Talk:Conspiracy theory

Archives
May 2003 May 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 – November 2003 October 2005 October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 – December 2006 January 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – December 2009

There Are No Conspiracies

The Conspiracy theory article might need to be edited in light of what G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, wrote in a March 2005 essay entitled There Are No Conspiracies:

There are several problems with a conspiratorial view that don't fit with what we know about power structures. First, it assumes that a small handful of wealthy and highly educated people somehow develop an extreme psychological desire for power that leads them to do things that don't fit with the roles they seem to have. For example, that rich capitalists are no longer out to make a profit, but to create a one-world government. Or that elected officials are trying to get the constitution suspended so they can assume dictatorial powers. These kinds of claims go back many decades now, and it is always said that it is really going to happen this time, but it never does. Since these claims have proved wrong dozens of times by now, it makes more sense to assume that leaders act for their usual reasons, such as profit-seeking motives and institutionalized roles as elected officials. Of course they want to make as much money as they can, and be elected by huge margins every time, and that can lead them to do many unsavory things, but nothing in the ballpark of creating a one-world government or suspending the constitution.

Second, the conspiratorial view assumes that the behind-the-scenes leaders are extremely clever and knowledgeable, whereas social science and historical research shows that leaders often make shortsighted or mistaken decisions due to the limits placed on their thinking by their social backgrounds and institutional roles. When these limits are exposed through stupid mistakes, such as the failure of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs during the Kennedy Administration, then conspiratorial theorists assert that the leaders failed on purpose to fool ordinary people.

Third, the conspiratorial view places power in the hands of only a few dozen or so people, often guided by one strong leader, whereas sociologists who study power say that there is a leadership group of many thousands for a set of wealth-owning families that numbers several million. Furthermore, the sociological view shows that the groups or classes below the highest levels buy into the system in various ways and support it. For example, highly trained professionals in medicine, law, and academia have considerable control over their own lives, make a good living, and usually enjoy their work, so they go along with the system even though they do not have much political power.

Fourth, the conspiratorial view often assumes that clever experts ("pointy-headed intellectuals") with bizarre and grandiose ideas have manipulated the thinking of their hapless bosses. But studies of policy-making suggest that experts work within the context of the values and goals set out by the leaders, and that they are ignored or replaced if they step outside the consensus (which is signaled by saying they have become overly abstract, idealistic, or even, frankly, "pinko").

Finally, the conspiratorial view assumes that illegal plans to change the government or assassinate people can be kept secret for long periods of time, but all evidence shows that secret groups or plans in the United States are uncovered by civil liberties groups, infiltrated by reporters or government officials, and written about in the press. Even secrets about wars and CIA operations -- Vietnam, the Contras, the rationales for Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- are soon exposed for everyone to see. As for assassinations and assassination attempts in the United States, from McKinley to Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Martin Luther King, Jr., to Robert F. Kennedy to Reagan, they have been the acts of individuals with no connections to any power groups.

Because all their underlying assumptions are discredited by historical events and media exposures, no conspiracy theory is credible on any issue. If there is corporate domination, it is through leaders in visible positions within the corporate community, the policy planning network, and the government. If there is class domination, it is through the same mundane processes that social scientists have shown to be operating for other levels of the socioeconomic system.

Even though there are no conspiracies, it is also true that government officials sometimes take illegal actions or try to deceive the public. [...] It is also true that the CIA has been involved in espionage, sabotage, and the illegal overthrow of foreign governments, and that the FBI spied on and attempted to disrupt Marxist third parties, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Ku Klux Klan. But careful studies show that all these actions were authorized by top government officials, which is the critical point here. There was no "secret team" or "shadow government" committing illegal acts or ordering government officials to deceive the public and disrupt social movements. Such a distinction is crucial in differentiating all sociological theories of power from a conspiratorial one.

I would actually encourage anyone interested in contributing to this article to read it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

US Law disagrees. For instance: U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 19 prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.141.154.15.141 (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing Conspiracy (crime) with conspiracy theory. --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Proven historical conspiracies section with Conspiracy (political) article

