Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
: None of this is about the idea of "conspiracy theories", but about how the term "conspiracy theory" can be misused, which is literally true of every word in the english language. I don't see how any of it is relevant to include here, because its inclusion would be undue without much better sourcing than has been provided here so far. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
: None of this is about the idea of "conspiracy theories", but about how the term "conspiracy theory" can be misused, which is literally true of every word in the english language. I don't see how any of it is relevant to include here, because its inclusion would be undue without much better sourcing than has been provided here so far. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
::It is not about a term; it is about how the psychological and societal apparatus of conspiracy theories can and has been used and abused - something the article already mentions in reference to the Nazi regime and Soviet Union. There is a long and dark history of conspiracy theory abuse by governments, and just because contemporary references to conspiracy theory may be dominated by the more familiar internet-fuelled viral QAnon-type crap, that doesn't make this the summation of the topic and its history. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
::It is not about a term; it is about how the psychological and societal apparatus of conspiracy theories can and has been used and abused - something the article already mentions in reference to the Nazi regime and Soviet Union. There is a long and dark history of conspiracy theory abuse by governments, and just because contemporary references to conspiracy theory may be dominated by the more familiar internet-fuelled viral QAnon-type crap, that doesn't make this the summation of the topic and its history. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
::The article is entirely about the term, though. Notably (and as I've gone into more detail on below), a straightforward interpretation of "conspiracy theory" (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy) includes virtually all interpretation or documentation of hundreds to thousands of verifiable historical events. The ''term'' "conspiracy theory", as used in journalism, politics, social media and advocacy, is an idiomatic phrase referring to an extremely restricted subset of this (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy ''after it has been conclusively proven false''). Whichever thing we want to write an article about is fine, but we cannot have it both ways: either it's a literal description (in which case the article needs to be titled something like "False conspiracy theory") or it's a figure of speech (in which case the article needs to be primarily about the figure of speech). '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
=== Arbitrary break (re: lead) === |
=== Arbitrary break (re: lead) === |
||
The above section is pretty difficult to read; I suspect that most people are taking this as some kind of synecdoche for broader political issues. To be fair, so are a lot of people: if you do a news search for "conspiracy theory" you will find tons of stuff about people believing in UFOs, Qanon, the Illuminati, the vast Jewish plot to make everybody eat the bugs and live in the pods, et cetera. But I don't think that this common [[collocation]] changes what the words "conspiracy" and "theory" refer to, in a direct way, to a reasonable sane person. |
The above section is pretty difficult to read; I suspect that most people are taking this as some kind of synecdoche for broader political issues. To be fair, so are a lot of people: if you do a news search for "conspiracy theory" you will find tons of stuff about people believing in UFOs, Qanon, the Illuminati, the vast Jewish plot to make everybody eat the bugs and live in the pods, et cetera. But I don't think that this common [[collocation]] changes what the words "conspiracy" and "theory" refer to, in a direct way, to a reasonable sane person. |
Revision as of 22:46, 7 August 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki education assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DET313205 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emjo2000, Samath1a, SethBruder, MCaro99, Amonroyr, Pmmuab77.
Conspiracy theories and intelligence
"Some researchers suggest that conspiracist ideation – belief in conspiracy theories – may be psychologically harmful or pathological, and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism."
This argument seems plausible and well-studied. However, I find it interesting that C.M. Lagan, who is estimated to have an IQ approximating 200, believes in a wide range of conspiracy theories. Is this worth noting? Ramanujaner (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- You will find the sources if you read the WIkipedia article about Lagan.
- His IQ:[1][2][3][4][5][6]
- His beliefs:[7][8][9][10] Ramanujaner (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, so what relevance does this have to this article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It demonstrates that, although it is true, there are some notable exceptions. Ramanujaner (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Read WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Also it only prooves that one of those may not be applicable to him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can recall, there's really no general acceptance (except colloquially) of the idea that IQ necessarily measures "intelligence" (whatever that is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- 'Estimates' of IQ from media sources are meaningless guesswork anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can recall, there's really no general acceptance (except colloquially) of the idea that IQ necessarily measures "intelligence" (whatever that is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It demonstrates that, although it is true, there are some notable exceptions. Ramanujaner (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- OK, so what relevance does this have to this article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Imagine someone claiming in the year 1900 that the German government one day could kill millions of people because of their ethnicity. The person probably would have been taken to an insane asylum. What seems to be absurd one day may prove reality years later. Other times, what seems to be absurd is absurd. But it may be actually a fine line determining that.
