Jump to content

Talk:Conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Autonova (talk | contribs) at 15:32, 5 March 2019 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ukohli (article contribs).

Mark Crispin Miller

Was told in an edit summary that there are sources that contradict what professor Mark Crispin Miller states regarding the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in the United States. Could you please provide these sources before removing information that is sourced? Thank you.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: I don't see the contradiction. Someone "suggested" that it began in 1964. Mark Crispin Miller states that the usage began in the 1960s as well. In fact, de Haven-Smith states "In 1964, the year the Warren Commission issued its report, the New York Times published five stories in which conspiracy theory' appeared". This is along the same lines as Crispin Miller. Literally the first sentence in the book, de Haven-Smith states "This book would not have been written without the encouragement of Mark Crispin Miller ... He convinced me to undertake the project and also helped me frame the analysis" (Page ix). The argument that the two have contradicting views is dubious at best.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NYU Professor Uses Tenure to Advance 9/11 Hoax Theory. Wow, he sounds like an...interesting guy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That "someone" who "suggested" that is an expert on conspiracy theories. Miller is a conspiracy theorist trying to denigrate the very idea of a conspiracy theory being anything other than a CIA smokescreen, in order to legitimize his own pet conspiracy theory. Your attempt to put them on an equal footing is WP:UNDUE. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not feeling good about this, either. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie: @Calton: Should de Haven-Smith be included in this article since the book's framework was provided by Mark Crispin Miller? Just asking what is relevent here.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although de Haven-Smith's advocacy of JFK asassination and 9-11 conspiracy theories are generally discredited by scholars, I see he's currently being cited as a source for a mundane assertion regarding the historical usage of the term "conspiracy theory" by The New York Times. Which is probably why no one has objected to his inclusion to date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie: The only issue I see is that if they are used once, then it may justify future users to cite them and Mark Crispin Miller as well. I know that biased sources can give a fairly neutral statement, but where do we draw the line on what is appropriate from an otherwise inappropriate source?----ZiaLater (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: It doesn't really concern me at the moment. If you have others consensus for removing it as well, do so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (RfC)

What should the lead of Conspiracy theory be changed to? Leviv ich 07:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option A

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence.

Option B

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy – generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Dictionary definitions:
  2. ^ Definitions in academic journals:
    • Goertzel, T (December 1994). "Belief in conspiracy theories". Political Psychology. 15 (4): 731–742. doi:10.2307/3791630. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) "explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups"
    • Sunstein; Vermule (2009). "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". The Journal of Political Philosophy. 17 (2): 202–227. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x. "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)"
    • Dentith, Matthew, X. (2012). In defence of conspiracy theories (PDF) (Thesis). University of Auckland. Retrieved 24 February 2019.{{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)"an explanation of an event that cites the existence of a conspiracy as a salient cause"
    • van Prooijen, Jan Willem; Douglas (2017). "Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations". Memory Studies. 10 (3): 323–333. doi:10.1177/1750698017701615. "commonly defined as explanatory beliefs of how multiple actors meet in secret agreement in order to achieve a hidden goal that is widely considered to be unlawful or malevolent"
    • Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M.; Cichocka, Aleksandra (2017). "The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories". Memory Studies. 26 (6): 538–542. doi:10.1177/0963721417718261. "[explanations] of important events as secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups"
    • Oliver, Eric; Wood, Thomas (2014). "Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion". American Journal of Political Science. 58 (4): 952–966. doi:10.1111/ajps12084. "narratives about hidden, malevolent groups secretly perpetuating political plots and social calamities to further their own nefarious goals"
    • Basham, Lee (2013). "Malevolent Global Conspiracy". Journal of Social Philosophy. 34 (1): 91–103. doi:10.1111/1467-9833.00167. "an explanation of important events that appeals to the intentional deception and manipulation of those involved in, affected by, or witnessing these events. These deceptions/manipulations involve multiple, cooperating players."
    • Keeley, Brian (2013). "Of conspiracy theories". Journal of Philosophy. 96 (3): 109–126. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1084585. "Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event"
    • Wood, Michael J. (2014). "Dead and alive: beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories". Social Psychology and Personality Science. 3: 767–773. "A conspiracy theory is defined as a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal"
  3. ^ Definitions in books:

