discussed many times before on this talk page". So I would be interested to read a short re-explanation and justification from those who still feel a resistance to remedying this omission. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There's already a section on this extreme minority usage in the article, so there's no "omission". Jayjg 22:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet haven't you repeatedly argued that the lead should reflect the article. So therefore if that's in the article shouldn't we include it in the lead? Its one of only two basic definitions of the term so in order to maintain NPOV why keep it out of the intro?! :-0. If your answer is undue and "extreme minority usage"!? Says who? You and others here appear to have decided that and therefore you are keeping out sources from the article that disagree. Which seems to me to be a very self-fulfilling and circular argument. The article should not appear to reflect a personal opinion and certainly not a biased one. You appear to me to be just ignoring all arguments that contradict your own which you force through without any supporting reference. Whereas BruceGrubb has produced reams of supporting 2ndary sources for the argument that contradicts this.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The lede is currently just one sentence, so any mention of this tiny minority usage would be WP:UNDUE. If the lede were a full four paragraphs, then we could examine what, if any, of it, could be devoted to that tiny minority usage. Jayjg 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to have this same stupid argument every few months. "Conspiracy theory" is virtually always used in the context of a fringe belief. Period, end of story. If you disagree, please present evidence to the contrary.JoelWhy (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is also relevant here. Jayjg 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No we don't have to. Just fix this in a spirit of friendly co-operation. A great detail of "evidence to the contrary" has been present and detailed by BruceGrubb. Er... haven't you seen that? Or are you just ignoring it? We can just as easily argue back with the same degree of imperviousness to rational discussion. E.g "'Conspiracy theory' is virtually always used" etc., etc. is a point of view that has been shown to be wrong repeatedly. Period, end of story. If you disagree, please present evidence to the contrary."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that, regarding this issue, there is nothing here that needs be "fixed", and that the "problem" is persistent attempts to rehabilitate the term "conspiracy theory" so that specific conspiracy theories are less stigmatized by the term. Jayjg 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Er.. No you are wrong. BruceGrubb, Mystylplx and I have repeatedly shown you are wrong. Period, end of story. If you disagree, please present evidence to the contrary. ;-}

Seriously, merely ignoring presented evidence & counter argument is NOT a consensus. That's just ignoring the evidence, no matter how many people are doing it. Or is wiki content to be based soley on just a numbers voting system regardless of the accuracy of a counter argument? "Ideally, consensus occurs with an absence of objections" Consensus here would require a compromise "that would satisfy ALL concerned." "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", etc. etc.

It would be very easy to compromise and include the suggestions of myself BrucGrubb and Mystylplx. The only objection I can see for being so uncompromising in the face of so much evidence and source material is an unneutral personal preference to the ascendancy of the term ONLY as a form of derogatory put-down.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, I don't recall seeing anything but a few isolated incidents of the term being used to mean anything other than a fringe theory. Can you please point me again to the evidence you speak of?JoelWhy (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... just scroll back (up) a bit. (And then there is the stuff recently archived.)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The "stuff" in the archives indicates a strong consensus that the article should focus on the common understanding of the term "conspiracy theory", not the tiny minority usage - which wasn't actually even a usage, but more a proposal by authors that the term should be used in a broader way. And constantly bringing this up, and repeating refuted arguments, is not really "repeatedly show you are wrong", but rather proof by assertion (and more recently argumentum ad nauseam). Jayjg 03:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But Jayjg, the arguments haven't been refuted, just persistently ignored. As you did again with your reply. What you claim "wasn't actually even a usage" is easily demonstrated as false by the simple FACT that it not only "was" but still is at present included in the current wiktionary definition of this term: http://en.wiktionary.org/conspiracy_theory. A fact which has been pointed out before and which has been completely ignored. If what you recently wrote is correct how do you explain this contradiction with your alleged 'consensus' view here? This wiktionary definition, in my opinion, does therefore seem to demonstrate that this article is being too heavily slanted in one direction. Could it be that is because it is influenced by editors who claim consensus as justification for pushing one point of view regardless of all reasoning, regardless of all attempts at co-operation and in disregard of all provision of source material supporting the wider and less pejorative definition. As I wrote before:

...merely ignoring presented evidence & counter argument is NOT a consensus. That's just ignoring the evidence, no matter how many people are doing it. Or is wiki content to be based soley on just a numbers voting system regardless of the accuracy of a counter argument? "Ideally, consensus occurs with an absence of objections" Consensus here would require a compromise "that would satisfy ALL concerned." "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.", etc. etc.

It would be very easy to compromise and include the suggestions of myself BrucGrubb and Mystylplx. The only objection I can see for being so uncompromising in the face of so much evidence and source material is an unneutral personal preference for the ascendancy of the term 'conspiracy theory' used ONLY as a form of derogatory put-down.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely where the conflict rests. The "less pejorative definition" you describe does not actually seem to be more widely used. It's broader in its scope, but not necessarily in its usage among scholars. Anyway, I am still working on some stuff for this lede here and there; diving into these sources is kind of time consuming, especially as so many of them are full-fledged books. Also, I still think that your side of the argument has not at all addressed the weight issues raised by Xenophrenic that I pointed to in February. Also, while I appreciate Wiktionary just the same as any Wikimedia project, I don't think we should pivot around what Wiktionary does. We're trying to write an encyclopedia article about conspiracy theory, and so we are charged with a bit more than regurgitating the most inclusive and generic meaning/usage of the descriptive phrase, especially when we have a preponderance of reliable sources demonstrating a particular usage to be prevalent. John Shandy` • talk 21:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I notice you wrote "seems" and "not necessarily". As in, (1.) "... does not actually seem to be more widely used." And (2.) "It's broader in its scope, but not necessarily in its usage among scholars." We all agree that personal opinion should not be a factor, so I hope you can see that the reason why I pointed to the wiktionary definition (and incidentally most all current dictionary definitions) is precisely because that demonstrates that both your points are above are incorrect. Point one, we aren't arguing about breadth of usage but that we should be following secondary sources. Dictionary definitions DO reflect contemporary isage and meaning don't they? Or is that still being debated ??!! :-o And point two, my understanding is that this wiki article should NOT be about ONLY "scholarly usage". Do you think it should? Thus my/(our?) concern that the article concentrates too much on only a partial definition and usage and this would be easy to correct if there was a spirit of compromise. Finally, I also do not think that "we should pivot around what Wiktionary does". I only point to that as it demonstrates the falseness of view (and the unreasonable obstinacy regarding discussion or compromise) demonstrated by Jayjg's quote:"the tiny minority usage - which wasn't actually even a usage"). He is clearly wrong there, but won't admit it nor discuss reasonably. I'm just trying to address what I see as a unbalanced bias in the article generally but the lead in particular towards only one of the two current meanings, viz. the relatively recent pejorative one. Words and their usage are not static nor fixed and this article should reflect that fact. "All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." (Friedrich Nietzche)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The broader definition of Conspiracy Theory

As I pointed out before in Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Conspiracy_theory_definition there is no conflict if the reliable sources regarding the broader definition of the term below Conspiracy Theory are acknowledged:

• Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9

• Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" The Journal of Philosophy Columbia University, Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126.

• Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17

• Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6

• "20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15

It is really pathetic that the Rationalwiki version (which has no NPOV requirements) of Conspiracy_theory is MORE NPOV regarding the scope and rationality and does a better job of trying to distinguish warranted (ie rational) conspiracy theories (like those that Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre) from those which are unwarranted (boarderline irrational ie like the idea of extraterrestrials abducting humans) then what is done with this article.

It is WAY past time to accept that Conspiracy Theory has TWO definitions as outline by Bratich above so this article can move forward.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lede as written does a poor job of explaining conspiracy theory, especially since it only gives weight to a generic and inclusive definition, and also since it ignores the further steps taken by scholars to characterize conspiracy theories as beliefs that mostly appeal to unverifiable (if not irrational) speculation, that originate on the fringe and become politically/culturally significant among the mainstream. So far I count more scholars that have indeed gone so far in their characterizations/usage of the term, even among some of the ones who beforehand present a nuanced explanation of various definitions (such as those who Xenophrenic pointed out acknowledge that their own usage is not prevalent).

Keeley for example (the guy you've referred us to so often for his definition of the categories "unwarranted" and "warranted" conspiracy theories), says:

So, in the end, what do I think of conspiracy theories? My initial motivation was to present an analysis of conspiracy theories in the spirit of Hume's analysis of miracles. For Hume, miracles are by definition explanations that we are never warranted in believing. If my analysis here is correct, however, we cannot say the same thing about conspiracy theories. They are not by definition unwarranted. (A good thing given that we want to believe in at least some conspiracies - for example, Watergate and Iran-Contra.) Instead, I suggest that there is nothing straight-forwardly analytic that allows us to distinguish between good and bad conspiracy theories. We seem to be confronted with a spectrum of cases, ranging from the believable to the highly implausible. The best we can do is track the evaluation of given theories over time and come to some consensus as to when belief in the theory entails more skepticism than we can stomach. Also, I suspect that much of the intuitive "problem" with conspiracy theories is a problem with the theorists themselves, and not a feature of the theories they produce. Perhaps the problem is a psychological one of not recognizing when to stop searching for hidden causes. Nonetheless, I suggest that the study of conspiracy theories, even the crazy ones, is useful, if only because it forces us clearly to distinguish between our "good" explanations and their "bad" ones. Keeley (1999, p. 126) (Emphasis is Keeley's).

In other areas p. 116-122 & 199, Keeley ultimately expresses (and Goertzel 2010 cites Keeley in this regard as well) that most conspiracies fail and historical events are better explained without recourse to unverifiable speculation.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that there isn't a broader definition, but a broader scope does not mean a more common/popular usage. I have no problem incorporating content from the sources you provided, but I am wary of any attempt to marginalize the more prevalent usage - and whether they're pejorative or not has no bearing on their prevalence. Mystichumwipe has seemed hung-up on the pejorative undertone numerous times, as if that matters. Most of the scholars we have cited here on the talk page already note a pejorative connotation, but they do not themselves use the phrase pejoratively to disparage the conspiracy theorists they are studying and writing about (though they do extensively characterize conspiracy theories beyond the dictionary definition, and in numerous cases "fringe" is a compatible descriptor for paraphrasing).

I really wanted to wait and refine this more before sharing it on the talk page, because I'm not anywhere near done and have dozens of more sources downloaded that I need to comb through and the citations are just messy author-year cites and not in any kind of order (will order & wikify them later), but I've been so busy that it might take me an eternity... Anyway, below is my very unfinished draft of a lede paragraph that would mostly alleviate my concerns. As I said, it is unfinished and I am not yet satisfied with its completeness or coverage. I do intend to bring more content in from some of the sources we have had controversy over, but my time has been limited lately and I don't yet have the full-text of some of the sources referred to on this talk page (e.g. Ayto, Bratich, and a couple of other less-mentioned sources referred to in the archives).

A conspiracy theory explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by unnaturally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end (Dictionaries; Birchall, 2006; Fenster, 2008; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2008; Darwin, Neave, & Holmes, 2011). Such theories are described by scholars as sharing three premises: that world events are governed by purpose, facts are not as they appear, and that entities are connected and acting in concert despite apparent ideological divergence (Barkun, 2003; Lee, 2011). Political scientists characterize conspiracy theories as fringe beliefs (Parish & Parker, 2001) originating from irrational speculations about economics, politics, society (Lee, 2011), and science (Locke, 2011), which gain initial acceptance among fringe audiences (Lee, 2011) and become regarded as culturally and politically significant within the mainstream (Knight, 2003; Arnold, 2008). Historians and social scientists have approached conspiracy theories with skepticism, noting that such theories are predicated on yet-undiscovered conspiracies and arguing that historical phenomena are better explained absent unverifiable speculation (Coady 2006; Keeley, 2006; Goertzel, 2010).

Feedback welcome, but I can't stress enough how rough that is and how much more I would like to work on it if time permits. John Shandy` • talk 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, may I say I do not think that I am hung up on the 'perjorative' aspect of this. My argument is more that there EXIST TWO usages and definitions that I and others feel are not being clearly and fairly presented here (and even denied, as Jayjg has repeatedly stated falsely there is ONLY one usage). I have used that 'p' word to more easily distinguish between the two. Please feel free to pick some other distinction if you have a 'hang up' about that word ;-)

As regards your suggestion above, here is my 'rough' response;-) The first sentence I think concentrates on unhelpful hyperbole, i.e. a conspiracy does NOT of necessity of definition need to be perpetrated by "unnaturally powerful" or "cunning" conspirators, nor does it have to be to achieve a "malevolent end". (E.g. Or else how do Bible 'conspiracy theories' ] such as ones that Jesus really had a wife and children which info has been suppressed, etc., fit under this definition of malevolent end, etc? )

This rough definition AGAIN makes absolutely no allowance for conspiracy theories that can and have been based upon credible, non-fringe speculations and which are not irrational and which have turned out to be genuine 'conspiracies'? In other words how does this definition allow for what Kelley wrote in the quote you provided : "...conspiracy theories... are not by definition unwarranted. (A good thing given that we want to believe in at least some conspiracies - for example, Watergate and Iran-Contra."

We need a definition that encompasses both usages fairly and accurately.

Summary of objection: this suggestion as it is now, explains only the more extreme end ('whacko', 'fringe') usage of this term as if that was the only usage and meaning.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any dispute that the term "conspiracy theory" is usually used in the pejorative sense? And, by "usually," I don't mean 60% -- more like 97% of the time. When the phrase is used, it's referring to grassy knoll/aliens at Roswell/New World Order type of "theories". Is there anyone who wants to argue against this? Assuming you don't, and that your complaint is that on rare occasion it is used by someone, somewhere to refer to a legitimate controversy, I just don't understand the problem here. Per the article "Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events. The term is sometimes used to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational. A proven conspiracy theory, such as the notion that Nixon and his aides were behind the Watergate break-in and cover-up, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis."

I think it's pretty clear that the term is sometimes used in a manner other than the way most people use it. Do we need to add another sentence saying that it continues to rarely be used in a non-pejorative sense? Is that the entire problem? If so, I'm fine with adding something to that effect.

Of course, if you're argument is that it is routinely used in a non-pejorative sense, well, I'm sorry, but that's just preposterous.JoelWhy (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, we have plenty of sources that support "unnaturally powerful" or "omnipotent" (being omnipotent is after all unnatural), and that support malice/deception/malevolent end/nefarious end, etc.