I propose that the Proven historical conspiracies section be merged into the Conspiracy (political) article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. Keep in mind that some of the items listed might not be proven conspiracies. The list is constantly changing and as I look at it now, the Business Plot might not be legit. I know that the editors were arguing about it a few weeks ago on one of the noticeboards and currently has a NPOV and accuracy tags on it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've initated the merging. --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this merging was quite right. First of all, the user will want to see a full list relevant to the title "Proven historical conspiracies", either political or of other nature. The original section contained 46 items whereas the new "conspiracy(political)" article contains only 32. I assume you transfered only the ones related to politics. But what about the others? My suggestion is to retrieve the original section "Proven historical conspiracies" (if possible) and decide upon removing or adding items based on more careful consideration. I recognize your good intentions but your move has caused some suspicion over the blogosphere: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickproser (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I don't care what the conspiracy theorist community in the blogosphere thinks since the Conspiracy theory article is not being edited to please or displease them; there is a List of conspiracy theories article that may be more appropriate than the Conspiracy (political) article so, if you are interested, feel free to retrieve the original section "Proven historical conspiracies" from History and merge it into the the List. --Loremaster (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...the alleged controversy over the recent changes within the conspiracy theorist blogospher apparently happened back on January 1, 2007 [2]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The ironically-named "Loremaster" in a dialogue with the ironically-named "A Quest for Knowledge." So are you "two" meat-puppets or sock-puppets or what? You two certainly don't constitute a consensus. Wowest (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wowest", please remember the talk page guidelines: Be polite. Assume good faith. Avoid personal attacks. And be welcoming. That being said, I'm open to discussion to acheive consensus so please make your case againt the merge proposal. --Loremaster (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over bold edits of the Lead section

The previous version of the Lead section of the Conspiracy theory article:

A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases these theories contrast what is represented by the mainstream explanation for historical or current events, as well as the evidence that supports it. The phrase is also sometimes used dismissively in an attempt to portray a person or group's views as being untrue or outlandish.

The new version which adds value by being more comprehensive, twice sourced, and without the subtle pro-conspiracy-theory bias:

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events and lack conclusive evidence to support themselves. The term is therefore often used pejoratively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, to emerge as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Therefore, I will undo any revert to the previous version that is done without a solid justification. Simply saying that the new version "doesn't add value" will not cut it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The changes made by Loremaster are extremely POV, politically loaded and, despite all possible assumption of good faith on his part, NOT in good faith. The relevant academic discipline is philosophy, and the most relevant sub-discipline is social epistemlogy. Within that discipline, the entire conspiracy theory topic is controversial, including the meaning of the term, and these dishonest deletions do not reflect that controversy. Propagandistic efforts have been undertaken by various forces to move the conversation to social psychology or, even, to abnormal psychology, which are relevant disciplines only for an extremely small number of conspiracy theorists. There was a recent pronouncement from a psychiatric body that if someone else agrees with your opinion, it isn't evidence of mental illness.

A conspiracy theory is a totally valid exploratory model in any discovery procedure in a variety of disciplines. Historically, it is either accurate or inaccurate. It is either a predictive model or it is not. However, it is not inherently false simply because it posits a possible conspiracy.

As the term is used by Fascists, red-staters, CIA stooges like Bill Clinton and Republican politicians, a two-stage process is involved. In the first stage, the term could be defined as any criticism of the government or any explanation that disagrees with the official explanation of an event. In a marvel of Doublethink, the definition is switched in mid-sentence to the inherently defamatory definition involving a foul or loathsome mental illness. The article is supposed to neutral, Mr. Loremaster, not what you are trying to turn it into. Your goal is comparable to punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. You aren't going to get away with calling everyone who disagrees with your position "crazy." Wowest (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"CIA stooges like Bill Clinton"? I hope you realize that your political bias is now obvious to everyone. Regardless, my version of the Lead section is based on both the Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of the term "conspiracy theory" and the work of scholars who have studied the phenonemon of conspiracy theories. Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy theory is "a totally valid exploratory model in any discovery procedure in a variety of disciplines" (which you seem to be confusing with institutional analysis), a Wikipedia article on the subject of conspiracy theory would not be comprehensive if it did not report how the concept is viewed and the term is used by both scholars and the general population. For the record, I do not have a political bias since I'm apolitical but I am a rational skeptic who improving this article in the context of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism. With all that being said, I am undoing your revert that is clearly motivated by a pro-conspiracy-theory bias and I hope objective observers will do the same when I'm not here. --Loremaster (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only bias in Loremaster's version is the removal of the conspiracy-legitimizing bias of the old version. Badger Drink (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should give a neutral treatment of the subject-matter, not take parts either for or against. Ad hominem attacks on Loremaster or Wowest are beside the point. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by WP:RS and in proportion to the number of WP:RS that express this view. Thus, if a conspiracy theory is regarded as bunk by WP:RS, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. We do not introduce bias to counter perceived bias in WP:RS. To do so would be a violation of WP:NPOV. --Loremaster (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the Lead section (and added new sources) while taking into account all the criticisms I have read so far. Here is the current version:

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events, and are not yet supported by conclusive evidence. The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, to emerge as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

Any comments? --Loremaster (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lunatic fringe

The term is therefore often used pejoratively in an attempt to fairly or unfairly characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe.

