Talk:Conspiracy theory

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).

Lead (RfC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus.

There is no consensus for any specific version. There are a number (6) of reasons for this

• 3 new options were added during the RfC (C 1/2, E, E 1/2), after many users had already voiced their opinions
• 3 of the 4 original options were edited during the RfC (B, C, D)

In conjunction with the changing options, following which versions of the options users supported is quite challenging, and trying to draw a conclusion from the resulting discussion, is next to impossible. However, there is very little support for either B or D (in any version of them), and not much for A. On the other hand, there is a clear preference for some version of C or E. Thus, the options are narrowed down to a version of C or a version of E.

Some other items of note that affected the close to some extent

• JzG added versions C 1/2 and E 1/2 on 11 March 2019 (C 1/2, E 1/2)
• the difference between C and C 1/2 & the difference between E and E 1/2
• In essence, the 2 differences are the addition of "conspiracist ideation" (in bold) to the lede in the 1/2 versions

Accordingly, I recommend that another RfC be held, with either C or C 1/2, and either E or E 1/2. A smaller discussion here should be enough to determine which version of C and E should be used. If there are any questions about this close, feel free to ask me. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Option A (prior version)

(Permalink to prior version.)

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 a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people to further their own nefarious goals.

sources
References

Option C

A conspiracy theory is the fear or assumption of conspiracy by government or other powerful actors to carry out some illegal or nefarious purpose, when other explanations are more probable. 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, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

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.

Belief in conspiracy theories is often considered irrational, and sometimes harmful or pathological - 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. On a psychological level, studies show Machiavellianism and paranoia are highly correlated with conspiratorial thinking.

sources
References

Option C½

A conspiracy theory is the fear or assumption of conspiracy by government or other powerful actors to carry out some illegal or nefarious purpose, when other explanations are more probable. 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, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

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.

Conspiracist ideation -- belief in conspiracy theories -- is often considered irrational, and sometimes harmful or pathological - 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. On a psychological level, studies show Machiavellianism and paranoia are highly correlated with conspiratorial thinking.

sources
References

Option D

A conspiracy theory is a proposed explanation that an event was caused by powerful, evil people working in secret to benefit themselves. Unlike actual conspiracies, conspiracy theories are perceptions, not realities. The term "conspiracy theory" is considered pejorative, implying that it is untrue and based on insufficient evidence. Belief in conspiracy theories is often considered irrational and sometimes harmful or pathological. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact criteria, and both traditional and more recent proposals are sometimes debated, many scholars consider conspiracy theories to be false by definition.

sources
References

Option E

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, or secret plot by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence, when other explanations are more probable. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof. On a psychological level, belief in conspiracy theories can be harmful or pathological, and is highly correlated with paranoia. Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

sources
References

Option E½

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, or secret plot by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence, when other explanations are more probable. Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.

On a psychological level, conspiracist ideation -- belief in conspiracy theories -- can be harmful or pathological, and is highly correlated with paranoia. Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

sources
References

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)

Survey

• D as proposer. Leviv ich 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support E. Leviv ich 03:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• B as proposer. Autonova (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Since the options are continually revised and added to, I'll add Option E as a preference to my survey response. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• 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)

Also more or less Ok with E, though I think fear is well supported and i think both interesting and relevant, it can be discussed in the body. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• I'm perfectly fine keeping A, but if push comes to shove, I prefer C out of all the alternates. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• C E I liked powerful, evil people working in secret in D, but the rest of it seemed to be trying so hard to say everything at the same time that it just confused me. (ETA) Changing to the newly proposed E; C is now my second choice. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• C E 1/2 A and B are too slim. They are just bones. C mentions many important typical properties of CTs, which is good writing. There is a lot of flesh on those bones! D is mainly skin - it focusses too much on unimportant and unrepresentative hypothetical outliers which a few people think may be true. There is no reason to do that, except if one really wants to sit on the fence no matter what. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• C Does the best job of both following the sources and capturing what most people mean when they use this term. - MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• D Seems strongest and is well sourced. Agree that A and B are too slim. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not C More specifically, I object to the Barkun sentence. If a statement requires in-text attribution then it generally doesn't belong in the lead section. One person's opinion, no matter how expert, should not be part of a 5-sentence summary of a broad subject like this. R2 (bleep) 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• C looks good to me. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• The best option out of those presented is probably C, with the caveat that none of them are complete leads yet (none of them fully summarize the article body), so this should not be interpreted as closing off further improvement. D might seem reasonable at first glance, except for its repeated use of weasel terms and other WP:W2W in a way that introduces unwarranted ambiguity. In fact, in terms of content and tone, that seems to be the most significant difference between options C and D that’s not purely related to style. For instance, while the source lists superficially appear to be quite different, many of the sources used in option D but not C could in fact be used to support both, and the difference is just that they haven’t been transferred over.