- Let me show some examples about absurdity involving authorities.
- A man was taken to a mental hospital after refusing to accept he was the man a cop was saying he was. Psychiatrists said he was delusional for refusing to accept the identity the cop was assigning to him, was forcefully medicated, and locked in a mental hospital for two years. The Innocence Project later determined that the man was right and the psychiatrists and authorities wrong. [11]
- Many people distrust the government and claim secret experiments behind some pharmaceutical products. Journalists often exclaim such speculations are absurd conspiracy theories. But historically the US government has a track record of conducting illegal secret experiments. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTFORUM. Everybody knows that people have been wrong before, and neither do you need to give examples for it, nor is it relevant for truth or otherwise of general statements about conspiracy theories, nor is it relevant for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Are there such examples in the article backed by reliable sources? There are a few examples of even news organizations going to the other extreme of the thought spectrum into dismissing any suspicion as conspiracy theory and this apparently is not explained or included in the article. Although I think this deviates from this thread. I will probably open a new thread about it. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTFORUM. Everybody knows that people have been wrong before, and neither do you need to give examples for it, nor is it relevant for truth or otherwise of general statements about conspiracy theories, nor is it relevant for improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- So? many many more people are often wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
it is correlated with [..] low intelligence
It does not say that it is exclusively associated with low intelligence, it says it is correlated with it. See Correlation. Will you go to Talk:Lung cancer and mention smokers who have reached a high age, or go to Global warming and mention that it was cold yesterday where you live? This is silly and innumerate, and it does not improve the article. You should also read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)- There is no correlation with low or high intelligence, at least according to the sources in tbe article. I checked the edits log and the addition of low intelligence/analytical thinking was much later than the other correlated traits and was added by a sockpuppet account with an agenda. Schwarbage (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is not worth noting because intelligence is not the only factor that correlates to belief in conspiracy theories. Obviously there are many intelligent conspiracy theorists, including the people who make a living promoting them. But that can usually be explained by other factors in the list: lower analytical thinking, projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism. TFD (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ McFadden, Cynthia (December 9, 1999). "The Smart Guy". 20/20. Archived from the original on August 17, 2000. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
- ^ Johnson, Robert W. (April 6, 2011). "The 18 Smartest People In The World". Business Insider. Archived from the original on July 6, 2018. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
- ^ Sager, Mike (November 1, 1999). "The Smartest Man in America". Esquire. Archived from the original on February 25, 2020.
- ^ "An Official Genius". 20/20. December 9, 1999. Archived from the original on August 17, 2000. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
- ^ Brabham, Dennis (August 20, 2001). "The Smart Guy". Newsday. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
- ^ Quain, John R. (November 2001). "Wise Guy". Popular Science. Bonnier Corporation: 64–67. ISSN 0161-7370.
- ^ Ward, Justin (March 18, 2019). "More Smarter". The Baffler. Retrieved June 7, 2020.
- ^ Feldman, Ari (March 20, 2019). "The Man With The World's Highest IQ, Christopher Langan, Is Gaining A Following On The Far Right". The Forward. Archived from the original on February 15, 2020. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
- ^ Ward, Justin (March 18, 2019). "More Smarter". The Baffler. Retrieved June 7, 2020.
- ^ Feldman, Ari (March 20, 2019). "The Man With The World's Highest IQ, Christopher Langan, Is Gaining A Following On The Far Right". The Forward. Archived from the original on February 15, 2020. Retrieved February 24, 2020.
- ^ Yang, Maya (4 Aug 2021). "Man arrested in mistaken identity case locked in Hawaii mental health hospital for two years". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 Apr 2023.
How "Conspiracy Theory" label has been misused
Can we add a heading detailing how governments and other bad actors have used the "conspiracy theory" label as a smear tactic? I would do itbut nearly all my edits get reverted. Surely everyone cannot think that the person labelling something a conspiracy theory is justified and well-intentioned 100% of the time. Good day1 (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a good reliable source written by an expert that discusses this? TFD (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- "well-intentioned 100% of the time" The road to hell is paved with good intentions. "the act, regardless of its virtue, leads the actor to unintended negative consequences." These people are spreading panic and misinformation. Dimadick (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
governments and other bad actors have used the "conspiracy theory" label as a smear tactic
. Examples documented by reliable independent sources? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)- "[G]overnments and other bad actors" is a massive tell that the OP is of the opinion that governments are ipso facto "bad actors". (Some certainly are, but not all.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Theory?
