Talk:Conspiracy theory

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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, 22: 30 days

Skepticism C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Alternative Views C‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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, 22: 30 days

It is requested that an image or photograph of Conspiracy theory be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

What is considered problematical with the current lead?

The lead/intro at present in my opinion accomadates all the views that have been expressed here on the talk page. It fixes the problems that myself an other editors had with the previous one, and it doesn't contradict the views of the editors who approved the old one. So what exactly needs reverting? I have repeatedly asked editors who have any problems with it to discuss them here. And I again invite that in a spirit of compromise. At present we only have had one specific complaint (with the requested quotation of the perceived problem) and that was about the word often instead of primarily. That has now been adjusted pending further discussion. So can editors express what if anything is considered problematical that still remains with the lead as it is now?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a problem with the word "malevolent". It is rather clearly judgemental. I think there have been at least a few conspiracy theories which have apparently had as an objective something that might be perceived as the greater good. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, something like "self-serving" might work better. That word would apply even to those who think that what they are doing is in the greater good. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John. If you think so can you then please comment upon the recently reverted definition/lead of mine which didn't have this problem and also was more in accord with virtually all current dictionary definions including wiktionary. I myself think the whole article now comes from that same 'judgemental' angle. It appears to me to be pushing the view that the derogatory use of this term is the only currently acceptable one. Which has been demonstrated to be false with a great deal of sourcing by BruceGrubb. The following quote I feel demonstrates the current lead and usage sections to be partial and therefore misleading (false). I would be interested in your comment:

"Although often dismissed as the delusions of extremists, the possibility of a conspiracy has repeatedly been at center stage in U.S. politics and culture. From the Revolutionary leaders' suspicions about British plots to the Anti-Masonic Party of the 1830s, and from the anticommunism of the 1950s to the alien abduction narratives of the 1990s, ideas of conspiracy have made a vital contribution, for better or for worse, to the story of U.S. political life. In short, conspiracy theories are a popular explanation of the workings of power, responsibility, and causality in the unfolding of events." - Conspiracy Theories in American History - An Encyclopedia. Preface. Pg.xi.

N.B. Nothing there about malevolence nor use of other exagerrated terminology, plus please note also the acceptance that the term is NOT primarily derogatory nor refers to primarily nutbar, whacko fringe theories (i.e. the use of the word "often" there again and NOT "primarily" demontrates that Joel has been pushing a point of view in contradiction of authorative sources.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional topics to be included: depopulation conspiracy

One conspiracy that is fairly popular in Net discussion forum is the depopulation conspiracy. Summaries can be found on Population reduction conspiracy theory and Georgia Guidestones. This should probably be included in the main article. MaxPont (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracism

The link 'conspiracism' points back to Conspiracy theory', so it points back to itself. I'm removing it. 71.139.164.10 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Conspiracism used to be a separate article and was merged into this one, so there's probably a few remnants like that throughout the wiki that'll be weeded out over time. John Shandy` • talk 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bias

The link to right-wing conspiracy theories at the end of this page lead me to far-left wing website. that is not cool. could you people be more neutral ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.75.30.177 (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"you people" would include you. If you think its a problem, remove it. Be Bold and all that whatnot. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]