Talk:Conspiracy theory

Definitions of conspiracy theory

"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)

"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)

"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(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.)

"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." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.

This POV pushing by certain editors that ignores these definitions needs to stop.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• For Dummies, tertiary source, we should not rely on it if we have secondary sources.
• Conspiracy theories in American history, tertiary source, we should not rely on it if we have secondary sources, also not a definition of conspiracy theory--Watergate is a proven conspiracy that serves to validate conspiracy theories, but the latter is not defined.
• Bratich is good, acknowledges both meanings.
• Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom, asks a question regarding conventional wisdom, but it's not a definition of the term by Pidgen, he appears to be quoting someone else. Posing a question in this way is not defining the term.
• Cody's good.

Now, I presented a long list of definitions, too. We have lots of definitions, and endlessly repeating the same ones over and over does us no good. We know what the term means. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Pirdgen is not "quoting someone else" which you would have known if you had actually read the thing which is very easy since the entire "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom: article is online thanks to something called Project MUSE; Scholarly Journals online Look at these quotes from Pirdgen:

"The conventional wisdom on conspiracy theories is that they ought not to be believed. To call something “a conspiracy theory” is to suggest that it is intellectually suspect; to call someone “a conspiracy theorist” is to suggest that he is irrational, paranoid or perverse.(For a detailed study of this polemical tactic see Husting and Orr (2007))"

"I advocate the alternative strategy of not dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand, simply because they are conspiracy theories, but of being prepared to investigate them and even to believe them if that is what the evidence indicates. Perhaps some conspiracy theories are too way out to be worthy of investigation, but this is not because they are conspiracy theories but because the specific conspiracies that they postulate are absurd or improbable." (pg 221)--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so he acknowledges that the common meaning is pejorative, and he falls into the camp that wants to redefine the term to a non-pejorative meaning, and thus is a minority view, which we should not emphasize in the lede as if it were common usage. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the point he is trying to make is that some "crank" theories turn out to be true and that we should acknowledge this. I would agree - but only if we can find examples to list in the article. Personally, I can't think of any - unless you want to go back to Galileo Galilei - though his trouble with the church arose from his writings which appeared to attack the Pope and not from his heliocentric theory. Rklawton (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually a list of warrented conspiracy theories (some proven some not) can be hammered from the sources previously presented in the talk pages:

Business Plot (Knight pg 625)

CIA drug trafficking (Knight pg 237)

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

General Motors streetcar conspiracy (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate)

Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location (Knight pg 319)

Iran-Contra Affair (Knight pg 349)

The Nazis set the Reichstag fire (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)

Operation Gladio (Knight pg 231)

Operation Mockingbird (Knight pg 486)

Operation Northwoods (Knight pg 117)

Project MKULTRA (Knight pg 490)

Sicilian Mafia (Knight pg 451)

Tuskegee syphilis experiment (Knight pg 38, 45, 538)

Watergate (Knight pg 725)

Knight, Peter Conspiracy theories in American history

It is very easy to see warrented conspiracy theories if one knows how to look. Unlike unwarrented conspiracy theories you don't need huge group with superhuman powers and-or abilities.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus"

User:Mystylplx has inserted BruceGrubb's lede, arguing that consensus "doesn't exist".[1] I would agree with him that consensus doesn't exist, in that consensus doesn't exist for inserting BruceGrubb's new lede. The only editors inserting it are, in fact, Mystylplx (twice [2][3]) and BruceGrubb (seven times [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). In contrast, the insertion of BruceGrubb's new lede has been reverted by five editors: me (thrice [11][12][13]), User:Nuujinn (thrice [14][15][16]), User:PhGustaf (once [17]), User:Tom harrison (twice [18][19]), and User:Xenophrenic (twice [20][21]), and opposed by User:John Shandy` on the Talk: page.[22]. The current lede is actually that of User:Black Kite, which was confirmed in this discussion. Can BruceGrubb or Mystylplx justify their continued attempts to edit-war in BruceGrubb's lede, despite their quite obviously being no consensus to do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your math must be off. You've got myself and BruceG inserting it 9 times and having it reverted 11 times. And why are you accusing us of edit warring when you essentially admit you've been edit warring as well? If putting it in twice (myself) counts as edit warring then reverting it three times (yourself) certainly does as well. Mystylplx (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone also inserted it twice after logging out. Was that you? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Was it you?Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't ask ridiculous questions. BruceGrubb, was it you? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Flaying around by the desperate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the math, Jayjg's point is well taken. We had a discussion, the general consensus was for Black Kite's version, and there's been no change in consensus since then. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If that consensus existed once, obviously it no longer exists.Mystylplx (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

However, consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But in this case, it clearly hasn't changed - there are still only two editors trying to push in this new lead, against at least six who object to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I count four in favor in the discussion. Myself, BruceGrubb, mystichumwipe and Rklawton. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Mystylplx (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton hasn't said much on the topic, and there are still only two editors willing to try to force this into the lede: you and BruceGrubb. In any event, there's still obviously no consensus to insert a new definition. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to keep score at least keep score accurately. You can't count everyone who has expressed an opinion on the talk page, whether they've reverted or not, as being opposed, but discount those who have expressed an opinion on the talk page in favor because they haven't reverted. Anyway, I thought it was the quality of the arguments, not a vote, that is supposed to count. Taken together near all the arguments presented favor BruceG's version, even, bizarrely, when they are arguing against it. Mystylplx (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're basing this on "the quality of the arguments" then it's quite obvious there's no consensus for BruceGrubb's new version, because his arguments have all been debunked, and you haven't really made any arguments (or defended against any). Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So it's been debunked that prior to the mid 60's the term meant a theory about a conspiracy, but after that point it came to mean an irrational fringe theory? If that's the case I haven't seen it (and I've looked.) Most of the arguments, quite frankly, don't seem to be very rational. I suspect there's a subtext here that I'm missing that possibly has something to do with other articles on specific conspiracy theories and editors there wanting this article to say conspiracy theories are irrational? The odd thing is this article doesn't say that right now and BruceG's version does. Mystylplx (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to WP:RFC Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Conspiracy_theory_definition and get more community input but the general consensus is the referenced version is better but its wording needs work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the "general consensus" of you and Mystyplx. Of course, the five editors who keep reverting your unilateral insertions appear to disagree. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

He's right. I hadn't looked at the NPVN in a few days, and it's not getting much attention, but the few uninvolved editors who have commented are all in BruceG's favor. Mystylplx (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's misrepresented the NPVN discussion the way he has misrepresented the sources, then the actual consensus will undoubtedly be the exact opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from seeing for yourself. He posted a link just above. Mystylplx (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is counting, I have made two comments above to explain that the attempts to use some quaint definition of conspiracy theory in the lead are misguided. While it might be interesting to ponder why some think the lead of an article should start with a definition that would mislead readers, this is not the forum to do so, and the matter should be dropped. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is counting I've pointed out that the current lead is exactly that "quaint" definition and is the one everyone keeps reverting back to. It should also be pointed out that BruceG's version contains both the "quaint" definition and the more modern definition while the current version contains only the "quaint" definition. Nor do I think the meaning of the term prior to the mid 60's and for most of the time the term has been used qualifies it as "quaint." It might be interesting to ponder why some insist on reverting an edit on grounds that are even more true for the version they keep reverting back to. Mystylplx (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

just for the record, I only accepted BlackKite's lead suggestion (which was an amended version of my own previous edit) purely as a temporary solution until we had something better. When BruceGrubb's lead came along I voted for that as an improvement on Black Kite's lead. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead

I must admit I'm a bit puzzled by this. Here's the lead as it stands

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Notice there's no mention of any pejorative meaning. That lede defines it as simply a "theory about a conspiracy." BruceGrubb's most recent attempt is this:

A conspiracy theory in its original more neutral usage is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;"[1][2][3][4] but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.[5]

Notice that his version does include the pejorative meaning. Yet it was instantly reverted by Jayjg and then Tom Harrison. But let's look at some of their comments in the discussion:

He's cherry-picked sources to support his attempts to rehabilitate conspiracy theories. The term is generally used to indicate theories that nefarious cabals are secretly controlling or guiding significant world events. BruceGrubb wants to "normalize" the term and remove its negative connotations. Thus, he has attempted to find sources indicating that a "conspiracy theory" is merely a theory about a conspiracy - and because there have been many real conspiracies throughout history, rehabilitating the term "conspiracy theory" means that a conspiracy theory is no longer mere twaddle, but something that should be taken seriously. In reality, however, the vast majority of reliable sources, including those used in this article, view conspiracy theories as nonsense at best, and a symptom of mental illness at worst. Jayjg (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But we already know that BruceGrubb's lead doesn't summarize the entire article; the first and second sections, "Usage" and "Types", discuss the term in its common/negative/pejorative sense. So too do the fourth, fifth and sixth sections, "Controversy", "Conspiracism" and "Political Use". These five sections comprise over 95% of the article text. It is only the third section, "Proven conspiracies and conspiracy theories" – the one inserted by BruceGrubb – that discusses the term in the way that BruceGrubb's lede does. Furthermore, BruceGrubb's lede cites five different sources which are not cited elsewhere in the article, so we know that the material in it is not found elsewhere in the article. So, the question remains, what exactly does BruceGrubb's lede summarize? It appears that it summarizes perhaps 5% of the text, and even then, uses different sources. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On contrary, I've read both leads, and BruceGrubb's starts by emphasizing the tiny-minority non-pejorative sense, and then provides the common use as a minority alternative. This is quite the opposite of both the article and reality; the article itself devotes 95% of the text to discussing the term in its common/negative/pejorative sense. Furthermore, BruceGrubb's lede cites 5 sources usednowhere else in the article. There is no consensus for this obviously inappropriate change; rather than making inaccurate comments about me, please address the actual issues raised in my posts.Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the case that a conspiracy theory is any theory about a conspiracy. Conspiracy theory, both in popular understanding and in the academic literature, is a particular thing. Nuujinn's version better describes the consensus among academics and researchers. Tom Harrison Talk 13:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I see those. That's what make it look like cherry picking. No reasonable person could survey the literature and conclude that "conspiracy theory" was any theory involving a conspiracy. This looks like the result of searching for and then high-lighting references to support a pre-existing view. It has the effect of slanting the article and misinforming the reader. Tom Harrison Talk 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be arguing in favor of BruceGrubbs version, yet they keep reverting it. I can't help feel that maybe there's some personal animosity going on and it's the editor being reverted rather than the edit. The current lead is exactly what they say they don't want and BruceGrubbs is at least closer to what they say they do want, yet they just keep insistantly reverting him. Why? Mystylplx (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You're making unwarranted assumptions regarding motives, please stick to content, and please use diffs instead of quoting, as the latter makes it appear as if the editors you are quoting have just posted here. My take is that BruceGubb's version emphasizes the non-perjorative usage, since it was not in widespread use prior to the 1960s, and to juxtapose that with a strongly worded description of the pejorative creates undue weight. As I have said a number of times, we should focus on the article and when we're good there, work out the lede. I don't have a problem with others disagreeing with that approach, but insisting on including his version despite lack of consensus for it is not appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The current version emphasizes the non-pejorative meaning by only including the non-pejorative meaning. I don't understand your point about undue weight, are you saying his description of the pejorative meaning is too strongly worded? As for waiting on the lede till were "good" in the article... this is Wikipedia. The article will never be "finished". There's no sense waiting for something that's never going to happen to get the lead better. Mystylplx (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and IMHO this constant harping on waiting for something that will never happen comes off as a way to POV push the article; I saw this problem with the Jesus myth theory article and for much the same reason--failure by some editors to even acknowledge that there were different definitions even RS after RS was produced to show there were such differences.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is somehow part of an attempt to promote the 9/11 conspiracy theories, people should know that as a result of an arbitration case administrators can impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. I'd even dare to say what you are suggesting verges on a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think that is a hoot look at Jayjg's efforts to shut me up.

I should point out several other relevant points in that an arbitration case:

"2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content."

"Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique."

"20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15 (presented at length above) clearly states "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."