Almost all of these are actually hypotheses, not theories. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- The word "theory" has a number of different usages, depending on context. A "theory" in scientific context (i.e. "a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses") is not the same thing as a "theory" in colloquial usage, which is closer in meaning to what is called in science a hypothesis, i.e. "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".
- This disparity in meaning between the two different contexts has lead to a lot of popular misunderstanding about scientific theories, such as when people say about the Theory of Evolution, "Well, it's only a theory", meaning, of course, that it could be wrong and some other theory -- such as, say, Creationism -- could be correct instead. People who say this do not realize that since so much in science is contingent, a "theory" is the highest possible level of organization of proved data; it is the current state of "true" as far as is possible for scientists to determine.
- In this case, "theory" is not a stand-alone word, it is part-and-parcel of "conspiracy theory" which is what the things being described are called. Following the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, we use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to describe these things, regardless of the ambiguity of the word "theory" standing alone. In this usage, "theory" is meant in the colloquial sense, meaning "hypothesis", and not in the scientific sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- A seahorse is not a horse. Still called seahorse. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The sentence "and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism"'s support is the citation of the paper Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire. I haven't read the paper in its entirety but based on the abstract it only deals with psychological projection and Machiavellianism. The word "intelligence" doesn't appear even once, and words related to analysis only appear in the context of analyzing data. "Paranoia", for that matter, is only mentioned in reference to a previously published paper. 89.247.166.53 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I do see citations of papers demonstrating a linkage between lower analytical thinking and lower intelligence to "receptivity to bull**" elsewhere. More exactly, a citation of a news article that links to the relevant publication. 89.247.166.53 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah can a admin please address this issue? Its insane to say conspiracy theorizing is linked to Low intelligence and Machiavellianism. Theorizing is just another instrument of society. The person who came up with the big bang theory and the people who covered Watergate are not un-intelligent people. NotYourAverageUser (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Administrators don't address whatever you seem to want them to do. We don't arbitrate content. Work it out. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- yeah i ask that you atleast consider it because i dont have the power to change it. Adress the point NotYourAverageUser (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- The relevant publication cited indeed contains the correlation between conspiracy ideation and low intelligence. Are there academic papers that argue the opposite? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- yeah i ask that you atleast consider it because i dont have the power to change it. Adress the point NotYourAverageUser (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Administrators don't address whatever you seem to want them to do. We don't arbitrate content. Work it out. Acroterion (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at Sound of Freedom (film) regarding inclusion of connections to QAnon
There is a discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) which may interest the regular readers of this talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Controversy
I think the section "Controversy" must be put back.
A19kBt (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023
Katrina98 (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
change "They are widespread around the world and are often commonly believed, some even being held by the majority of the population"
to"They are widespread around the world and are often commonly believed, some even held by the majority of the population"
I think "being" should be deleted, which creates a problem of semantic confusion.
"Election denial" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Election denial has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Election denial until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Stolen election conspiracy theories has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Stolen election conspiracy theories until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
"Election denier" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Election denier has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Election denier until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
"Election deniers" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Election deniers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Election deniers until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Lead is not neutral and article maybe is not
The lead basically is an exercise of excoriation of conspiracy theories. Even though the claims are mostly sourced, there is zero neutrality or attempt at due balance. I think there should be a more objective and neutral lead according to the WP:NPOV policy. For example, according to Richard Ebright, professor of molecular biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey, “It’s very clear at this time that the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you disagree with. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Since this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, the article is about the concept, not the various ways people can use and misuse the term. The reason one doesn't give equal validity to the view that the Jews control the world and the view that they don't is that no reputable sources claim they control the world. If you don't like this interpretation of neutrality, then you need to get the policy changed rather than argue here. TFD (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are distorting the issue and focusing in one specific instance. Also, for balance to your comment for example, a government of a world power killed 6 million Jewish people. Therefore, some people probably have legitimate motives to distrust government and speculate about possible dangers. I guess someone warning Germans at the end of the 19th century that the government could kill millions would probably have been committed to a psychiatric institution. The page needs to comply with due balance according to provisions of the NPOV policy.
- Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- You seem not to have actually read WP:NPOV. It does not advocate some imaginary abstract 'neutrality', but instead that article content should be aimed at
"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"
. Ebright's opinion (that of a molecular biologist, and thus one might think not a subject-matter expert) is clearly not shared by most of the sources writing on the topic of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)- I have read that. You on the other hand seem not to have actually read the wording, "for example" clearly written before Elbright's opinion. I am also aware of WP:PROPORTION and WP:FRINGESUBJECTS.