I would also note for the record that a great deal of context for this RfC is currently recorded in Archives 19 and 20. In particular, extensive discussions of the sources have already occurred. (Also, since a number of the editors here have already expressed their opinions and reasoning, I expect this is why some of the comments in this section are so short.) Sunrise (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise, I'd ask you to strike that note about these options being discussed before as it is not accurate. Archives 19 and 20 have discussion about Option A (unsourced), and earlier iterations of Options B and C. Option D is entirely new, written two days ago, and has not been discussed prior to this RfC. Leviv ich 14:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read my comment more carefully. It would be hard for me to strike a claim that I didn’t make! Sunrise (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• C is the most accurate and through summary for its length. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• C* C is a strong base, but the Barkum thing could be replaced with a more generic "Although there is no universal agreement on the exact criteria... [main criteria most people agree on]". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• D as first choice, A as second choice. --Jayron32 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
• C or A, about equally. B drops the "untrue" connotation, which is important, and D just feels wrong somehow. Gaelan 💬✏️ 02:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• C packs a lot of info --helpful to the one-click user who has only one minute to spend here.--such as the people who ask about it on Alexa, Google or Siri (they link here) Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• D JQ Picked because it distinguishes conspiracy theories from actual conspiracies, but this points up the problematic use of the word "theory" here. See more comments below (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• C * or A. C apparently has bad sources (for fear [1]) and the Barkun quote is not exactly the mainstream interpretation of conspiracy theories, so should not be in the lead. D adds the unnecessary "evil" (pun intended), and is weaselly. B omits "untrue", and it really isn't required that the goals be "nefarious". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• E as proposer. This option combines elements of A, B, C, and D to address some of the concerns that have been raised with them. Compared to C in particular, it adopts a more standard wording than C's idiosyncratic "fear or assumption", removes the "three principles" of Barkun (these belong in the body of the article, not the lead), and addresses the recent emergence of conspiracy theories in the mass media. Tim Smith (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• E is best, just as Tim Smith says it combine many elements from ABCD. It also insert citation to the current relevancy.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 06:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• E 1/2 is best at this moment (I understand, it is an "upgraded C", C being most !voted so far), with a minor change, see my word in Discussion below. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• E describes it in the most neutral way. C describes it in a reasonable way as well, D does not sound neutral, and A and B do not provide enough info. RedPanda25 23:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• C1/2 would be my first preference with E1/2 my second choice. As I noted below "conspiracist ideation" is commonly used in the academic literature. Multiple definitions that vary somewhat requires a somewhat longer intro. --mikeu ^talk 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• E 1/2 Much more accurate, neutral, succint and helpful to the user than c 1/2. It doesn't contain anything that will provide doubt and fully describes it; and provides new definition. What else do you need. A or B would what would written for a new article after being spun up and are too simplistic for this important article. I've not looked at the sources but assuming they are readable by the masses. Definently E.05. scope_creep^Talk 00:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• E 1/2 with Staszek Lem comment on it given below. Jzsj (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• A as concise and best initial line, after that E1/2 seems close to following LEAD summarizing the article which the other choices do poorly. I’d say any choice needs additional work, and removal of cites — so it’s lead for the article, not a separate item. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

• 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) Update: I made the change. Leviv ich 20:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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. Cmt moved from survey by - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• @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)

• Not having cites is the guidance from LEAD — the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so then cites are in the body. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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.