Please note that this agrees with the broad and neutral definitions of Hodapp, Knight, Bratich, Pigden, and Coady. Note that Ayto says that "conspiracy theory" is often used in the derogatory manner not that its is nearly always or majorly used in that way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't attempted to "shut you up" - feel free to put whatever you like on the article Talk: page. However, I am putting an end to your weeks-long slow edit-war. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement, "this agrees with the broad and neutral definitions of ... Pigden, and Coady" is incorrect, and grossly misrepresents their position. You completely neglect that these individuals first, and most clearly in their writings, acknowledge that the common and accepted definition of "conspiracy theory" describes an irrational hypothesis. In their attempted "defense" of conspiracy theories as a rational form of speculation, they have proposed the definitions you have mislabeled as "broad and neutral", but the authors themselves admit their proposed definitions are in the minority, out of the mainstream and even generally criticized by the masses. Not "broad and neutral" at all. Note: I don't have a problem with the body of the article including their minority view, but I disagree with using the lede of the article to inflate or misrepresent the legitimacy of those views, based on the sources provided. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How does the current lead describe an "irrational hypothesis?" The lead as it stands basically is exactly what you are objecting to in BruceG's version. The difference is BruceG's version also includes the more modern usage. It's hard to understand objecting to one version on grounds that apply even more strongly to the version you seem to prefer. Mystylplx (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that "conspiracy theory" does not always describe an irrational hypothesis (the idea Nazis set the Reichstag fire is one such example). Claiming this when reliable sources say otherwise is itself irrational.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus here, which reflects reality, is that the term is typically used to "describe an irrational hypothesis". In addition, please note Xenophrenic's comment above, which notes that even the sources you have used agree that the common and typical usage is "an irrational hypothesis" about a conspiracy. Note that Xenophrenic's other statements are also the consensus here: "I don't have a problem with the body of the article including their minority view, but I disagree with using the lede of the article to inflate or misrepresent the legitimacy of those views, based on the sources provided". You also continue to conflate actual conspiracies with conspiracy theories. And finally, I may not have been clear before, so I'll clarify now - trying to edit-war in your minority-view, non-representative of the literature, WP:UNDUE-weight lede is disruptive. You've been doing it for months, and the hope here after last month's attempt was that you had finally stopped. However, it appears you now plan to insert it once a month ad infinitum. Please realize that even once-a-month slow edit-warring is edit-warring, and that the next time you attempt to insert this lede without consensus, whether it is a day, week, month, or year from now, the issue will go straight to the appropriate notice-board for administrative action. I hope that's very clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As Mystylplx pointed out if that consensus existed once, obviously it no longer exists. as the consensus over at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Conspiracy_theory_definition was in favor of my version with some rewording (which I did) and the far older Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Meaning_of_the_term_.22conspiracy_theory.22 also acknowledges more neutral definition. My version acknowledges both definitions:

A conspiracy theory in its original more neutral usage is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;"(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 Pages 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) but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.("20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.)

Do you contest the accuracy of how those references are presented?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Mystylplx might have claimed, there's certainly no consensus to insert your lede. In addition, the comments at the NPOV board of a couple of IP editors (one with exactly two edits, both at the thread in question, the other undoubtedly you) does not indicate any sort of "consensus" whatsoever "in favor of your version". Finally, several editors here have contested all sorts of things about your lede, including your highly selective use of brief passages in a very small number of sources to promote a WP:UNDUE POV, and the fact that your lede doesn't represent the contents of the actual article, thus failing WP:LEDE. How many more times will these points need to be repeated? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1. But do you contest the accuracy of how the references BruceGrubb pointed to are presented?

2. Do you agree that length of time as an editor or numbers of edits at wikipedia is no indication of competence in any chosen subject and is therefore irrelevant?

3. And do you agree that a number of editors have been (and still are in) consensus with BruceGrubb's lead and have also "contested all sorts of things about" the current lead?

4. Jayjg wrote: "You also continue to conflate actual conspiracies with conspiracy theories."

So, does this mean that you deny that the example given (the theory that the Nazis were responsible for the Reichstag fire) was and still is a rational conspiracy theory?

To help move the discussion forward, can you perhaps just limit your answers to these recent points put to the talkpage. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘BruceGrubb has not gained consensus for inserting his new lead, for the many reasons amply explained by several editors here. Has something changed since December? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus should be decided upon the best argument not the most votes. The discussion can not move forward towards such a consensus if people will not answer simple questions and instead maintain a consensus based purely on slightly larger numbers of voters.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The consensus here was based on the vastly superior arguments of the majority of editors here who did not agree with BruceGrubb's proposed new lede. Has something changed since December? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a time limit for pursuing an improvement of an article?! :-o

The Reichstafg Fire is an example of a rational conspiracy theory. Do you agree or not? If it is, this shows that the argument presented against BruceGrubb's suggestion for a lead is a false one. You have just ignored the point. BruceGrubb has provided other references to try and demonstrate the superiority of his viewpoint . He has asked if you or anyone else with a different opinion "contests the accuracy of how those references are presented". Again you have failed to answer and have just ignored the point. How then can you claim a superior argument?