- I simply stated what I saw in the lead. Maybe it is more an issue with the article as a whole instead of the lead.
- I'm not sure if the claim that "Ebright's opinion (that of a molecular biologist, and thus one might think not a subject-matter expert) is clearly not shared by most of the sources" is true, at least for the opinion that "the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you disagree with".
- I will explore more what reliable sources state on the topic with a neutral mindset.
- Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Only subject experts are qualified to have their opinions presented in Wikipedia articles. A biologist could well have their opinion about biology-related subjects quoted in biology-related articles, but they are not qualified to be quoted in other articles about non-biological subjects, such as the current one: expertise is not transferable. Present an opinion from a scholar -- an historian, a political scientist, a semanticist -- who has studied the subject of this article, and qualified as an expert on it, if you expect to add their opinions to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Kurtis Hagen is a philosopher of University of Michigan and talked about term "Conspiracy theory" and its fallacies. He must be cited.
- 2.138.29.120 (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Who and why? Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also, the site is down, not a good sign. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Clear evidence of a conspiracy if ever I saw it! ;-) DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear that he was on faculty or a student at U of MI. He was an associate prof at SUNY Plattsburg until six years ago and is now an "independent scholar". O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Only subject experts are qualified to have their opinions presented in Wikipedia articles. A biologist could well have their opinion about biology-related subjects quoted in biology-related articles, but they are not qualified to be quoted in other articles about non-biological subjects, such as the current one: expertise is not transferable. Present an opinion from a scholar -- an historian, a political scientist, a semanticist -- who has studied the subject of this article, and qualified as an expert on it, if you expect to add their opinions to this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- You seem not to have actually read WP:NPOV. It does not advocate some imaginary abstract 'neutrality', but instead that article content should be aimed at
- See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- "Controversy" section must be put back for NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.
- 2.138.29.120 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- The lede does not have sections. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure it will be possible to find other sources noting that the accusation of conspiracy theorizing has been used and abused at times as a means of deflecting the inquisitive. (And that the source provided by Thinker78 is but one example to this end.) Now obviously every 'conspiracy theorist' thinks they are just the inquisitive being deflected, but this does not mean that they are never, on occasion, correct, and the victim of aspersion. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- But until we get an example of such from a recognized subject expert cited in a reliable source, it's not going into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Journalists routinely research collusion. But that does not mean that they are "conspiracy theorists" in the meaning of this article. It simply means they are searching for evidence, instead of simply making an untenable claim. So, being inquisitive is not the problem; making claims without evidence is. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not the specific claims that make them conspiracy theorists, but their underlying assumptions and methodology. Someone might for example use superstitious reasoning to accurately predict the winning lottery numbers. But the fact they got it right doesn't mean that their underlying assumptions and methodology were correct. They're still irrational. TFD (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think we have more than enough of such info in the page. Don't tell me that you believe every time an accusation of conspiracy theory is lobed against someone it is because by necessity it is a conspiracy theory, no questions asked. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- If there is convincing evidence, then it's obviously not a conspiracy theory. But the burden of proof is upon those who make the claim there's a conspiracy. Just merely having a hunch does not mean one has fulfilled the burden of proof. Again, there is nothing against investigating collusion, but such claims should not be made prematurely. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- A group of scientists wrote a letter to The Lancet, denouncing the COVID-19 lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. Turns out some of those scientists had links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where there was research on coronavirus. They did not disclose such conflict of interest. After the letter was published, news media worldwide adopted as a sacred dogma and they too denounce anyone who dare to think the pandemic started as a result of an accidental virus leak from the lab. Nevermind that such accidents have happened before. People around the world were censored and researchers, physicians, journalists did not dare to explore such theory for fear of their reputations or jobs. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, a mere hunch that it is a lab leak should not get published. When there is enough evidence, it is no longer a hunch, and may get published.
- People who published shoddy evidence for it being a lab leak were duly ridiculed. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- We do not mention this as far as I am aware. So why raise it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- A group of scientists wrote a letter to The Lancet, denouncing the COVID-19 lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. Turns out some of those scientists had links to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where there was research on coronavirus. They did not disclose such conflict of interest. After the letter was published, news media worldwide adopted as a sacred dogma and they too denounce anyone who dare to think the pandemic started as a result of an accidental virus leak from the lab. Nevermind that such accidents have happened before. People around the world were censored and researchers, physicians, journalists did not dare to explore such theory for fear of their reputations or jobs. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Of course I don't. Politicians and mainstream media frequently use the term to denigrate dissent. But it doesn't mean the term is meaningless.