• Fenster: ...which I will define simply here as the conviction that a secret, omnipotent individual or group covertly controls the political and social order or some part thereof...;
• Birchall: In its simples terms, conspiracy theory refers to a narrative that has been constructed in an attempt to explain an event or series of events to be the result of a group of people working in secret to a nefarious end.;
• Sunstein & Vermeule: Conspiracy theories generally attribute extraordinary powers to certain agents - to plan, to control others, to maintain secrets, and so forth.
  • an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.;
• Barkun: The essence of conspiracy beliefs lies in attempts to delineate and explain evil. At their broadest, conspiracy theories "view history as controlled by massive, demonic forces." The locus of this evil lies outside the true community, in some "Other, defined as foreign or barbarian, though often...disguised as innocent and upright." The result is a worldview characterized by a sharp division between the realms of good and evil.
  • For our purposes, a conspiracy belief is the belief that an organization made up of individuals or groups was or is acting covertly to achieve some malevolent end.
• Oxford English Dictionary: an agreement between two or more persons to do something criminal, illegal or reprehensible.

Many of the other sources we have (that I didn't also use to cite that first line) support that line. Plus, built into the term conspiracy theory is the term conspiracy, for which we also have sources defining that as A conspiracy involves multiple agents, working together in secret in order to realise hidden goals that are malevolent or unlawful. (Darwin, Neave, & Holmes; Zonis & Joseph). Nevertheless, I am okay with replacing "unnaturally powerful" with something synonymous, but malevolence is well-supported and accurate. With regard for your Bible conspiracy theories example - why couldn't deception be the malevolent end there? Or, as extreme antitheists might have it, why couldn't suppressing info to sustain a perceived control over people by organized religion be the malevolent end there? I'm no theologian and am not up to date on Bible conspiracy theories, but I don't see a contradiction with malevolence there.

Further, what Keeley says must be taken in full context, which is why I provided much more of his remarks than we have previously seen referenced by BruceGrubb. Just because conspiracy theories aren't by definition irrational/unverifiable/fringe speculation doesn't change the fact that scholars have most often characterized them as such. Keeley says Instead, I suggest that there is nothing straight-forwardly analytic that allows us to distinguish between good and bad conspiracy theories., then explains the spectrum of them, then discusses theories versus theorists and that theorists may have a problem of not knowing when to stop looking for hidden causes, and then says Nonetheless, I suggest that the study of conspiracy theories, even the crazy ones, is useful, if only because it forces us clearly to distinguish between our "good" explanations and their "bad" ones. Plus, as I noted earlier, Keeley supports the notion that historical events are better explained absent unverifiable speculation found in conspiracy theories, and is cited in this regard by Goertzel. It's possible for something to have a good rationale and yet be completely speculative and unverifiable, so I don't see a contradiction there. On a side note, when I was a little kid and riding in the car on vacations, I'd see distant refineries with smoke or steam towers out of which giant plumes of white smoke or steam would be rising; I concluded that those refineries were cloud machines responsible for producing all of the white puffy clouds I saw in the sky around them. I had a pretty decent rationale for having limited information (only what I could see) and bounded rationality, but my theory to explain the nature of clouds and the purpose of those refineries was ultimately unverifiable speculation, however rational for a 5 or 6 year old. John Shandy` • talk 18:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The rub as I tried to point way back in Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_14#Conspiracy_Theories_vs_Theories_of_Conspiracy defined by whom? As I said back then "Alex Jones InfoWars list “33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True” (referenced in the NYT article) shows the problem. The list starts with The Dreyfus Affair, the Mafia, and MK-ULTRA (all genuinely proven conspiracy theories) and then goes off the rails by throwing in things like the Manhattan Project (not a conspiracy-theory by any definition I have seen) and tin foil stuff like The New World Order. And yet they are all called "Conspiracy Theories"."

As I said before what we have ignores the examples of

• the Dreyfus affair (as early as 1898 there were ideas that there had been some sort of conspiracy to frame Dreyfus)

• Sicilian Mafia (G. Robert Blakey stated that when he became part of the Special Attorney in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section "They told me the Mob does not exist.")

• MKULTRA (the hippy culture bragged how LSD came from the CIA)

• Iran-Contra (where speculation ran riot on who all was involved in the mess)

• Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT act alone (United States House Select Committee on Assassinations 1979)

and to that list I add

• Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre

• Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin.

• Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location

• The Nazis set the Reichstag fire

• The Unites States Government is using the top secret nature of certain bases to cover up violations of health, safety, and dumping regulations occurring on those bases

• Richard III of England was vilified via Black propaganda by the Tudor dynasty to justify their taking of his throne

I should point out that none of these require "unnaturally powerful" or "omnipotent" groups so that gives Fenster and Sunstein & Vermeule swift kicks to the head. Everyone of the above Conspiracy theories above is warranted ie plausible and some have been proven long after they were called Conspiracy theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative lead

A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories.(20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.; Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.; Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2, 140; Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66; Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94)"

Why can't we use that as the lead in? It addresses both definitions, it accepts that the negative version is more common today, and it is referenced out the wazoo. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If we changed "often" to "usually", I'm good with that definition.JoelWhy (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think often is the better and more accurate alternative. Who is guaging what is usual? And why the need to make that distinction? Why skew the article so that ALL conspiracy theories are "usually" loony fringe ones? That is clearly innaccurate and self-contradictory. We need a definition that encompasses both usages fairly and accurately and an article that reflects the 2ndary sources regarding that difference of usage fairly and neutrally. This article as it is now, not only concentrates on the more extreme ('whacko' and 'fringe') usage of this term, but it does so as if that was the only usage and meaning. That I see as the problem. So I don't think it helps nor is particularly relevant to insist on 'usually' distinctions. This article's slant as it is at the moment creates a problem of how within the article itself we describe non-fringe non whacko theories such as the conspiracy theory of _______, or the theory that ______, etc., etc., etc. (see above). That is the problem that concerns me and which keeps getting ignored (as are BruceGrubbs examples). I hope we agree that Wiki articles - for the sake and reputation of wikipedia - should not be written in a way that allows for the assumption that a deliberate selection and ignoring of secondary sources is being done out of any kind of political or other biased motivation. Thus the need to include BruceGrubbs research & examples. And also the relevance of the Nietzsche quote: "...whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bias. I don't even understand what type of bias a person could possibly have pertaining to the definition of this phrase. This is simply a matter of standard usage; and standard usage of this phrase involves the 'tinfoil hats' type conspiracy theories. "Often" doesn't accurately reflect that. I could say that "in professional sports, the underdog often wins." In that context, "often" could mean 25% of the time. Here, I could find 3 dozen references to every one of your using the phrase as it is generally used. You wanted compromise, well I'm compromising. But, I believe you are taking things one step too far with your definition. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is primarily used to connote crazy conspiracies.JoelWhy (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What type of bias? :-o Holy moly! :-o How about the conspiracy theory that citizens of Saudia Arabia, and elsehwere conspired with people in Afghanistan and elsehwere, and who were all members of a group called Al Qaeda, succesfully conspired to attack the N.York twin towers and the Pentagon, etc. Is that 'whacko', 'loony', and 'fringe' enough for you to classify as a 'conspiracy theory'?