Option C

A conspiracy theory is the fear[1] or assumption of conspiracy by government or other powerful actors to carry out some illegal or nefarious purpose,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] Conspiracy theories are generally unfalsifiable and reinforced by circular reasoning - both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.[7][8]

According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.[9]

Belief in conspiracy theories is often considered irrational,[10][11] and sometimes harmful or pathological[12][13] - to describe something as a conspiracy theory is considered pejorative and implies that it is untrue, based on superstition, prejudice or at least insufficient evidence.[5] On a psychological level, studies show Machiavellianism and paranoia are highly correlated with conspiratorial thinking.[14]

References

  1. ^ 1949-, Pipes, Daniel, (1997). Conspiracy : how the paranoid style flourishes and where it comes from. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0684831317. OCLC 36900981. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Goertzel, T (December 1994). "Belief in conspiracy theories". Political Psychology. 15 (4): 731–742. doi:10.2307/3791630. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) "explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups"
  3. ^ Ucsinki, Parent (2014). American conspiracy theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190203955. OCLC 888964309."an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a small group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good"
  4. ^ Aaronovitch,, David (2009). Voodoo histories : the role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history. London, England: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 9780224074704. OCLC 310154675.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  5. ^ a b Jovan., Byford, (2011). Conspiracy theories : a critical introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230349216. OCLC 802867724.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Keeley, Brian L. (March 1999). "Of Conspiracy Theories". The Journal of Philosophy. 96 (3): 109. doi:10.2307/2564659.
  7. ^ Barkun 2003, p. 7.
  8. ^ Barkun, Michael (2011). Chasing Phantoms: Reality, Imagination, and Homeland Security Since 9/11. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. p. 10. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  9. ^ Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 3–4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  10. ^ "Crazy Beliefs, Sane Believers: Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Conspiracy Ideation - CSI". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. ^ Swami, Viren; Voracek, Martin; Stieger, Stefan; Tran, Ulrich S.; Furnham, Adrian (December 2014). "Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories". Cognition. 133 (3): 572–585. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006.
  12. ^ Freeman, Daniel; Bentall, Richard P. (2017-03-29). "The concomitants of conspiracy concerns". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 52 (5): 595–604. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1354-4. ISSN 0933-7954. PMC 5423964. PMID 28352955.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  13. ^ Barron, David; Morgan, Kevin; Towell, Tony; Altemeyer, Boris; Swami, Viren (November 2014). "Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation". Personality and Individual Differences. 70: 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040.
  14. ^ Douglas, Karen M.; Sutton, Robbie M. (12 April 2011). "Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire" (PDF). British Journal of Social Psychology. 10 (3): 544–552. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x. PMID 21486312.

Option D

A conspiracy theory is a proposed explanation that an event was caused by powerful, evil people working in secret to benefit themselves.[1] Unlike actual conspiracies, conspiracy theories are perceptions, not realities.[2] The term "conspiracy theory" is considered pejorative, implying that it is untrue and based on superstition, prejudice, or at least insufficient evidence.[3][4] Belief in conspiracy theories is often considered irrational[5] and sometimes harmful or pathological.[6] Although there is no universal agreement on the exact criteria,[7] and both traditional[8] and more recent proposals[9] are sometimes debated,[10] many (but not all) scholars consider conspiracy theories to be false by definition.[11][12]