Update: after I posted this, the misattributed Goertzel quotation was removed from the Goertzel cite, and the correct citation added. However, while we now have the quoting correct, neither source actually supports the first sentence of Option C. See my comments below. Leviv ich 14:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Autonova, I have no problem with it–it's still early in the RfC, though if you change it, I'd encourage you to leave a note in the discussion section saying you've changed it. I can't speak for other editors, though; they may have a problem with it; proceed at your own risk because WP:AGF is unfortunately in short supply here :-) Leviv ich 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, for my part, I have no problem with Guy changing the Goertzel cite if he wants to per my comments above, nor with LuckyLouie changing "Option A" (or even adding a whole new option) if they want to do that, nor with anyone else adding/changing options. It's early in the RfC so I see no reason to stop editors from improving the options. Just my 2¢. Leviv ich 16:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Leviv. Let me clarify: for the recent Talk page discussion, it was fine to isolate the first sentence from a historically stable consensus version of the lead. (For context, see the prior Talk page discussion which began here and that resulted in consensus for this edit.) But when newcomers to the article drawn by the RfC see it presented as "Option A" without any context, it's misleading. Because the choice appears to be a single uncited sentence -- vs. the other options. This almost guarantees criticism of A because "it's too short" and "it's uncited". In the very least, you might modify A to include the full version of the lead text, and label it "Prior Lead" or "Previous Lead" to avoid confusion by newly-arrived editors. Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, the version you linked to is from September 2018 and is not the "prior version". This is the prior version from Feb 2019, and as you can see, the whole first paragraph is included as "Option A". Also, if you look at the talk page archives, this "Option A" was posted several times (originally not by me), and users specifically requested the inclusion of that option. It's the only reason I put it in is because people said to include (what was at the time known as) "Option B", so I copied and pasted Option B. I didn't hear you saying anything about it then, though you were a part of that conversation. I don't appreciate your use of the word "misleading", as it implies I'm trying to pull one over on editors. I'm not, I'm doing specifically as requested. Following that trend, I will add "prior version" per your request and I will link to the diff so editors can review the whole prior version for themselves. Leviv ich 16:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Commenting only on point 2, the quote is a summary of Goertzel by Douglas et al, rather than a quote in Goertzel itself. I transferred over the relevant source to fix the attribution - it’s the same source and quote that you used in the second entry of your reference 1. (You may also want to update your numbering after my edit.) Sunrise (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that neither Goertzel 1994 nor Douglas/Sutton/Cichocka 2017 in any way support the first sentence of Option C. Neither source talks about conspiracy theories being a "fear" or an "assumption" or involving "illegality". Rather, Douglas/Sutton/Cichocka go with the standard definition used in Option D and they cite Goertzel for that standard definition ("...explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups (e.g., Goertzel, 1994)." to quote D/S/C). Option C, Ref 4, Uscinski & Parent, also doesn't support the language in Option C, as the book doesn't say CTs are based on fears or assumption. U&P 2014 supports the Option D definition, note their use of the term "standard definition", which is omitted from the Option C quote: "For conspiracy theory, we use a standard definition: 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." Nothing about fears, assumptions, or illegality. Option C's "fear" language comes from Pipes ("A conspiracy theory is the fear of a nonexistent conspiracy.") and the "assumption" and "other explanations are ore probable" language comes from Aaronovitch ("So, a conspiracy theory is the unnecessary assumption of conspiracy where other explanations are more probable.") Only Aaronovitch makes reference to Occam's razor. Yet, Option C uses the Pipes and Aaronovitch definitions as if they are standard, completely ignoring the definition used by almost all other scholars. By the way, Goertzel 1994 distinguishes between "monological" and "dialogical" CTs and writes "Dialogical conspiracy theories, which include extensive factual evidence and details, are testable and may even be disconfirmed by new evidence." It doesn't seem Goertzel is accurately represented in Option C. Editors can read the sources and verify this for themselves here: Goertzel (DOC), Douglas/Sutton/Cichocka (PDF), U&P 2014, Pipes, Aaronovitch. The reason there's overlap between Option D and Option C is because Option D is based on Option C, but adds additional works to show actual broad scholarly consensus rather than just Pipes and Aaronovitch. Leviv ich 14:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

For D, many of the references represent an attempt to refer to what may be (but isn't presently) in the body. It is not always necessary for leads to have sources, if the information supporting the lead is in the body (and sourced there). We're comparing apples to tomatoes here.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I could be wrong, but I think almost all if not all of the sources in D are already in the Conspiracy theory article (that's where I found them). D is my attempt to summarize the existing scholarship as it's already represented in this article. I agree that the prose in the body doesn't actually summarize the sources as well as it could. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, I was intending on editing the body of the article to expand it, but before doing so, I wanted to see what editors thought of the sources, because the big difference between C and D are the sources used. D is basically everything in C, plus the rest of the references in the article. That's how I got to writing D. For me, this RfC is more about the reference list (which sources are we basing the lead on?) than it is about the prose. Leviv ich 19:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Edited Option B, to remove self-reference to the term "conspiracy" as pointed out by Levivitch above. Autonova (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• A general problem. It's clear that the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is always intended to convey the imputation that the claim being described in this way is false. But that imputation may itself be false. For example, in the early stages of the Watergate investigation, the claim that members of the Administration were conspiring to cover up the facts might have been described as a conspiracy theory. Once those people were convicted of conspiracy, the term was reserved for claims that the official account, involving an actual conspiracy, concealed the real, and undetected conspiracy JQ (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Tim Smith: I like E a lot. My only hangup is that it doesn't explicitly differentiate between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". What are your thoughts on that point? Leviv ich 07:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  I think that is clear enough from the first sentence, which says that a conspiracy theory is "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy", and then says what a conspiracy is. But the distinction could certainly be elaborated in the body. By the way, great job compiling all those sources for D. Tim Smith (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a missing element from c: conspiracist ideation is generally considered to be irrational. It is legitimate to draw the distinction in the lede between a conspiracy theory, whic is implicitly false, and a conspiracy, which is implicitly true due to the presence of objective evidence of its existence. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tim Smith and JzG: just throwing this out there but what if it were three paragraphs that looked like this (additions to E underlined):

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, or secret plot by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation.[1][2] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence,[3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] Unlike actual conspiracies, conspiracy theories are perceptions, not realities.[CITE]

Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it, are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[3][5] and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than proof.[6][7] On a psychological level, belief in conspiracy theories is often considered irrational and sometimes can be harmful or pathological,[8][9] and is highly correlated with paranoia.[10]

Conspiracy theories once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in mass media, emerging as a cultural phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[11][12][13][14] [More about most-recent trends/scholarship.]