Huh? I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you, but I meant why are the editors opposed to this showing a bias. And, what you are describing is a conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory, as the term is generally used.JoelWhy (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So Mystichumwipe, still trying to label the official account of 9/11 as a conspiracy theory? Perhaps so you can make this edit again on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? John Shandy` • talk 16:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol...well, that explains a lot. And, it actually brings up an excellent point -- why don't some of you editors try to add the phrase "conspiracy theory" to the September 11 attacks page. You'll notice that the text includes statements such as "e Spanish high court sentenced Abu Dahdah to 27 years in prison for conspiracy on the 9/11 attacks" and "Moussaoui...was convicted for the lesser role of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism and air piracy." (Emphasis added) It then goes on to state "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." So, please go on to the page and see if you can incorporate the term "conspiracy theory" in reference to the documented events of 9/11. Then,come back here and tell me how well accepted this was by other editors (who, I am sure will see no problem with it, since this is the manner in which the phrase "conspiracy theory" is commonly used.) Good luck with that...JoelWhy (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Balaban makes a distinction between conspiracy theory and conspiracy mentality which is the bridge that Bratich talks about. I should point out the "often" above is taken straight from the Oxford University Press reference:

conspiracy theory n (1909) the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties. Originally a neutral term, but more recent usage (dating from around the mid 1960s) is often somewhat derogatory, implying a paranoid tendency to see the hand of some malign covert agency in any unexplained event. The derivative conspiracy theorist is first recorded in the 1960s — Example — 1975 New York Times: Conspiracy theorists contend that two of the men have strong resemblances to E. Howard Hunt Jr. and Frank A Sturgis, convicted in the Watergate break-in.

Also regarding the malice/deception/malevolent end/nefarious end part, this kicks this in the head:

"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose. This definition is consistent with our intuitive responses to many cases. It fits paradigmatic conspiracy theories, such as those according to which Lee Harvey Oswald not acting alone kill John F. Kennedy and those according to which James Earl Ray did not acting alone kill Martin Luther King." (Coady David (2006) "Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate" Ashgate Publishing pg 2)

This word playing is getting really tiresome especially when the word I am using comes straight from Oxford University Press and Ashgate Publishing swift kicks part of the alternative version into the dustbin. Can we please use what I have provided and move this article forward? Please?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't 'kicked anything in the head.' Here's the publisher's description of the book you are referencing: "Conspiracy theories have a bad reputation. In the past, most philosophers have ignored the topic, vaguely supposing that conspiracy theories are obviously irrational and that they can be easily dismissed. The current philosophical interest in the subject results from a realisation that this is not so. Some philosophers have taken up the challenge of identifying and explaining the flaws of conspiracy theories. Other philosophers have argued that conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, and that conspiracy theorists do not deserve their reputation for irrationality. This book represents both sides of this important debate. Aimed at a broad philosophical community, including epistemologists, political philosophers, and philosophers of history, it represents a significant contribution to the growing interdisciplinary debate about conspiracy theories."

So, there you have it. Conspiracy theories have a bad reputation and most philosophers dismiss them as irrational. I take this one step further -- most people, period dismiss them as irrational, because as the phrase is used, it refers to nutty conspiracies. Unless you want to argue that most philosophers tend to dismiss all conspiracies as irrational, the book you are citing supports my inclusion. Your definition muddies the definition of how the phrase is primarily used.JoelWhy (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Uh that is not what it states.

"In the past, most philosophers have ignored the topic, vaguely supposing that conspiracy theories are obviously irrational and that they can be easily dismissed." Past tense and even then it was "vaguely supposing"

"The current philosophical interest in the subject results from a realization that this is not so." Present tense. This clearly states that the old past view is now seen as incorrect.

"Some philosophers have taken up the challenge of identifying and explaining the flaws of conspiracy theories. Other philosophers have argued that conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, and that conspiracy theorists do not deserve their reputation for irrationality." Again present tense.

So we are seeing philosophers waking up to the reality that "Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine massacre", "the Mob killed Hoffa and buried him someplace:, and the "Nazis set the Reichstag fire" are conspiracy theories proving that not all conspiracy theories are from the land of the irrational.

Furthermore I said the malice/deception/malevolent end/nefarious end part in John Shandy's version is what got kicked in the head not that is didn't have a bad rep. Remember the version I gave says "it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories."

Again I point to Knight's 2003 Conspiracy theories in American history ABC-CLIO where the Sicilian Mafia (pg 451) and Moon Hoax conspiracy theories are less then 50 pages from each other. Warranted (rational) and unwarranted (irrational) in the same book and both conspiracy theories.

I have to ask, are you guys actually reading what I actually post or what you think I am posting? There seems to be huge disconnect with some of your arguments.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can post dozens of articles discussing "conspiracy theories" exclusively as the term is ordinarily used. There are probably scores out there. You can become as entrenched as you like in your position, but trying to argue that the phrase is not primarily used to describe fringe theories is an untenable position.JoelWhy (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb, I don't see how that Coady cite kicks anything in the head; it is one source and Coady says often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose. (Emphasis mine.) There's no contradiction here with what most other scholars have said in covering the deceptive/nefarious/sinister aspect. The Ayto cite is good, but may I point out that it defines conspiracy theory as the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties? Then, what is a conspiracy? Is it a plot by interested parties to: commit a legal act, commit a nice gesture, commit a non-sinister act? People needn't conspire to do such things, so of course not. A conspiracy, in criminal or civil law contexts, is a plot to commit some illegal action or otherwise use legal action to reach illegal results, or in politics to usurp or overthrow governments or other establishments. From Merriam-Webster, conspire: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement. So, where is the contradiction here with malevolence/deceit/wrongfulness/nefariousness/sinister? John Shandy` • talk 16:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, I have no idea what your position is.

A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories.(20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.; Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.; Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2, 140; Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66; Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94)"

Kindly explain how the bolded part differs from what you are saying. If it doesn't differ then pray tell just what are you arguing for? This is a prime exmaple of the disconnect I was talking about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I am fine with the definition, replacing the word "often" with "usually" or "primarily" (or something to that effect.)JoelWhy (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And as I stated the "often" comes straight from the Oxford University Press reference. Are you saying Oxford University Press doens't known what it is talking about?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Which I think neatly demonstrates the nature of this impasse: e.g. Joel you are ignoring all evidence counter to your own understanding, even when it exist in your own quote, and even when it comes from a reliable and authoritative cited source (Oxford University Press). So... Can we not just do as Brucegrubb has suggested and move on wuith his proposal. JoelWhy, your own quote actually demonstrates against your own argument, viz. it shows that there are some philosophers who have argued conspiracy theories do not deserve their bad reputation, nor deserve a reputation for irrationality and that there are two sides to this important debate. Therefore NPOV requires that this wiki article should reflect that and should NOT be skewed to present ONLY one of these two current views as if it were the only correct one. JohnShandy and JoelWhy, you do appear to me to be arguing for that there is 'only one correct and current viewpoint'. You might not agree with this contradictory view, but we all know that our own personal opinions on all this should not trump reliable secondary sources, which is what I feel you perhaps unwittingly and persistently pushing for.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not about my personal opinion. The definition provided just doesn't square with reality. Again, there are dozens of articles discussing "conspiracy theories" almost exclusively in the context of crazy theories. This is just a matter of standard usage. And, that is precisely why I am saying that the definition provided above only works if you say "usually" or "primarily".