References

  1. ^ For general definitions, see:
  2. ^ For conspiracy v. conspiracy theory, see:
    • Edelson, et al. 2017: "A conspiracy is 'a secret arrangement between two or more actors to usurp political or economic power, violate established rights, hoard vital secrets, or unlawfully alter government institutions' and a conspiracy theory is a proposed 'explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a small group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good' (Uscinski and Parent 2014, 31- 32). A conspiracy theory is one possible explanation for events which may or may not be accurate, whereas a conspiracy is an agreed-upon authoritative account."
    • Uscinski, Klofstad & Atkinson 2016: "While conspiracy refers to an act, conspiracy theory refers to an accusatory perception (Uscinski and Parent 2014, 33)."
    • Uscinski & Parent 2014, p. 33: "While 'conspiracy' refers to events that have occurred or are occurring, 'conspiracy theory' refers to accusatory perceptions that may or may not be true. Telling the difference between the two turns on the evidentiary threshold ..."
    • Pipes, Daniel (1999-05-01). Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-2404-8. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "Conspiracy refers to an act, conspiracy theory to a perception."
  3. ^ Byford, Jovan (2011). Conspiracy theories : a critical introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230349216. OCLC 802867724. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  4. ^ For lack of evidence, see:
    • Edelson, et al. 2017: "Conspiracy theories are particularly thorny in that they often incorporate disconfirming evidence or the lack of confirming evidence as support. If one postulates that a powerful group is undertaking malicious activities in secret, then one would reasonably expect that evidence would be hidden and red herrings would be abundant (Keeley 1999). This epistemological trait allows theories of election fraud to escape easy refutation because the lack of evidence demonstrating fraud shows just how widespread and concealed the fraud is."
    • Douglas & Sutton 2011 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFDouglasSutton2011 (help): "However, in the main conspiracy theories are unproven, often rather fanciful alternatives to mainstream accounts (Allison & Zelikow, 1999)."
  5. ^ Swami, Viren; Voracek, Martin; Stieger, Stefan; Tran, Ulrich S.; Furnham, Adrian (December 2014). "Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories". Cognition. 133 (3): 572–585. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006.
  6. ^ Freeman & Bentall 2017 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFFreemanBentall2017 (help); Barron, David; Morgan, Kevin; Towell, Tony; Altemeyer, Boris; Swami, Viren (November 2014). "Associations between schizotypy and belief in conspiracist ideation". Personality and Individual Differences. 70: 156–159. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.040. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  7. ^ For lack of consensus, see:
    • Uscinski & Parent 2014, p. 31: "It is impossible not to step on toes when studying conspiracy theories. Some approach conspiratorial beliefs as 'mistruths,' 'misinformation,' 'misperceptions,' 'myths,' and 'false beliefs' and wish to study them as a species of informational or mental error. Others make little distinction between conspiracy theories and conspiracies and so do not wish to study conspiracy theories at all. We steer a middle course."
    • Swami, Viren; Furnham, Adrian (2013). "Political paranoia and conspiracy theories". In van Prooijen, Jan-Willem; van Lange, Paul A. M. (eds.). Power, Politics, and Paranoia: Why People are Suspicious of their Leaders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (published 2014). ISBN 978-1-139-56541-7. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help), p. 219: "One reason why conspiracy theories may not have attracted much scholarly attention is the lack of consensus as to what is, and is not, a conspiracy theory. "
    • Knight, Peter (2013-04-15). Conspiracy Culture: From Kennedy to The X Files. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-11723-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "There is no fixed set of inherent qualities that makes something a conspiracy theory, since in many cases a view becomes a conspiracy theory only because it has been dismissed as such."
    • Keeley 1999 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKeeley1999 (help), p. 111: "The definition of conspiracy theory poses unexpected difficulties."