- Democrats call Trump a fascist and his supporters call them socialists. While there is no support for these accusations in reliable sources, it doesn't mean the terms are meaningless. TFD (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I never said the term is meaningless. I think maybe you are thinking of someone else's thread? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'" And to be fair, George Orwell volunteered in the Spanish Civil War fighting fascists.
- But what we do here is divide distinct ideas into separate articles, instead of equivocating on them because they may be somewhat related and/or sound similar. That's why we have Fascism, mostly about early to mid 20th century European politics, and we have Fascist (insult), which is mainly about people forgetting that the word "authoritarian" exists. That's why we have this article, and also an article on conspiracies, sans "theory". When a conspiracy "theory" is found to be true, it's simply "a conspiracy". It's like when "alternative medicine" gains rigorous scientific confirmation and becomes simply "medicine".
- "Theory" here is not used in the scientific sense of testable hypotheses. It's used in a colloquial sense to mean almost the exact opposite: a set of beliefs that are mostly impervious to the outside world. GMGtalk 11:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'", George Orwell said. And the term 'conspiracy theory' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'belief that I want to ridicule'
- "If there is convincing evidence, then it's obviously not a conspiracy theory." What? Then, the phrase "Conspiracy theories are never true" is just a trivial tautology. A trivial tautology that does not provide any information. A trivial tautology that proves nothing. A trivial tautology that only produces confusion.
- 2.138.34.25 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Being tautological doesn't invalidate something so long as it respects the common usage of a term and the widely understood meaning behind it. Also there's a difference between tautological and definitional. After all, all definitions are, by definition, tautologies. That's kinda the point. A definition that doesn't restate the same meaning in different terms wouldn't be very useful.
- Watergate isn't a conspiracy theory; it's a conspiracy. Because again, trying to conflate the two is just equivocating on the strict and colloquial usage of "theory". GMGtalk 11:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Orwell was being ironic and his observation is an exaggeration. Obviously references to the ideology of Mussolini's Fascist Party are not meaningless, nor are those to parties modelled on it in the interwar period. Many experts avoid the term in reference to post-war politics. But there is a wealth of literature in reliable sources on fascism and good luck with getting fascism related articles deleted. TFD (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- If there is convincing evidence, then it's obviously not a conspiracy theory. But the burden of proof is upon those who make the claim there's a conspiracy. Just merely having a hunch does not mean one has fulfilled the burden of proof. Again, there is nothing against investigating collusion, but such claims should not be made prematurely. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think we have more than enough of such info in the page. Don't tell me that you believe every time an accusation of conspiracy theory is lobed against someone it is because by necessity it is a conspiracy theory, no questions asked. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a source which, in its own words,
"critically examines the ways in which public commentators, political leaders and public servants use the label of ‘conspiracy’ as a means of discrediting, de-legitimatizing and disempowering those individuals and groups who dissent from United States (US) foreign policy orthodoxies."
That's from a political scientist. Or here:"Conspiracy theory” is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term. Politicians use it to mock and dismiss allegations against them, while philosophers and political scientists warn that it could be used as a rhetorical weapon to pathologize dissent."