Let's just try a real world example. On the current page for The Holocaust, the opening sentence states "The Holocaust...was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory." Please go to that page and try to change it to "The Holocaust...is a conspiracy theory regarding' the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory." If this phrase is routinely used to reference real conspiracies, you should have no trouble whatsoever incorporating the phrase into the article.

Or, if you want to apply this only to plausible theories, even likely theories, as opposed to fringe theories, try going to the Osama Bin Laden page and stating that "Conspiracy theorists note that on May 2, 2011, bin Laden was shot and killed inside a private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs and CIA operatives in a covert operation ordered by United States President Barack Obama."JoelWhy (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But Joel, what you or I "say" isn't relevant. That would be originial research. It's what the sources say that counts. And the Oxford Unniversity Press says "often". So your reason "why I am saying that the definition provided above only works if you say 'usually' or 'primarily'..." is fine as your opinion, but this isn't a debating society. Wiki editors must follow what reliable 2ndary sources say. Regarding your opinion of whether something "squares with reality" or not, “The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth” WP:TRUE. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"let us not deceive ourselves in thinking that calling something a conspiracy theory is simply a neural description of a type of account. We know it also a term of derision, disqualification, and dismissal…onspiracy theories…are mundane and pervasive. But defining conspiracy theories in this legalistic manner is both semiotically dissonant and highly selective. Conspiracy theories could have this meaning in a neutral marketplace of idea; they could be one kind of descriptive narrative among many. But this is not the case. Conspiracy theories exist as a category not just of description but of disqualification." Bratich, Jack (2008). Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. State University of New York Press. p. 240. ISBN 0791473341.(emphasis in original text)

This ignores context of Bratich which I gave way back on 27 August 2011 (Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_14#New_lead_-_consensus_and_undos):

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

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

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

Put back into the larger context Bratich is not quite saying what the "let us not deceive ourselves..." passage implies he is saying. In context, Bratich makes it clear that Conspiracy theory has two meanings: the irrational seen in paranoid style, political paranoia, and conspiracism side and the rational academic side seen with onspiratology, conspiracy research, and conspiracy account. When one uses the term one is on the bridge between the rational and irrational.

Later on he even spells it out: "The definition of conspiracy theory, which inaugurates this book "on" conspiracy theory, is precisely part of the class of interpretive forces" (Bratich pg 6)

While not exactly reliable Robert Lockwood Mills' Conscience of a Conspiracy Theorist also goes into good and bad conspiracy theories.

Bratich acknowledges that some academics have no problems calling ideas like the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag fire "conspiracy theory" (see Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457 for an example)while others avoid the term like the plague because thanks to the media it is more often used to denote off the wall totally nuts ideas.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. He is unequivocally stating in the book that this is the generally understood meaning of the phrase. There's no way you can read his work and come away thinking otherwise.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As Mystichumwipe said above "you are ignoring all evidence counter to your own understanding" reading things into the passages that simple are not there. Kathryn S. Olmsted's Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 (also an Oxford University Press book) states:

"A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven. Scholars refer to the tendency to see conspiracies everywhere as conspiracism, and this tendency long ago spread from the margins into the main body of American political culture. Government officials, even presidents, sometimes propose conspiracy theories, giving official sanction to the paranoid interpretation of history."--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you are cherry picking passages out and ignoring the larger context. The entire intro of the book is explaining how the phase is generally understood to be used in dismissing the claimed conspiracy. This isn't a few isolated passages; rather, it's strewn throughout. You kept harping on a dictionary definition that comports with your understanding of the term. I've brought you a scholarly work that delves into the depths of the term, and provides an understanding that virtually anyone you would meet on the street would recognize. This phrase is used again and again and again in the media, in films, in books, etc to refer to fringe theories. This is the primary meaning of the phrase. Trying to manipulate the phrase here to make it seem respectable to believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that JFK was killed by the aliens from Roswell isn't going to work.JoelWhy (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To JoelWhy, I don't think this is about "trying to... make it seem respectable. Its about trying to have an article that does not focus soley upon the extreme wacko usage of the term so exclusively AS IF that was the ONLY 'correct' usage. Instead we allow the article to acknowledge there was and still is a neutral usage also, one that we all agree has become largely superceded in popular culture, and acknowledges there are differences amongst philosophers and political scientists about this usage. I.e NPOV"

To John Shandy, you asked what was the contradiction between "an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement" with the words 'malevolent', 'nefarious', and sinister'? The contradicion as I see it is that an unlawful act need not be malevolent nor nefarious. And the problem with that definition is that it doesn't cover theories of conspiracy that do not involve such extreme motivations. E.g. the consp. th. that "Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin," is neither nefarious nor malevolent (nor even unlawful?. In that case would it be just 'secret'?). The definition we have in the article must be able to include all examples of its usage. Which is why this article can be improved by NOT just concentrating upon sources which focus upon a definition alluding to only the most extreeeeeme examples of consp. theory, and discusses them as if that exaggerated definition were the only correct current usage. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Top-Secret Warplanes of Area 51 Popular Science shows warrentted Conspiracy theories about what goes on at Area 51 and fits Olmsted's definition. Can we move forward on this article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To JoelWhy and John Shandy (and Jayjg?). As Area 51 IS the subject of conspiracy theories according to the wiki page on it, do you therefore acknowledge that this example is just one of many (see examples provided previously) that demonstrates the definition that you have argued for, and the subsection 'usage' of this article as it is at present does NOT allow for that?

In other words, do you agree that the Area 51 example contradicts the recent JohnShandy definition proposal and 2.) demonstrates the flaw of this article at present (viz. it focuses too much upon the derogatory definition/usage as if that was the only correct usage). --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The term is primarily used to refer to fringe theories. So, your area 51 example is irrelevant. (But, for the record, I don't recall hearing Area 51 being referred to as a CT other than in the context of aliensj/alien technology.) You want me to start listing CTs that deal with fringe theories, complete with references? You guys have dug around to find a small handfull used in a rare context. The term is used so frequently to refer to fringe theories, I could find you 50 in 10 minutes. And, again, I challenge you to try to slip the phrase into the Bin Laden page. If the term is used so often to refer to likely theories, you should have no trouble doing so.JoelWhy (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that answers my questions. Mentioning Area 51 is just taking one clear example to show a broader point. If you look at the Area 51 article you'll see it states there that it is "...the frequent subject of conspiracy theories". So how is that "irrelevant", as you claim?

To repeat: how do the Area 51 conspiracy theories fit under the definition of 'malevolent', 'nefarious', 'sinister', 'loony', and 'fringe', etc?