  8. ^ For Richard Hofstadter's 1966 definition in The Paranoid Style in American Politics, see:
    • Swami & Furnham 2013, pp. 219–220: "Traditionally, many scholars have relied on Hofstadter's (1966, pp. 14, 29) definition, first provided in his seminal work The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, of a conspiracy theory as any belief in the existence of a 'vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character' and that aims to 'undermine and destroy a way of life.' Implicit in this definition of a conspiracy theory is the notion that some event or practice can be explained with 'reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished' (Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009, p. 205)."
    • Aaronovitch, David (2010-02-04). Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. Penguin. ISBN 978-1-101-18521-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), p. 11: "For the U.S. historian Richard Hofstadter, on the other hand, writing in the early 1960s, what distinguished the true 'paranoid' conspiracy theory was its scale, not that 'its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but that they regard a 'vast' or 'gigantic' conspiracy as the motive force in historical events."
  9. ^ For recent definitions, see:
    • van Prooijen & van Vugt 2018, p. 771: "We argue that a conspiracy theory contains at least five critical ingredients ..."
    • Aaronovitch 2010, p. 11: "I think a better definition of a conspiracy theory might be 'the attribution of deliberate agency to something that is more likely to be accidental or unintended.' And, as a sophistication of this definition, one might add 'the attribution of secret action to one party that might far more reasonably be explained as the less covert and less complicated action of another.' So, a conspiracy theory is the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy where other explanations are more probable."
    • Bale 2007, pp. 51–53
    • Keeley 1999 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKeeley1999 (help), p. 111: "There seems to exist a strong, common intuition that it is possible to delineate a set of explanations–let us call them unwarranted conspiracy theories (UCTs). It is thought that this class of explanation can be distinguished analytically from those theories which deserve our assent."
    • Pipes 1999: "A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy."
  10. ^ For analysis of definitions, see:
    • van Prooijen & van Vugt 2018, p. 770: "Contrary to the view that belief in such theories is pathological (Hofstadter, 1966), large portions of the human population believe conspiracy theories."
    • Knight 2013, p. 7: "By invoking the term 'conspiracism,' Pipes presents a picture of conspiracy theory as an ominous sounding ideology, something akin to Communism, and which likewise demands an ever-vigilant crusade against its creeping threat."
    • Swami & Furnham 2013, p. 219: "Unfortunately, there was – and there still is – a good deal of conceptual confusion as to what makes a belief conspiracist in nature, with scholars often relying on informal or imprecise working definitions..."
    • Aaronovitch 2010, pp. 11–12: "These two definitions don’t quite work for me. How, for example, can Pipes prove categorically that a conspiracy is 'nonexistent'? Obviously, any conspiracy is a theory until it is substantiated; therefore, those supporting a conspiracy theory might be entitled to observe either that their own particular notion was simply awaiting definitive proof or, just as likely, that in their judgment such proof was already available. And I find it hard to accept Hofstadter’s definition of conspiracy, which would, for example, include the idea–given play in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code–that the Church has for two millennia systematically suppressed the truth about the bloodline of Jesus (a truly vast deception), but not the smaller-scale accusation that British (or French) intelligence agencies had Diana, Princess of Wales, brutally done away with in Paris in 1997."
    • Clarke, Steve (2002-06-01). "Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing". Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 32 (2): 131–150. doi:10.1177/004931032002001. ISSN 0048-3931. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), 133: "Keeley has undertaken an important project but has gone about completing it in the wrong way. Keeley attempts to identify a subclass of conspiracy theories that he describes as 'Unwarranted Conspiracy Theories' (UCTs). These have crucial epistemic deficiencies that go unrecognized by conspiracy theorists according to Keeley. It will be shown that Keeley’s case against UCTs is exaggerated and confused."