Paragraph 1 being the definitional stuff; paragraph 2 containing a summary of the "typical qualities" stuff; and paragraph 3 containing a summary of the what's new/recent scholarship stuff. The third paragraph would need some expansion but I bet there's enough in those four footnotes to do it. Leviv ich 14:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: statements in the literature such as "Although there remains some debate as to its precise definition (see Bale, 2007; Swami & Coles, 2010; Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009), conspiracist ideation is usually described as a belief in the existence of a ‘vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character’ (Hofstadter, 1966, p. 14)."

IMO, the debate about the precise definition of the topic title necessitates a longer than usual (for wp) lead for this article. The issue is complex and requires a detailed explanation with caveats. For this reason I prefer the longer versions such as C or the edited option E above.

Also, the phrase "conspiracist ideation" is very commonly used in scholarly works, yet the article lacks any mention of this. It may or may not be appropriate in the lead, but I think it should be descibed somewhere. The term does occasionally appear in more popular works such as NPR and Psychology Today. The lack of mention causes someone searching for this term to not find this article as prominently in a google search as they would for a search for the topic title. --mikeu ^talk 15:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoa, you're right! How did I miss that? E½ coming up... Guy (Help!) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That looks better. Have you seen A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs? I don't see that one in the refs. I feel that it is important for the opening mention of CI to reflect the opinions of experts who have written a review article. The traits described should be given the same weight as the preponderance of evidence in a survey of the field. More minor associations can be left for deeper in the article.

The paper also describes the history of this rather new field and some inconsistencies in methodology and results. It's a rather difficult subject to summarize due to this. The openings suggested are impressive given the challenges. The paper claims to be the first systematic review and I would use it cautiously until other researchers have reacted to it. --mikeu ^talk 00:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In a Frontiers journal? No thanks. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Having looked further into that author's other works I'm having second thoughts about recommending it. I'm not convinced that the journal is wholly unreliable[1] but I withdraw my suggestion of that specific source. More generally, are you aware of any reviews or meta-analysis on this topic? --mikeu ^talk 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but I'd be surprised if they did not exist. The literature on cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, conspiracist ideation and the overlap with paranoid fantasism has expanded significantly in recent years. Guy (Help!) 06:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I' d like to suggest a change for E1/2 (my !vote), in " by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation" - I would not say that in Moon landing conspiracy theories the alleged actors are sinister. Therefore I would suggest an extra "weaseling": by powerful actors, often sinister and politically motivated. - Opinions? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  I support this change. Leviv ich 18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural Comment -- I guess there will be the Second Round of the survey, because during the discussion new options appeared and old ones upgraded, so that people may want to reconsider their !votes. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulty assessing which specific wording someone supported. For these reasons I waited to express a preference until the modifications to the suggestions were more settled. I support an effort to continue refining the language of A through E, followed by a second round of !votes. The wording has improved a great deal since this discussion started. --mikeu ^talk 16:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

As the poster of this RfC, I agree. I've never been involved in an RfC before where almost every option changed and several new ones were added during the RfC and then it went to a second round, so I'm just not sure how that happens procedurally-speaking. (I assume I cannot "withdraw" the RfC as nom and it must be closed before a new one is posted?) One question I have is whether it should be an RfC for a sentence, a paragraph, or the whole lead? (We have all three above.) A second question is, what are the "final options" going to be? For my part as proposer of Option D, I would withdraw Option D in favor of some form of Option E or E 1/2 for a second round. So I'm happy to support whatever moves us closer to a final consensus on a lead, and to do whatever I can to help with that, but I'll be looking to others (a closer?) for exact next steps here. Leviv ich 17:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Per mikeu, I've watched the RfC evolve into a collaborative workshop, which turned out to be much more useful and constructive than a single up-or-down !vote. Kudos to User:Levivich for continuing efforts to foster consensus. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC

Thank goodness that's finally closed :-) Should we narrow it down to two choices and a run a final A/B RfC? Leviv ich 04:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Since this has already dragged on for a long time, I've boldly replaced the lead with a version of E½, taking into account the comments in the RfC. I made one change deriving from C½, which was to move the phrase "when other explanations are more probable" to the first sentence (with a corresponding removal of the words "or secret plot" to avoid awkward phrasing). This retains a key component of the definition, and (in my view) is the most important aspect of C½ that is lacking in E½, with E½ otherwise being superior. (I also think the second sentence of E½ is overweighted and shouldn't be in the first paragraph, but I don't see any better place to put it regardless.)