I don't see how it would help to compile competing lists of 'wacko, fringe' theories versus ' rational' accepted theories and see which is the longest list. I'm not arguing about some sort of contest of usage. I am a bit surprised that you haven't understood that yet? Its about about having an article that fairly and without bias describes and covers BOTH current definitions and usages and that accurately represents the usage of this term worldwide. No-one is arguing here about 'the breadth of usage' (JohnShandy) nor how "frequently of usage referring to fringe theories" (JoelWhy). Neither of you seem to be really engaging with what BruceG and myself are arguing for. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you really aren't making your point clear. Area 51 is the subject of a number of CTs involving government cover ups, aliens, etc. However, that the area is a government facility that is secretly used to test new technologies is not something I would consider a CT. Otherwise, you would label everything the government does in secret a CT. The definition I am arguing for would specify that the phrase is primarily used to refer to fringe and nefarious conspiracies, but also may be used to refer to more mundane/plausible/and perhaps likely conspiracies. That would be fair and w/o bias, and most importantly, accurate.JoelWhy (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, based on the following definitions I don't follow your logic:

• "A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven." (Olmsted}

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

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

• A conspiracy theory originally meant the "theory" that an event or phenomenon was the result of conspiracy between interested parties; however, from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories.((20th Century Words (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.)

No one is saying that the term conspiracy_theory is not "often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories" but rather that is not all it is used to denote.

Also your comment of "Otherwise, you would label everything the government does in secret a CT." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what conspiracy theories are--they are not the act itself but a theory to explain observed events. Some are well grounded in rationality and others are off the wall insane.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

To BruceGrubb: This sentence "...is not something I would consider a CT", also makes it clear why I do not think we are really engaged any longer in a genuine wiki article discussion, but instead against someone pushing their own personal point of view, which also - as you have shown - is a faulty one ("...shows a fundamental misunderstanding"). As we do not need to fit this article around any editor's personal viewpoint, and as you (BruceGrubb) have now presented the same argument repeatedly with an increasingly impressive collection of reliable and authoritative secondary sources for it, I think you should go ahead and make the changes agreed upon, as I don't see there being any genuine wiki arguments presented against them.

So, concerning the article: I would like to suggest we look at the USAGE subsection. What we seem to be in agreement over, needs to be clarified here, as at present the reader would think ALL conspiracy theories are ONLY paranoid, nutbar, malevolent, fringe theories. At present it isn't apparent until the article comes to the third and fourth subsections that there are STILL two definitions and usages with the perjorative one gaining precedence in popular culture since the sixties. If we can adress that with some changes maybe we can then delete the "worldwide view of the subject" tag at the beginning. What do you think?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going with WP:BOLD and go with the intro I provided as it captures the best information we have at this time--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way before reverting anything bring it to talk, first. Especially when you are reverting stuff backed up by such publishers as Oxford University Press Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell. Because of this revert with no talk and the long debate regarding the NPOV of this article I have slapped a POV tag on it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I think that is a great improvement.

I have made a few subtle changes as you had the same information repeated twice; once in the lead and then immediately again in the Usage section. Have a look and see what you think--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Making changes after failing to reach a consensus is not bold; it's just ignoring consensus to put things the way you like. I will review the changes tomorrow and make my changes based on how I feel they should read. If you're not happy with it, we'll go back to the status quo before you decided with these changes. Nice try, though...JoelWhy (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONS expressly states "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's norms." The key word there is "legitimate".

Again WP:CON clearly states "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Quality not quantity determines Consensus and so far the arguments against these changes appear to have poor quality.

Note that "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since Loremaster and Mystichumwipe (see ]) did NOT disputed or revert my changes (but rather cleaned them up) this claim to consensus for the old version is demonstrably false.

The fact that as noted in the University of Missouri Press book The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler there are some scholars that have no problem with the idea that the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag fire being called or referred to as a "conspiracy theory" proves the term is not always used in a negative manner.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You have continually argued against a straw man. I have stated time and time again that the proper definition should say the term is primarily used to refer to fringe theories. I say that, because IT IS PRIMARILY USED TO REFER TO FRINGE THEORIES. I'm not sure how much planer I can state that -- and, I find the arguments against this fact to be patently ridiculous. When you hear the phrase "conspiracy theory" it is usually in the context of a fringe theory. You know it and I know it. Everyone knows it. I understand why 9/11 conspiracy theorists want to to pervert the definition so that they look less irrational, but I can't comprehend why anyone else is continuing with this line of nonsense.JoelWhy (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, your position is getting less understandable by the minute. The version I provided expressly stated "from the mid-1960s onward, it is often used to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational theories" which Mystichumwipe changed to "It has also become a term used dismissively to refer to any speculation that is considered unworthy of serious consideration" to which I have restored the word "often" to.

AFAICT No one here is saying that conspiracy theory is NOT often used in a negative manner but rather that not is all it is used for. When you have things like a scaled down version of the General Motors streetcar conspiracy listed with with the New World Order (conspiracy theory) (as with Keeley 1999) you have to acknowledge that while the majority of conspiracy theories are off in the ozone NOT ALL OF THEM ARE.

Explain how per Olmsted, Hodapp, Knight, and Ayto the following are not conspiracy theories:

• Al Capone was behind the Saint Valentine's Day massacre

• Area 51 is being used to test top secret fighter craft of purely terrestrial origin.

• Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location

• The Nazis set the Reichstag fire

• The Unites States Government is using the top secret nature of certain bases to cover up violations of health, safety, and dumping regulations occurring on those bases (one of the claims held against Area 51 I might add)

• Richard III of England was vilified via Black propaganda by the Tudor dynasty to justify their taking of his throne.

All of these in one way or another fit the definitions given by Olmsted, Hodapp, Knight, and Ayto so how are they not conspiracy theories?

The efforts of Parish and Keeley show that current scholars are trying to come up with some way to separate the few "rational" conspiracy theories out there from the newsgrabbing generally irrational lot. Parish's solution is to call the former "Theories of Conspiracy" while Keeley adds the terms warranted and unwarranted to separate the two but as Keeley notes in his abstract "There is no a priori method for distinguishing warranted conspiracy theories (say, those explaining Watergate) from those which are unwarranted (say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)"--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My position is less understandable by the minute?! It appears the big problem here is that you're not actually reading any of my comments. The first comment I posted in response to this definition was "If we changed 'often' to 'usually', I'm good with that definition." I then wrote "I believe you are taking things one step too far with your definition. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is primarily used to connote crazy conspiracies." I later wrote "Your definition muddies the definition of how the phrase is primarily used." Starting to see a trend here? I could go on but maybe now you get the point. How can you possibly claim my arguments are weak and therefore you've formed a consensus when you clearly have not read any of my arguments!

In any case, there are 5 people who have actively been arguing related to this definition, two of whom are against it. THAT IS NOT A CONSENSUS. You've not being bold, you're engaging in disruptive editing.JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, you have to cite sources for your argument. Your personal opinion (as with all of us) does not count. BruceGrubb and I have provided verfiable sources for his/our argument. Whereas you have been ignoring our points and repeatedly expressing your personal opinion about this topic as some kind of obvious absolute truth. You and JohnShandy have not even been adressing the disagreement but instead are arguing against a strawman of 'breadth/frequency of usage' which is NOT nor ever has been in disagreement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Below, I'm actually repeating one of the references I previously provided. And, breadth/frequency of usage is the only thing I've been arguing since we started this latest rendition of the conversation last Thursday. It's not a straw man -- it's the entire point of my argument! If it's not in dispute, than let's fix the article to reflect that matterJoelWhy (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The perspective in this article is a US one and does not represent a world view?