  11. ^ For definitions requiring falsity, see:
    • van Prooijen & van Vugt 2018, p. 771: "Conspiracy theories that turn out true–such as Watergate or the Iran-Contra scandal–are no longer conspiracy 'theories.' Hence, in judging the validity of conspiracy theories, there is always room for error."
    • Freeman, Daniel; Bentall, Richard P. (2017-05-01). "The concomitants of conspiracy concerns". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 52 (5): 595–604. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1354-4. ISSN 1433-9285. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): "Our interest is in 'false conspiracy theories' [3], of which there are many ... We consider these theories to have four common characteristics: the world or an event is held to be not as it seems; there is believed to be a cover-up by powerful others; the believer's explanation of events is accepted only by a minority; and the explanation is unsupported when the evidence is weighed up. Our interest is in clearly unfounded ideas."
    • Knight 2013, pp. 10–11: "Those intent on condemning the paranoid style are, however, seldom swayed by the argument that, since some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, then conspiracy thinking is no longer necessarily delusional. They insist that the revelations about, say, Watergate or the Iran–Contra dealings are not the vindication of a crackpot conspiracy theory, but the product of proper investigative journalism. If a conspiracy theory turns out to be true, it is redescribed as astute historical analysis (and, conversely, if a historical speculation turns out to be unfounded, then it is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory) ... For many commentators, conspiracy theories are by definition deluded, simplistic and harmful, and anything that doesn't fit that rubric is not a conspiracy theory. It comes as no surprise, then, that on this view conspiracy theories are to be condemend, almost by definition."
    • Swami & Furnham 2013, p. 220–221: "In very general terms, then, conspiracy theories are a subset of false beliefs in which the ultimate cause of an event is believed to be due to a plot by multiple actors working together with a clear goal in mind, often unlawfully and in secret (Barkun, 2003; Basham, 2001; Davis, 1971; Goldberg, 2001; Zonis and Joseph, 1994) ... In short, then, a conspiracy theory can be defined operationally as a set of false beliefs in which an omnipresent and omnipotent group of actors are believed to work together in pursuit of malevolent goals (Barkun, 2003; Basham, 2001; Davis, 1971; Goldberg, 2001; Zonis and Joseph, 1994)."
    • Swami, Viren (2012). "Social Psychological Origins of Conspiracy Theories: The Case of the Jewish Conspiracy Theory in Malaysia". Frontiers in Psychology. 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00280. ISSN 1664-1078. Retrieved 2019-03-03. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link), : "A related aspect of this literature concerns belief in conspiracy theories, defined as a subset of false narratives in which the ultimate cause of an event is believed to be due to a malevolent plot by multiple actors working together (Goldberg, 2001; Barkun, 2003; Bale, 2007; Swami and Furnham, 2012a). Although this definition of a conspiracy theory is not exhaustive, it does capture the crux of most such beliefs ..."
  12. ^ For definitions not requiring falsity, see:
    • Edelson, et al. 2017: "A conspiracy theory is not necessarily 'wrong.' It is a theory, and, as such, requires evidence to support or oppose it. The evidentiary threshold, however, is a subject of much debate (Coady 2006)."
    • Douglas & Sutton 2011 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFDouglasSutton2011 (help): "It is important to stress that not all conspiracies are crackpot theories: some have ultimately been verified, such as the Watergate conspiracy of the 1970s."
    • Wood, Douglas & Sutton 2012: "Conspiracy theories are not by definition false; indeed, many real conspiracies have come to light over the years."
    • Keeley 1999 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFKeeley1999 (help), pp. 110–111: "Conspiracy theories, as a general category, are not necessarily wrong."