Whether or not this goes to another RfC, I hope editors can at least agree that this is an improvement over the original version. At some point we will need to write some expansions as well, since there are still large parts of the article the lead does not summarize. Sunrise (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative and doing the work. I agree it's much improved from the previous version. Leviv ich 04:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that, as I rarely log in, I came to the party just when it was over... but I agree that it's certainly improved over a version of early March that I randomly looked at. Thanks! Harald88 (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone for contributing and working towards consensus. Autonova (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that altering E (or E½) by moving the phrase "when other explanations are more probable" to the first sentence compromises its neutrality. Neutrality was one of the aspects of E cited in its favor by those who supported it in the RfC. We should be careful to preserve that, especially since it is Wikipedia policy in any case. Tim Smith (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The lede summarises the pejorative connotation well, however the sources are in sharp agreement over the neutral definition. Autonova (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree, and I agree with removing "unnecessarily" from the short description. Leviv ich 14:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, whether or not the definition should include conspiracy theories being unlikely/unwarranted/etc is one of the issues under debate. It was the central topic in the numerous discussions on the talk page during February, where it was addressed in much greater detail than in the RfC – which ultimately discussed it relatively little, and e.g. at least a couple editors also described it as an important part of the definition (a point that I agree on as well). FWIW, some form of that statement has been in the definition for a long time; in fact, "when other explanations are more probable" is weaker than certain previous versions, cf. "without credible evidence." I think the recent source analyses by JzG are relevant, but I've dropped a note at FTN since others may have been following the discussions more closely.

ETA: To be a bit clearer, I think there is a consensus (both from this past February as well as existing before that) for the definition to include a component that expresses this general idea, and that this consensus was not materially affected by the RfC. As such, if there are still editors pushing for this and no additional input, then I think it would have to go to another RfC. However, in that case, it may be better to wait for a while first given everyone’s current level of exhaustion with the subject. Sunrise (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to be a relitigation of the basic argument first presented here, and subsequently overridden by a consensus of the RfC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That can't be, because the lead sentence A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. was not in any of the RfC options, so it can't be that the RfC reached consensus on that language. Rather, E/E1/2 had A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy, or secret plot by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation. Remember that after E was posted, it was the near-unanimous choice, and even made some C voters change to E. Where those two conflict, E should prevail, in my opinion. Leviv ich 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean it was a relitigation of an argument for certain specific language. I meant it was relitigation of a basic argument for a "neutral" definition and against against any component that expresses the general idea that conspiracy theories are unlikely/unwarranted/etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we have pages such as Mike Cernovich's that cite him as a conspiracy theorist. I do not know much about him, but it seems odd that he is linked to a page that says conspiracy theorist is a pejorative term. This makes it appear as though wikipedia is slandering someone, whatever that may mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryker Genesis (talk • contribs) 06:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I'm late to this party. I thought it would be wise to point out that nearly every criminal prosecutor will run into a case where he must prove to a jury that a group of people acted in secret to perpetrate crime. The crime is called a conspiracy to ... and the jury is instructed to vote at the end whether or not the theory proposed by the prosecutor is true or false. In short, conspiracy theories are presented to juries on a regular basis and form a healthy portion of the criinal justice system. "when other explanations are more probable.[4]" makes no sense in this context. David Aaronovitch was most likely referring to "conspiracy theory" as qualified by the rest of his title: in the context of shaping history. If we write Wikipedia articles using the vulgar and popular meanings of the entries we describe, we do a great disservice to the diversity of thought to which Wikipedia is dedicated. I move that those words and the reference be struck. Dscotese (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

See Conspiracy theory (legal term). - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As LuckyLouie points out, there is a difference between the legal term for criminal conspiracies and the colloquial term "conspiracy theory." This article is about the latter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedias vs. dictionaries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Discussion is closed, please don't keep adding to it outside the template. If you wish to bring up a related topic, start a new discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Request withdrawn, no point piling on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

---

One of the primary principles of Wikipedia is that it's not supposed to be a dictionary. Yet the people who keep deleting my improvements on this article apparently want to do just that. And please don't accuse me of being the only one who is edit warring, because you're doing the same thing. Look up "conspiracy theory" in any major dictionary, and you'll see that the primary meaning is always neutral. The automatically pejorative meaning of conspiracy theory is more recent. Ask any historian: conspiracy theories range all the way from absurd to improbable to probable to those who have been proven true. That's why I've changed the claim that ALL conspiracy theories are improbable. I'm not trying to encourage the delusions of those who see conspiracies everywhere, or believe them because it offers an attractive, easy solution to why things are the way they are, nor am I a supporter of conspiracist ideation.(Notice that I didn't touch that passage; I agree with it, and consider it well-stated)

But I'm not going to give up on insisting on not rewriting the dictionary, and I'm not finished improving this article. I'll seek outside resolution if necessary. But the best thing would be a little common sense, folks --- please! Joseph Rowe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We just had an RFC about the lead section, which you can find a couple sections above. If you want overrule that RFC, you're going to need a consensus at least as strong for your proposed changes. - MrOllie (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the dictionaries say, but what academic writing on the subject say. And contrary to what you say, no conspiracy theory can ever be true unless there really is a highly organized secret cabal that is all knowing, all powerful and all evil manipulating every aspect of society. TFD (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is a collection of opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you don't seem to get it: Wikipedia is not supposed to replace dictionary definitions. That's one of the principles of edition. Look it up.

