Humanities desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 5[edit]

May the fourth be with you[edit]

By last night the street sign at the south east corner of Vallance Road, Whitechapel had been amended to read "Assange Road". Have people other than the Wikileaks founder been similarly honoured? 2A00:23C7:F782:C601:5D7D:848F:1295:5CD9 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"May the fifth be with you?" 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. Just scrolling through Lynn Parsons' Twitter feed I came on one which said "Sorry Lynn, it is Cinco de Mayo here on the border." Seems to be big in Mexico and the U S. Did you celebrate? 80.44.94.253 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google suggests that the sign in Valance Road is a fake put up in February by pro-Assange protesters. It's on this bloke's Facebook page: "Earlier this week we took over a full corner in the East End to show support to Julian Assange for his extradition case". Alansplodge (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Last June, Nirav Modi's lawyer argued at a bail hearing that he was 'not Julian Assange'. He didn't get bail (nobody gets bail in that court). His extradition hearing is next week. 2A00:23C7:F782:C601:95DF:7242:A786:ABF7 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theories[edit]

I have read your interesting article on conspiracy theories. Are there many (or any) conspiracy theories that have actually been proven true or accurate? 216.223.104.13 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "proven" conspiracy is a conspiracy, and not a "theory". 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, a proven theory is still a theory. What makes a theory a theory is that it is an explanation. Whenever you see the word theory, substitute the word "explanation" in its place. A proven explanation does not stop being an explanation. Likewise, a proven theory does not stop being a theory. It just transitions from a speculative theory to a proven theory. --Jayron 32 18:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In science, yes, but "conspiracy theory" is like "buffalo wings" in that you kinda need to define it as a whole instead of using the common definitions for the individual parts. Hence why the rest of your answers are 'that's not a conspiracy theory, that's history.' Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will rephrase. Your article on Conspiracy Theory says the following: "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable." Given this statement, have any of the incidents listed in your article "List of conspiracy theories (or others of a similar vein but not listed) been proven "true" or accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.104.13 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not. Events that actually happened and are properly documented are called "history". All of the explanations listed at list of conspiracy theories are the whimsical fantasies of crackpots. --Jayron 32 18:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although not on the list, the Iran–Contra affair could certainly be considered a "conspiracy theory" that was proven. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented part of history. It is a fairly well studied and well analyzed part of U.S. history, and the facts and explanations of the events are well agreed upon by mainstream historians. --Jayron 32 19:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For awhile, it was just a "theory" (publicly). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) . . . or, maybe I should just stick with my first reply that a proven conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory[reply]

Conspiracies are real things. When someone says "conspiracy theory", the unspoken assumption is that it is crackpot bullshit and nothing more. We don't call actual conspiracies "conspiracy theories" unless it's the sort of "The Illuminati are trying to destroy freedom with vaccines" sort of bullshit. Nothing that we commonly call a "conspiracy theory" has, to my knowledge, been shown to be anything more than ridiculous. Actual conspiracies by actual people in governments and corporations to abuse their power are commonplace and are not part of this discussion. There's plenty of avenues to abuse their power through ordinary corruption that we don't often have to invoke super-secret masonic organizations or Big Pharma or "the scientists are all lying to us about X" kind of silliness. --Jayron 32 19:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't enjoy semantic nitpicking, but "conspiracy theory" seems to have taken on a meaning that defies actual understanding of the term. I could have a theory that persons conspired to embezzle money from my company -- without invoking UFOs or black helicopters. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a criminal conspiracy, easily documented with evidence (and potential slander/libel if it turned out to be false). That's the main difference: it's possible to provide evidence to support the accusation. Until proven, it's at best an hypothesis, and when proven it's not a theory in the scientific sense, just evidence of criminal conduct.

Whereas with a conspiracy theory, it's based on accusations that either cannot be proven, or require one to ignore all the given evidence & simply take the accusations on faith.

If you wish to argue that the terminology is confusing or inaccurate... well, I'm afraid that ship has sailed. "Conspiracy theory" has entered the common parlance as synonymous with "this is batshit crazy." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Words and meaning have parted company" 107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Actual conspiracies by actual people in governments and corporations to abuse their power are commonplace and are not part of this discussion." Are they not? The OP was asking if any "conspiracy theories" have ever been proven true. If they were defining "conspiracy theory" as "false by definition", then that would be a pointless question. Conversely, allegations of "actual conspiracies by actual people in governments and corporations" frequently get dismissed as conspiracy theories. Furthermore, 1) Oxford Dictionaries defines "conspiracy theory" as "A belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event" with no mention of "being false by definition"; 2) looking through the List of conspiracy theories, almost all of them are absurd illuminate/aliens/NWO-type BS, but several are much more mundane allegations of corruption (e.g. rigging sports matches, mafia involvement in in various crimes, etc) - i.e. the kind of thing that actually has happened, even if these specific examples are wrong; 3) there are some things that sound like the stuff of BS conspiracy theories that were actually true (Project MKUltra, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, etc); and 4) just because the reasoning for an accusation is flawed doesn't mean it is not true. Given all that, I don't think its useful or helpful to define "conspiracy theory" in such a way that anything that turns out to be true by definition was not a conspiracy theory. Iapetus (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose it was incontrovertibly shown that the Moon landings were faked. After the dust settled, what would its status be? No longer a conspiracy theory, because the theory (that there was a conspiracy to hide the truth) has been proven true. But what about the last 51 years, when "conspiracy theory" was exactly what it was called (except by the "crackpots" who have now been proven right)? I think we'd have to say some more about the history of the story, and not just "No humans have ever been to the Moon, although for many years it was widely believed they have been". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12 crazy conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The examples would be stronger if they had provided some evidence that the MSM depicted proponents of these theories as crackpots. --Lambiam 11:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess part of why I asked this question was to determine if when something believed to be a "conspiracy theory" turns out to be true if that is then used to continue promoting the validity of other "conspiracy theories." Like: "Since X theory was proven true (faked lunar landing) then it is likely that Y theory is also true (Illuminati stuff)" It seems to me that those who develop and promote these "theories" are already grasping at straws, so having something "proven true" would be used to add "validity" to their claim. 216.223.104.13 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be its own conspiracy theory. And be careful about using the moon landings as an example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 Conspiracy Theories You Won't Believe (Really Happened).Pacostein (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmm... you do realize that Cracked is humor/satire, right? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be legit. See Tulsa race massacre, for example. The satirical part may be in labeling these stories "conspiracy theories". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]