Please !vote in the survey section and discuss in the threaded discussion section. Any editor may move discussion from the the survey to the discussion section. Thanks to everyone for participating. Leviv ich 07:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • D as proposer. Leviv ich 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • B as proposer. Autonova (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ambivalent between C and D, both appear to be decently sourced summaries covering the important points. —PaleoNeonate – 07:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really fussed between A, B, C. I think C may be a tad too long, but more detailed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C is excellent, and accurately summarizes the conclusions of high quality sources used in the article. Option D is also well written, but inappropriately ambiguous and noncommittal. (BTW, option A is the only option that is completely lacking citations. It conveys the impression that "without credible evidence" has no support in reliable sources as a concept. I hope this was just an unintentional mistake.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. The problem with D is that it states sources differ on whether CTs are false, without the absolutely essential context that all the commonly discussed CTs are false, and indeed the same sources that discuss whether they are false or not, identify the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is generally understood to imply falsity, a point made even by pro-CT sources. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C. "D" starts off promisingly, then proceeds to go off the rails, so "no" to that, and the less said about "A" and "B" the better. --Calton | Talk 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • C is the best of these. I miss the 'insulation from refutation' phrase from an earlier version but that's fine. D would be my second choice but C is by far the best. It's thorough and clear. Antandrus (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Is the mention of superstition necessary here? It is commonly connected to beliefs concerning the supernatural, excessive religiousness, and a focus on omens and prophecies. None of this is a prerequisite to the formation of a conspiracy theory. Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with removing "superstition" (and also "prejudice"), as I think the main point is that the term implies falsity and lack of evidence. Leviv ich 14:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LuckyLouie: Option A, included at the request of multiple editors, was the "prior version", and the only one of the options that's actually been used in the article. I'd call it the long-standing status quo version. It had no citations, so this is not an unintentional mistake, but a faithful reproduction of the original. Leviv ich 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My long explanation for why I wrote D and like it better than C: Reference 1 of Option D is intended to collect the major scholarship about the definition of "conspiracy theory" in the last 10-20 years. Note that all are from reputable academic journals (wiklinked) and almost all are from well-known scholars (many have their own WP articles and are author-linked). These scholars all put forward "standard" definitions that include all or almost all of the following elements: (1) an explanation (2) of an event/practice (3) caused by (4) a group of people (5) acting in secret (6) who are powerful (7) evil or malevolent and (8) working towards a goal that benefits themselves (e.g., money). The first sentence tries to summarize this in as few words as possible, and the large bundle cite with quotes tries to show that this is a standard widely-agreed-upon definition. The remainder tries to address the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory, and the idea that conspiracy theories are generally considered false (though not necessarily so by definition), while also acknowledging that research has found CTs are sometimes even harmful or pathological. My quibbles with the others:
    • Option A is uncited and doesn't accurately summarize the literature.
    • Option B doesn't address the implication of falsity (although that could easily be done in a subsequent sentence, so not a huge deal), but also doesn't include the elements of secrecy, self-serving goals of the conspirators, and uses the word "conspiracy" in the definition of "conspiracy theory" (so self-referential).
    • What I don't like about Option C is its selection and use of sources, and its departure from the standard/accepted definition (doesn't mention the elements of secrecy or self-serving goals), and its characterization of CTs as a "fear or assumption", which I don't believe is supported by scholarly consensus. Here are a few of my specific quibbles with Option C's sources:
      • Ref 1, Daniel Pipes is, in my humble opinion, a discredited racist. To get a flavor, his article on RationalWiki starts, "Daniel Pipes is a right-wing academic/crank". Our article about Daniel Pipes suggests the same thing in more neutral language (e.g., "Some commentators have argued that Pipes' writings on Muslims contain racist elements..."). Pipes' writing has been questioned by several subsequent authors (see Option D, reference #10, for some cites and quotes). I think it's UNDUE to base the entire lead and thus the article on Pipes' writing alone.
      • Ref 2, Goertzel, includes a quote that I cannot find in the actual paper anywhere. Goertzel 1994 (manuscript available for free at ResearchGate) doesn't seem to include this definition. Quite to the contrary, Goertzel 1994 distinguishes between "monological conspiracy theories" (which are the fake kind) and "Dialogical conspiracy theories, which include extensive factual evidence and details, are testable and may even be disconfirmed by new evidence" (Goertzel 1994, p. 740). Writing much later in 2010, Goertzel uses a definition that cites Coady 2006 (see Option D, reference #1 for cite and quotes). So, not really faithful to the source in my opinion.
      • Ref 3 quotes Uscinski and Parent 2014's definition, but doesn't actually incorporate that definition into the lead. Compare the use of this same source in Options C/ref 3 and Option D/ref 1.
      • In ref 4, Aaronovitch 2010 puts forward his own definition, but this doesn't seem to have been widely adopted by other scholars.
      • Many of the others are cited for bits and pieces, but the definitions of CT that is used by those same scholars (e.g., Barkun, Swami, Furnham, Freeman and Bentall, Douglas and Sutton, Ucsinski, etc) in those same papers for some reason don't make it into Option C (they are cited in Option D, however). Leviv ich 15:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On option B, this is the first bit of constructive criticism I've had on it (I based it on the previous wording) - would it be okay if I tweaked the wording per the above points? Autonova (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conspiracy_theory&oldid=886320108"