I mean, dictionaries aren't even authoritative. They're just produced by companies that researched certain meanings of the words, and kept the ones they preferred. They also change all the time to keep up with new usages. So "don't rewrite the dictionary" is not a compelling argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. Guy (help!) 23:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Who are YOU to say dictionaries aren't authoritative? When ALL dictionaries contradict this meaning for "conspiracy theory" they ARE authoritative. And dictionaries are compiled by people more knowledgeable than you, or me, by a long shot. Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just looked through all this stuff. I see others have tried to talk reason here, and have been ignored by those who have nothing better to do with their time than grind their axe against all conspiracies. There are several of you with time on your hands, and who have an agenda of convincing people that all conspiracy theories are either discredited or deluded. The crowning absurdity is this remark: no conspiracy theory can ever be true unless there really is a highly organized secret cabal that is all knowing, all powerful and all evil manipulating every aspect of society." Duh? What about the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln?

I give up for now. Unlike you, I don't have time on my hands to master the complicated protocol that would gather me allies to defend myself from a tiny bunch of fanatics who conduct an edit war against me, and then report me as an edit warrior. I know there are plenty of potential allies --- the discussion of this topic shows that, and one of them spontaneously contacted me to thank me for my edits. But those people probably don't have time on their hands either, the way you do "Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain."Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Joseph Rowe (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The definition we use is based on substantial academic sources. Asserting that a dictionary somehow nullifies this is not only silly, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Guy (help!) 12:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"substantial academic sources" baloney --- in other words, picking and choosing a few academics who agree with your agenda. And it's not "silly" to accuse you of rewriting the dictionary; your effort to do so shows that you're the one who doesn't understand the stated policy that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary"... you're in violation of this policy, and you've reversed its meaning and intention!Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We could always mention the fact, as long as RS point out the discrepancy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems we can close this now,. as the request has been withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's why they call it "the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln," not the "Lincoln assassination conspiracy theory." We know that Booth murdered Lincoln as part of a conspiracy with several other people. But when one adds the Jews, the international bankers and the Catholics into the mix, it is considered a conspiracy theory because it is cannot be true. TFD (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's true that we no longer think of the Lincoln assassination conspiracy as a theory. But it certainly WAS a theory for at least awhile, before the conspiracy was proven. And at that point it was a conspiracy theory, by God! There are surely plenty of events in our times which are very probably conspiracies; and even if there's only one ... well, remember the aphorism: it only takes one white crow to prove that not all crows are black. (Please don't ask me to give you an example of such a "white crow", you can do that for yourself, if you honestly try.)Joseph Rowe (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I realize this is closed, but the discussion seems to miss the central point. Dictionaries aren't authoritative for our purposes, at least not in any final and universal way, because we have different scopes. Dictionaries write about words, while encyclopedias write about concepts. There is one dictionary entry for revolution, because there is one word "revolution". We have scores of entries for revolution because there are scores of distinct concepts or objects that are described by this word. Single words can describe multiple mutually exclusive concepts, multiple distinct words can describe overlapping concepts, and words themselves can often become an active impediment to trying to figure out what the concept it describes even is. Encyclopedias also occasionally write about words as concepts, and in these cases, things like dictionaries, thesauruses, and etymological encyclopedia become a great deal more useful. But in the vast majority of instances, we are describing a thing of which words are only an often poor approximation, and so sources describing words as words are usually a poor source to use as an authority. GMG^talk 11:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• The point about the distinction between words and concepts is a good one. At the same time, I do think that dictionary definitions are at least relevant in a case like this. It is one thing to add detail or nuance to a dictionary meaning, but if we deviate too far from the dictionary meaning in the lede we ought to have pretty strong reasons. I also think we have to be careful citing scholarship in support of the meaning of a concept. There is a difference between a case in which a scholar merely provides a perfunctory definition and one in which a scholar actually analyzes the concept at length and supports his/her conclusions. It seems to me there may have been an over-reliance on the first type of case in previous discussions. In contrast, the recent book Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them has a four-chapter section that concentrates on the meaning of “conspiracy theories.” Based partly on that, I plan to post a rather long proposal for a couple small but meaningful changes to the first two sentences. Stay tuned. Knuteson (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed modification to opening sentences