Mystylplx has asked: "The current lead is exactly what they say they don't want and BruceGrubbs is at least closer to what they say they do want, yet they just keep insistantly reverting him. Why?" He also got no answer to that specific point. I have now asked you four questions relating to this thread and you just ignore them. How is this a sign of what you describe as "superior arguments"? Its seems more a sign of having NO adequate reponse, and therefore claiming consensus by NOT engaging in discussion with contrary viewpoints?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So, nothing has changed since December? Please keep in mind that many editors here made clear why they disagreed with the insertion of BruceGrubb's new lede. While you are under no obligation to agree with their reasoning, they are also under no obligation to keep repeating it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. To note, I share the objections raised in two interjections by Xenophrenic here in this thread and here in Archive 15 of this talk page. I still feel his objections to the lede proposed by BruceGrubb have yet to be satisfactorily addressed. This really does look like an attempt (even if in good faith) to replace mainstream views with minority views as to the meaning and usage of the phrase. I'm not really pleased with the present lede either. In fact, I favor this version. I'm open to improving the lede and as we can see it certainly needs it. Nevertheless, I oppose misguided pursuits of balance or unduly weighted neutrality that draw the phrase away from its established usage both by scholars and in pop culture to refer to what ultimately are characterized as fringe theories lacking testable, falsifiable claims and often (not always) coupled with paranoia. John Shandy` • talk 02:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the current lede is terrible. I think the old lead you linked to has a couple of problems (i.e. Moon landing conspiracy seems to have been for propaganda purposes against the Russians, not typically viewed as necessarily malevolent by true believers, as far as I know.) However, it's still superior to what we currently have. The lede must make it clear that these are fringe ideas, frequently in directly contradiction to the known facts, and almost always rejected by virtually all professionals within the relevant field.JoelWhy (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. So, ...if I pursue this then the modus operandi is to suggest we go back to what we had before I ever got involved in the discussion. Viz. with the really partial lead definition that totally contradicted all contemporary dictionary definitions and even managed to summarise the main cited scholar incorrectly. Hmmm? Interesting. ;-) Only problem is the examples of rational, non-fringe conspiracy theories that we thereby have to ignore (e.g. Reichstag Fire example that keeps getting ducked). Also we have to ignore this Wiki definition, [23] which contradicts this re-proposed lead definition. Plus... We've already been over this.  :-o I thought we are supposed to compromise and work towards a consensus solution. So in the interest of compromise can anybody who sees my point please adresss it, in particular regarding the point about rational, non-fringe conspiracy theories AND wiktionary's definition. Thanks. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The term 'conspiracy theory' is generally used in the context of fringe theories. People who recognize that the WTC towers were brought down by terrorists who hijacked several planes are clearly acknowledging the existence of a conspiracy. However, these people are not typically referred to as 'conspiracy theorists'. No one contends that there are no conspiracies, but the people who latch onto claimed conspiracies involving the Illuminati, FEMA death camps, and/or the cover up of E.T.'s crashing on earth are dubbed 'conspiracy theorists'. That's what this page is supposed to be discussing, not the existence of verified conspiracies (which, by definition, aren't 'conspiracy theories'; rather, they are confirmed conspiracies.)JoelWhy (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In the context of science a theory remains a theory even when it's been overwhelmingly confirmed, but in common usage we usually stop calling it a theory once it's confirmed or even just generally accepted. Aside from that distinction I'm not sure what your point is. There are still conspiracy theories that are neither confirmed or generally accepted while still not being widely rejected or fringe. Mystichumwipe mentioned the Reichstag Fire around which there is a conspiracy theory which is one example of a CT which is neither widely accepted nor Fringe. It resides in a gray area between fringe conspiracy theories and accepted or confirmed conspiracies and certainly fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. Mystylplx (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what 'theory' means in the context of scientific theories. That's now what we're discussing here, though. In the context of a 'conspiracy theory', theory generally means a supposed event that is unsupported by the evidence (almost the polar opposite of a scientific theory!) I also would also not label something like the Reichstag Fire as a "conspiracy theory". Rather, there are historians who dispute what occurred (some claiming a conspiracy, others not.) Obvious, where we draw the line of what is or what is not a conspiracy theory may differ. I am fairly certain we could find 1,000 reliable sources explaining what a "conspiracy theory" is, and they are not necessarily going to agree with one another.JoelWhy (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are expressing exactly why I favor something like this--

A conspiracy theory in its broader usage is a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means; but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational fringe theories.

Mystylplx (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support something like that, assuming we have an appropriate source to cite.JoelWhy (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think it addresses the weight issues raised by Xenophrenic. John Shandy` • talk 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to take a moment to note that I apologize in advance if it seems like I'm just being a contrarian and then trotting off. I do have some genuine concerns about the lede, but also a few ideas for it that I just haven't been able to find time to hammer down and present yet. I've been kind of busy and have had some of my WP focus devoted to other areas lately. Hopefully soon-ish I will propose a new version of the lede for dissection, but I am kind of preoccupied in real life at the moment. John Shandy` • talk 03:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

human theory

It's an attempt to explain something that is happening, when you are unsure of what is going on.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.77.185 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)