"Lunatic fringe" is a fringe term. The introduction would benefit from more commonplace terminology. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I have removed the your addition of the term "so-called" but since many people (especially the conspiracy theorists) seem to misinterpret that sentence as biased so I will try to make it sound more meutral. --Loremaster (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the term used in British English, so it would be better to find a more commonplace term - if possible, of course. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I doesn't matter what you heard. What matters is the term used by sources. --Loremaster (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What people seem to misunderstand is that the Lead section is arguing that people who believe in conspiracy theories are "cranks" who belong to the "lunatic fringe". That would be a POV-based as hominen. What it simply says is that critics use the word conspiracy theory to portray or misportray people in such a manner. That's a fact. Does everyone get the difference? --Loremaster (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"and are not supported by conclusive evidence"

The introduction read "and are not supported by conclusive evidence", until i removed it. I couldn't find any NPOV proof that for example the entire List of conspiracy theories isn't supported by conclusive evidence. I think it it is outside Wikipedia's mandate to take parts here. We could instead point to the fact that this often is a "mainstream" claim. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is non-sense. I don't know how many times it has to be explained here that there is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. From a sociological point of view, the former is a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement while the later is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators. Furthermore, if conspiracy theories were supported by conclusive evidence they wouldn't be conspiracy theories anymore. They would simply be standard accounts of history. I strongly recommend you read Talk:Conspiracy theory#There Are No Conspiracies. Ultimately, the mandate of Wikipedia is that we report what notable mainstream sources state about a subject. --Loremaster (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That being said, I added the word "yet" for the sake of clarity. --Loremaster (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue boils down to unintentional POV. To use the official account of 9/11 as an illustration, it says that a group of terrorists backed by Al Quaeda/Bin Laden plotted to hijack planes and fly them into buildings as an attack on the US.

Is that a conspiracy theory? We can judge it against Loremaster's definition above, which defines a conspiracy theory as "a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators".

So does the official account "explain a historical event"? yes... does it view it as "a secret ploy"? Yes... was it perpetrated by "powerful conspirators"? yes...

To go further, there is no conclusive evidence for it either. So by this logic, the official version is also a conspiracy theory, and we have circularity.

Because of this, the fall-back position is the reference to "notable mainstream sources". This means the mass media, yes? Well they are certainly notable, and certainly mainstream. But are they reliable? Are they for example politically neutral? Certainly not. Are they scientific? No. Are they peer reviewed? No.

The problem with the statement is that it introduces an arbitrary need for conclusive evidence where none is sought for the opposing view. Look at the JFK assassination for example. There's nothing conclusive for either principle theories (lone gunman or government plot).

However deleting it leaves the statement just saying some people [who??] reject conspiracy theories because they conflict with mainstream sources. On its own, that it palpable nonsense. An example is Noam Chomsly who openly rejects 9/11 conspiracy theories - but certainly not for that reason!

Controversy!

Conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes on this talk page before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Two introductions: Which is best?

Loremaster just reversed a number of edits by different writers (mostly me) to an earlier version written by himself. (Sorry for not spotting the controversial tag, and thus being a bit too bold when it came to editing).

There two versions are found here: [3]

As the two versions differ quite significantly, both probably have their good and bad sides. I suggest we discuss and then make a vote for which version we favour. Here are the two alternatives:

1. Old version by Kaiwhakahaere

A conspiracy theory posits that certain historical or current events resulted from secret plotting, usually by a powerful cabal. It may also be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events. The term is therefore often used pejoratively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories became more commonplace in mass media, which contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history. Belief in conspiracy theories has become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

2. New version by Loremaster

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".

Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events, and are not yet supported by conclusive evidence. The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, conspiracy theories have become commonplace in mass media, which has contributed to conspiracism, a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, to emerge as a cultural phenomenon. Belief in conspiracy theories has therefore become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore.

---

I favour number 1. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq, my version is more comprehensive, acknowledges the well-known criticisms of conspiracy theories as well as the use/misuse of the term, and is actually based on sources I read and cite while your version is simply an editing of my previous version which tries to minimize any criticisms of conspiracy theories. Please read the sources I cite (or find your own) and get back to us. --Loremaster (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there was a mistake in the ref to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary that caused it to go to the definition of "conspiracy" instead of "conspiracy theory". I fixed it in the article. In case you guys end up copying and pasting one of the above suggestions, the fixed code for the reference is:

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory | title=conspiracy theory |accessdate=2009-04-16}}</ref> 

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Loremaster (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)