Sorry for the long post, but in light of the preceding discussions about the opening lines of this page, it seems any change requires significant justification. Partially in light of recent academic work on conspiracy theories, I think that the opening two sentences have subtle but significant problems and thus require some tweaking. The main issue is the question of whether or not the phrase “conspiracy theory” always has a pejorative meaning. Let me acknowledge that scholars such as Jovan Byford, Quassim Cassam, and Robert Brotherton (and presumably others) have discussed the meaning of conspiracy theory at length and favor a pejorative interpretation. But many other scholars, who have also considered the issue carefully, have taken a contrary position (see below). Indeed, it is worth noting that Cassam distinguishes “Conspiracy Theories” (capitalized) from “conspiracy theories” in order to articulate his disagreement with the interpretation of other scholars on this matter. And Byford acknowledges, “in literature on conspiracy theories, consensus has been lacking even on some basic issues such as precisely what kind of explanation constitutes a conspiracy theory” (Conspiracy Theories, p. 4). Psychologist Christopher Thresher-Andrews, who himself supports a pejorative interpretation, admits that the issue not settled. He writes, “What exactly constitutes a conspiracy theory is itself a topic of debate both within psychology and further afield in sociology and political science.” Psychologist Robert Brotherton explores the issue in an article called “Towards a definition of ‘conspiracy theory’.” He suggests that there is wide agreement regarding examples that are clear cases of conspiracy theories. Based on that, he argues for his own particular pejorative definition. But what is taken to be already agreed upon is just the examples. He has to develop an argument for his particular characterization of the qualities of a conspiracy theory precisely because this is not already agreed upon. And his arguments are unlikely to settle the matter. The point is that this issue is contested, and it is not even clear which side has the advantage (although we may each have our own opinions about that). In such a circumstance, Wikipedia should not take a side in the lede. It should rather cover specific positions in the body and stay neutral/ambiguous in the lede. That is why I am making this proposal. I will suggest a way to a more neutral lede with minimal change to the existing text, retaining the qualities currently mentioned, just not suggesting that they are necessary conditions. Currently, the first two lines read as follows (with key parts in bold and abbreviated references included):

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation [Goertzal, Dictionary],[2][3] when other explanations are more probable [Aaronovitch].[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence [Byford]. [5]

I propose that it be tweaked slightly to read as follows:

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by powerful actors, often sinister or political in motivation. The term is often used with a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence, or that other explanations are more probable.

To be clear, I am suggesting three rather modest changes:

1. Moving “sinister” so that it is prefaced by “often” because conspiracy theories do not invariably posit sinister motivations (e.g. faked moon landing, Elvis is alive, chemtrails to avert global warming). The idea that conspiracy theories invariably imply sinister motives, besides being obviously untrue, is explicitly rebutted in several academic papers. I can easily add references if that is demanded, though I don’t think that is desirable here. I would also note that the dictionary definition, which is one of the current citations, includes “oppressive” only as a “typical” feature. That leaves only one citation for support, and it is a strange one indeed (and should be fixed or removed): Goertzel 1994 is cited, followed by a quotation that does not occur in Goertzel 1994. (I see this was pointed out before on the talk page, but not ultimately corrected). The quotation can be found in a paper by Douglas et al (2017), which does not involve a careful exploration of the meaning of the term; the definition is simply stated without any reasons, evidence, or citations for support. In any case, as I have said, the idea that conspiracy theories always involve sinister intend has been contested (and in this case pretty much refuted) by many other scholars who have more carefully considered the matter. (However, there is no problem, I should think, with suggesting that conspiracy theories often have this quality. Quibbles with that are best relegated to the “philosophy of conspiracy theories” page.)
2. Rather than saying the term has a pejorative connotation, a claim that is contested, I suggest adding some nuance by saying instead that “the term is often used with a pejorative connotation,” which is no doubt true. In addition to what I’ve said above, I offer a further justification below for this subtle but significant change.
3. Related to proposed change #2, the idea that “other explanations are more probable” is something that people who use this term in a pejorative way often imply. However, there is much disagreement, both in the academy, and among regular folk, about whether this is true. See below. (Incidentally, the “more probable” line references Aaronovitch, who has been responded to by Charles Pigden. Essentially, Aaronovitch argues that conspiratorial explanations are less probable than non-conspiratorial ones. Then he precedes to give examples in which a particular conspiratorial explanation is not as good as another explanation—but often that other explanation is also conspiratorial. So, most of his examples don’t really exemplify his point, but rather undermine it. At least, that is the critique.)

(Also, I happen to think all citations here should be deleted, but I will be content to defer to consensus on that matter.)

The phrase “conspiracy theory” is not invariably pejorative. It is not even clear that a majority of academics who have considered the matter carefully view it that way. For example, the recent book Conspiracy Theories and the People who Believe Them (Oxford University Press, 2019) has a four-chapter section (Chapters 3-6) called “What is a Conspiracy Theory,” which also includes an introduction by the editor. All six contributors to this section, in one way or another, undermine the idea that a simple pejorative definition of conspiracy theory is broadly accepted.