As a European, a big part of the problem with the slant of this page that I am pointing to in the previous discussion topics might well be that it concentrates too heavily on an American viewpoint. Barkun's book - which so heavily influenced/s the first part of the article and seems to form the basis for the viewpoint of JohnShandy and others - is an American.

From a book review of his work 'A Culture of Conspiracy' this is written "a new style of conspiracy thinking has recently arisen, and how this phenomenon relates to larger changes in American culture. This book is the most comprehensive and authoritative examination of contemporary American conspiracism to date. "

If we make the adjustments that I and two other editors have been asking for, we could then perhaps remove the globalisation tag that states: "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.". Thoughts on that anyone?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and Kathryn S. Olmsted's Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I To 9/11 (also an Oxford University Press book) touched on this special relationship on page 3.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out here that the work and research that BruceGrubb has been doing on this topic is outstanding in my view. I completely agree with all the changes he has made so far, that have considerably improved the article in terms of a neutral point of view, and of the overall quality of the article, making it much more suitable for the removal of 'American specific' tag that is the header of this section. He has brought overwhelmingly reliable sources in support for all the changes that he haa made so far, and that considerably improve and enhance the overall quality of information available on WP, in my view. Kudos to BruceGrubb! warshy 14:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources, while reliable, do not necessarily support the changes, which hinge on "rebalancing" the points of view (or rather, usages) of conspiracy theory, to portray the most generic and inclusive definition as the prevalent one (which is especially great if you're looking to make edits like this). BruceGrubb has talent for finding good sources and servicing us with selected quotes, but I find it interesting that when taken back into their context, as Xenophrenic pointed out, and as myself pointed out, do not support this "rebalancing" effort (which itself ignores GEVAL and UNDUE). They also ignore the malevolence of goals and power/cunningness of conspirators characterized by numerous scholars. Regarding the American systemic bias, Barkun might have great influence, but the majority of sources I have obtained that we've discussed on this talk page are written by American authors/scholars or deal with conspiracy theory in its American context. The sources often acknowledge that conspiracy theories are not exclusively an American phenomenon and touch on various aspects of them. Perhaps if these were cited more, the American-specific tag would either be senseless or otherwise alleviated.

Nevertheless, I think it is time to permanently bow out of this prolonged content dispute. I no longer understand how BruceGrubb is seeing support for giving more weight to the most generic and inclusive definition of conspiracy theory as the prevailing usage and characterization, and I can no longer assume good faith on the part of Mystichumwipe per his attempt to edit 9/11 conspiracy theories to label the official account of 9/11 a conspiracy theory followed by his proposed edits here as early as August or September that would legitimize such a labeling (and his expressed advocacy of such a fringe point of view here and elsewhere). I simply can't contribute anything further as it will be smothered with copy/pastes of the same contextless quotes and GEVALs. Plus, with real-life issues presently knocking at my door, it is right for me to bow out. I don't think the points of view expressed by most of the scholarly sources we've looked at are being appropriately channeled into this article, but the new consensus (of BruceGrubb and Mystichumwipe, and Mystylplx) seems to think they are, and so is moving forward anyway. So be it. John Shandy` • talk 17:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But what exactly was wrong with the academic study of Steven Sampson of Lund University, Sweden as a source? That reliable secondary source represents a European perspective! You appear to be shooting yourself in the foot. . "An ethical issue for anthropologists is whether we should accept as simply another "alternative" view, or try to criticize and counteract them in the name of science and reason."

And again who is "giving more weight" to anything?! :-o

The only problem as I see it is that you and Joel appear to want ONLY and exclusively to discuss the perjorative usage AS IF that was the ONLY one. Is that correct? If so that is unacceptable for the reasons (with sources) given over and over again.

If instead you merely think the article as it is now gives "more weight" to a neutral minority usage, please quote where it does so. I think it doesn't.

Just for the record, it is NOT my intent to make it do so despite your repeatedly suggesting so. This has NEVER been about making "...the most generic and inclusive definition as the prevalent one." That is a strawman which has repeatedly been explained to you (sadly to no avail). The aim has been merely to acknowledges that there has and still DOES exist a minority neutral usage and to more clearly distinguish when the article is discussing which. Do you really have a problem with that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bring reverts to talk and stop removing the POV tag

Tom harrison and Calton, your reverts without any meaningful discussion on the talk pages with what appears to be a misunderstanding of consensus is annoying. Stop it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way Tom, that doesn't mean cluttering my personal talk page with your nonsense in an effort to get your way. I should note that I have used this article as examples to Jimbo Wales for needed clarification on VnT and consensus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It also doesn't mean to go crying to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring in an effort to get your way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bruce, you were engaging in edit warring and there was no consensus. That's not the way to go about improving an article. I recognize that you are editing in good faith. But, this isn't helping matters. (For the record, Bruce has been banned for 24 hours.)

In any case, I think we need to go back to square 1 and try to iron this out. I know my position is not so far from Bruce's, so I believe with a bit of compromise, we can get there. Also, as for the American-centric view, it's hard to say. The page should be English-centric, in the sense that we're dealing with a particular phrase, so I have no idea how the phrase "conspiracy theory" is viewed by those speaking Swahili (or, if it's even a phrase that exists in that language.) I have found one source that is dealing with CTs in the middle east, and contrasts that with by saying conspiracy theories are “the preserve of the alienated and the fringe” in the West. Well, "the West" covers all English speaking countries. But, we obviously shouldn't make any firm decisions until Bruce returns.JoelWhy (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What, if anything are your specific issues with the article as it now stands? As I see it the changes are totally in accordance with the vast amount of sources that BruceGrubb has collected and cited AND with the sources that already existed in the article. So I don't see any need for discord. The article now appears to me to be accord with everything that you have been arguing for PLUS it now also makes a clear difference between the two definitions and usages in accord with what I and two other editors have long been arguing for. So could you spell out what you see is problematical or contradictory in the changes that have been made? And can you do so in specific relation to ALL the sources cited. I think it would help if you do that without mentioning a personal opinion about what you personally think the usage and definition should be. I think it would help if we keep any further conversation very firmly grounded ONLY upon wiki criteria and their application. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

My problem from the get go has been that the definition we currently use implies that the term "conspiracy theory" is used as frequently to refer to "legitimate" theories as to crank ones. The reality is that the term is primarily used to refer to crank theories. It's a simple, yet important distinction. References:

Pipes, Daniel (1998). The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312176880. Unlike the West, where conspiracy theories are today the preserve of the alienated and the fringe, in the Middle East they enjoy large, mainstream audiences.

Stooksbury, Clark. "Review of Kathryn Olmsted's Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11". Chronicles. Though most conspiracy theories are nonsense, Real Enemies demonstrates that actors in and around American government have been engaged in conspiracies against the public interest for decades. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

Bratich, Jack (2008). Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture. State University of New York Press. p. 240. ISBN 0791473341. let us not deceive ourselves in thinking that calling something a conspiracy theory is simply a neural description of a type of account. We know it also a term of derision, disqualification, and dismissal…onspiracy theories…are mundane and pervasive. But defining conspiracy theories in this legalistic manner is both semiotically dissonant and highly selective. Conspiracy theories could have this meaning in a neutral marketplace of idea; they could be one kind of descriptive narrative among many. But this is not the case. Conspiracy theories exist as a category not just of description but of disqualification.(emphasis in original text)

I can get more references with the same understanding about how the phrase is primarily used.JoelWhy (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, regarding what you think is wrong with the definition and usage as it is now after the changes. I understand that you think the primary usage is of paramount importance and that is the crank/fringe usage. But your reply that the current changes "implies that the term 'conspiracy theory' is used as frequently..." etc., doesn't seem to me to be warranted. Where is that implied? We have both told you that that has never been contested and I fail to see where the article (as it is now) disputes or misinform about that. If you think otherwise can you point to something in the article that you think gives a false impression about that?