The editor of the book, political scientist Joseph Uscinski, in his introduction to the section, writes: “The term conspiracy theory and its derivatives can evoke strong emotional responses; therefore we want to be clear that our terminology is intended in the most impartial way and without pejorative connotation. This issue is of such importance that we have dedicated four chapters to it.” (p. 47)

Chapter 3: Jesse Walker suggests that there is no standard definition. He writes: “What exactly do we mean by the term conspiracy theory? The problem is vexing enough in the academic literature, where scholars have made countless attempts to formulate a firm definition. In everyday usage, the expression is even more slippery: Its meaning constantly stretches and narrows, particularly when it is used as a pejorative” (p. 53). (Note that the last clause implies that it not always used as a pejorative.) See also Walker’s essay https://reason.com/2015/03/18/what-i-saw-at-the-conspiracy-theory-conf/ in which he describes various different academic perspectives on the meaning of conspiracy theory at an academic conference where the pejorative meaning was hotly contested.

Chapter 4: Andrew McKenzie-McHarg, who points out that 19th century usage of the phrase was neutral, concludes by noting that “There is a polyvalence to conspiracy theory. Reconciling the need to dismiss conspiracy theories in the interest of social science, with the need to entertain them in the interest of investigating crime has never been easy” (p. 78).

Chapter 5: Martin Orr and Ginna Husting emphasize that the phrase is often used as a pejorative, but they stress the unfairness of this: “The epithet conspiracy theory is used to tarnish those who challenge authority and power. Often, it is tinged with racial undertones: it is used to demean whole groups of people in the news and to silence, stigmatize, or belittle foreign and minority voices” (p. 82). They imply that the beliefs labeled “conspiracy theories,” in certain contexts, should not be summarily dismissed.

Chapter 6: M Dentith writes: “In the end, the worst that can be said about working with a non-pejorative definition of conspiracy theory is that it does not rule out the possibility that belief in conspiracy theories can be rational in a range of cases. That is, this definition entails the denial of a generalist thesis that there is something wrong with belief in conspiracy theories. If this is a problem for certain scholarly research programs, then this is not a problem with the definition. Rather, it is a problem that stems from working with definitions of conspiracy theory which bake in the irrationality or suspiciousness of such beliefs. The issue is not that conspiracy theories are epistemically suspect; the concern is we are working with a suspect definition of what counts as a conspiracy theory. It is, after all, curious that as soon as we front theory with conspiracy some of us automatically treat such theories as prima facie suspicious. If certain scholars want to make a special case for conspiracy theories, then it is reasonable for the rest of us to ask whether we are playing fair with our terminology, or whether we have baked into our definitions the answers to our research programs” (p. 104).

In addition to Dentith (who is the only philosopher in the list above) most other philosophers who have published on conspiracy theories also favor non-pejorative definitions, including at least the following: David Coady, Charles Pigden, Lee Basham, Kurtis Hagen, Brian Keeley and Juha Räikkä. In this context, Cassam is an outlier. (Philosophy, by the way, is the discipline that takes defining terms as part of its specialty.) Given all this, it seems the more qualified version I have suggested (or something like it) is a more appropriate characterization of “conspiracy theory” for the lede. And this improvement can be accomplished with minimal modification of the current version. If there are arguments against making these modest and conservative changes, I would like to hear them. Knuteson (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Knuteson, No thanks. We spent months honing the current opening sentence. Also, WP:TLDR. Guy (help!) 19:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, there were a number of proposals, a number of differing opinions about them, no consensus, and then someone took bold action. I’m not sure I would call that “honing.” In any case, I’ll drop the matter for the time being. Even if no changes are to be made now, at least I am on record as having provided substantial reasons to think that the current version is not a neutral reflection of current scholarship and that changes in the direction I have suggested really ought to be made at some point. Knuteson (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

There seem to be two camps here: those who believe that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not always pejorative (my own camp, and I believe that of Knuteson and many others), and those who believe it is always pejorative. I believe I've accomplished a compromise between these two camps, with my VERY brief recent addition, making it clear that "conspiracy theory" as defined in this article does not have the same meaning as "theory of conspiracy" ... I'm using this space to appeal to those who would automatically revert it to please take a moment to consider a common-sense distinction, which at least one member of the other camp — Guy Macon — agress (see my talk page). Joseph Rowe (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to undo it, but I cannot see where Guy agrees to this, care to provide the diff?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I too would like to see a diff (and a precise definition of what it is that I supposedly agree with). There are of course individual sentences that I have no problem with, but let me say for the record that I strongly disagree with wuat I believe to be the main thrust of Joseph Rowe's argument. As far as I can tell, Joseph Rowe's talk page appears to show him strongly disagreeing with my essay at WP:YWAB and failing to convince me to change it, nothing more.

"Is it hot in here or am I crazy?" --Charles Manson

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rowe, this is a rather obvious attempt to supplant consensus with your own views. We had a very lengthy series of RfCs and discussions and agreed the current wording. True, conspiracy theorists don't like it, but the current wording reflects the dominant view: a provable conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory, in modern parlance, and the term conspiracy theory is considered pejorative. Guy (help!) 10:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as you never agreed, I will now undo it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)