Secondly, the definition I recently added to the lead I think now clearly refers to and explains ALL conspiracy theory definitions (as I think it should). It encompasses ALL usages of the term and it does so without making any distinction of either 'neutral' or 'perjorative' usages. If you disagree can you quote something specifically? It then makes clear in the second sentence the distinction that you are arguing for. So I don't see what is the problem with the lead? Can you explain please quoting what you see as problematical in the sentences?

Finally, the usage section now makes clear that there is a dual usage/meaning: a.) an original one that has a bad reputation and is less used and b.) the usage that you are arguing for. So can you explain exactly what is your problem with that? Is it that you think it shouldn't mention at all the neutral definition and should exclusively explain the perjorative usage? If so, then your argument is not acceptable because of the mass of sources that have been presented that prove that there is NOT ONLY ONE accepted current usage/definition, not now nor ever has been. And ironically I think all your citations actually support that argument that we have been making, viz.that there are TWO usages/definitions and the article should make that clear and distinguish between them. Which I think has succesfully now been done. Your first quote makes that clear but also states that there isn't a consensus worldwide. Which again supports the argument that you are pushing a largely American/Western viewpoint which seems unnecessary and goes against a neutrality of viewpoint. And anyway, is a viewpoint - that to repeat again - is not nor ever has been disputed, not in the talkpage nor the article. So what is the problem? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out even after the ban no reverts to the version I reverted to happened Misplaced Pages:Con#Reaching_consensus_through_editing states quite clearly "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." In short per WP:CON the editor requesting the ban agreed with the changes I reverted to by doing nothing!--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The current lead states "In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events. It has also become a term often used dismissively to refer to any speculation that is considered unworthy of serious consideration." First of all, these two sentences should be merged, as they are interrelated. Secondly, my problem, as I've pointed out throughout this entire discussion, is with the definition stating "often". In football games, the underdog "often" wins. "Often" could mean 15% of the time in that context. The word "often" should be replaced with the word "primarily". I have provided citations for this. I have not argued for the complete exclusion of the far less-frequently used definition of this term, so I won't address those points you raise. I simply want to state as clearly as possible that the primary use is related to fringe beliefs. The alternative definition warrants a mention, but not a major focus of this article.

So, I would have the lead read like this: The term conspiracy theory refers to any hypothesis alleging members of a coordinated group worked secretly together to commit illegal, sinister or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. The term is primarily used to dismissively refer to fringe beliefs related to historical or current events which contradict the generally accepted explanation for the event. (We actually could leave off the part that says "which contradict the generally accepted explanation for the event.", as it becomes redundant by the word "fringe".)

Obviously, we can play around with some of the language, but the 2 major points are extremely important: (1) The phrase is not usually used to refer to more accepted/plausible theories; and (2) the theories that are primarily referred to as CTs are fringe theories. The lead does not make that clear. 'Contradicting the mainstream explanation' is like saying 'using leaches contradicts mainstream medicine.' Yes, it's technically true, but it hardly captures the reality of what we're talking about.JoelWhy (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your previous reply was that the current changes "implies that the term 'conspiracy theory' is used as frequently..." etc., I explained that doesn't seem to me to be warranted and I asked you, where is that implied? You haven't answered this question. Please could you so so. Otherwise it again appears you are just arguing from some personal viewpoint that is detached from the actuality of the article.

Using "primarily" instead of "often" would contradict the Oxford University press (which is the first cited source), as has previously been explained to you. The Oxford University press represents a non-American perspective and is an extremely authoritative source on English language usage. Do you have an issue with using that as a source?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not being sufficiently clear. To state this as simply as possible, "often" is too vague in this definition. "Often" could mean 20%, or 50%, or 95%. So, when it says CT "has also become a term often used dismissively," it does not provide the reader with sufficient context. The lead should clearly and succinctly explain that the the phrase is chiefly used to refer to fringe theories.

And, "primarily" instead of "often" does not contradict the Oxford definition; "Often" is a vague term. In this context, it could mean "primarily". It could mean a lot of things (as I explained above.) Primarily instead of often clarifies this point. I don't have an issue with using this dictionary definition as a source. But, there's no reason to use it as the only source. I have provided several citations which support the term "primarily". And, as you have stated repeatedly, no one is disputing this fact. Well, then no one should be arguing against this small, yet critical change.

Finally, with regard to the "American" issue, again, this is the English language Wiki dealing with a phrase used in English. There is no reason to explain how the phrase is interpreted in other languages. I am certain there are plenty of languages that have no phrase that parallels the phrase "conspiracy theory". I have seen zero evidence presented which states that this understanding of the meaning of the phrase is different in other English speaking nations. And, I have presented one citation which specifically states that the phrase is typically used to mean a fringe theory in the "West" (which covers all nations where English is the predominant language, I believe.) So, unless sources are provided which contradict this, I see this entire line of argument as an unnecessary distraction. However, if you have references which would point me to a different conclusion, I would be happy to review them.

You're making yourself perfectly clear. But the disagreement is about what is perceived as a slant you wish to impose, viz. that you want the article to reflect your personal viewpoint that conspiracy theories are loony fringe wacko theories and the 'correct' position is to regard them as such. That has been the slant of the article for months and no clear distinction was made between the two usages. In support of that Jayjg even denied twice that there were two usages. That distinction has now been clarified and that slant has now been corrected. You are attempting to revert that by repeatedly ignoring specific questions put to you. You are pushing the word 'primarily' in an attempt to contradict material backed up by such publishers as Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, Ashgate Publishing, Peter Lang, and Wiley-Blackwell, as has been pointed out to you previously. You have even provided a source IN ENGLISH which contradicts your own argument about usage world-wide in non-english speaking countries. You wish to ignore that by pedanctic arguments about wiki english. But... there is a reason to explain how the phrase is used in other languages if that is discussed in English sources. Which as you have demonstrated, is the case here. English is used worldwide now, due in part to the internet, and this term is used In English in non-english speaking European countries. Finally, if you really think that, "primarily" instead of "often" does not contradict the cited Oxford University Press source, then you appear to be in some form of denial. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of explaining this to you. I can't tell if you're being purposefully obtuse or are simply not taking the time to carefully read my postings.JoelWhy (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am actually reading your postings very thoroughly and carefully. And I think I am answering them quite clearly and specifically. The problem perhaps is that you just don't like the content of the reply. I can understand that. But please accept its not because I don't understand your viewpoint. Its because I disagree with it, for the reasons that I've tried to explain. PLUS you still have avoided the question that I have asked you now twice (any chance of an answer?).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Which question have I "avoided"? And, I think you need to look up the definition of the word "contradicts" before you move on to trying to define "conspiracy theory".JoelWhy (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• Skepticism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Top-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press