That's a psychologist. So sources mentioning the intersection of the subject with politics and dissent are not hard to find. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)- The first cite is a book review by a student studying the politics of food in the Middle East. The second is, as you say, a psychologist. Of course terms can be misused. But I'm not seeing how these opinions help us. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: You read the blurb of the contributor of the book review immediately prior. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's what's at the link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a journal, with running copy: that's how journal reviews are normally formatted. You need to start reading mid-page where the title of the relevant review begins... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I read everything on the page. It's a book review. It says "Book Reviews" at the top and the phrase you quoted is part of the student's book review talking about his view of the book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Martinez is the author of the prior review (appearing at its bottom). The book in question is the one below by Tim Ainstrope. The review is by Damien Rogers, a political scientist at Massey University (i.e. not Martinez). The journal format is obviously confusing you. Here's the neat Google scholar link, and here's a link to the book itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- So, what we have is an opinion of an opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome for the explanation at no benefit to myself. What we have here are two reliable sources, one an academically published book reviewed in academically published journals; the other an academic journal paper - both discussing the interrelationship between conspiracy theory, politics and dissent. These are the sort of things we quote in Wikivoice. If by opinion you mean epistemologically these are academic voices from individual academics, whose academically published thoughts are on some level derived from their personal academic opinions, then yes; if by opinion you mean akin to an opinion piece in a new outlet or the opinion of you or I, then no. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that. But your quote is not from the book. I'm just not comfortable with a book review as a source for anything other than a criticism of a book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The sources are just to illustrate the interconnected themes. The academic book review simply summarises the contents, and there is no reason to assume the review would be wayward in its summary. The precise quote is somewhat irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if you look at the quote; basically it is saying the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies. Well, lots of that during the Vietnam war and McCarthy era. But, that fits this article as it is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies. Well, lots of that during the Vietnam war and McCarthy era. Exactly. We need to include such kind of information in this page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there is one hell of a lot of examples of conspiracy theories -- and this article is already quite long. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies. Well, lots of that during the Vietnam war and McCarthy era. Exactly. We need to include such kind of information in this page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if you look at the quote; basically it is saying the US gov't has falsely accused groups of conspiracies. Well, lots of that during the Vietnam war and McCarthy era. But, that fits this article as it is. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The sources are just to illustrate the interconnected themes. The academic book review simply summarises the contents, and there is no reason to assume the review would be wayward in its summary. The precise quote is somewhat irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that. But your quote is not from the book. I'm just not comfortable with a book review as a source for anything other than a criticism of a book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome for the explanation at no benefit to myself. What we have here are two reliable sources, one an academically published book reviewed in academically published journals; the other an academic journal paper - both discussing the interrelationship between conspiracy theory, politics and dissent. These are the sort of things we quote in Wikivoice. If by opinion you mean epistemologically these are academic voices from individual academics, whose academically published thoughts are on some level derived from their personal academic opinions, then yes; if by opinion you mean akin to an opinion piece in a new outlet or the opinion of you or I, then no. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- So, what we have is an opinion of an opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Martinez is the author of the prior review (appearing at its bottom). The book in question is the one below by Tim Ainstrope. The review is by Damien Rogers, a political scientist at Massey University (i.e. not Martinez). The journal format is obviously confusing you. Here's the neat Google scholar link, and here's a link to the book itself. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I read everything on the page. It's a book review. It says "Book Reviews" at the top and the phrase you quoted is part of the student's book review talking about his view of the book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a journal, with running copy: that's how journal reviews are normally formatted. You need to start reading mid-page where the title of the relevant review begins... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's what's at the link. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: You read the blurb of the contributor of the book review immediately prior. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The first cite is a book review by a student studying the politics of food in the Middle East. The second is, as you say, a psychologist. Of course terms can be misused. But I'm not seeing how these opinions help us. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- But until we get an example of such from a recognized subject expert cited in a reliable source, it's not going into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- None of this is about the idea of "conspiracy theories", but about how the term "conspiracy theory" can be misused, which is literally true of every word in the english language. I don't see how any of it is relevant to include here, because its inclusion would be undue without much better sourcing than has been provided here so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is not about a term; it is about how the psychological and societal apparatus of conspiracy theories can and has been used and abused - something the article already mentions in reference to the Nazi regime and Soviet Union. There is a long and dark history of conspiracy theory abuse by governments, and just because contemporary references to conspiracy theory may be dominated by the more familiar internet-fuelled viral QAnon-type crap, that doesn't make this the summation of the topic and its history. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article is entirely about the term, though. Notably (and as I've gone into more detail on below), a straightforward interpretation of "conspiracy theory" (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy) includes virtually all interpretation or documentation of hundreds to thousands of verifiable historical events. The term "conspiracy theory", as used in journalism, politics, social media and advocacy, is an idiomatic phrase referring to an extremely restricted subset of this (i.e. a theory that posits a conspiracy after it has been conclusively proven false). Whichever thing we want to write an article about is fine, but we cannot have it both ways: either it's a literal description (in which case the article needs to be titled something like "False conspiracy theory") or it's a figure of speech (in which case the article needs to be primarily about the figure of speech). jp×g 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Arbitrary break (re: lead)
The above section is pretty difficult to read; I suspect that most people are taking this as some kind of synecdoche for broader political issues. To be fair, so are a lot of people: if you do a news search for "conspiracy theory" you will find tons of stuff about people believing in UFOs, Qanon, the Illuminati, the vast Jewish plot to make everybody eat the bugs and live in the pods, et cetera. But I don't think that this common collocation changes what the words "conspiracy" and "theory" refer to, in a direct way, to a reasonable sane person.
To give an example of what I mean: most people know that the phrase "old wives' tale" refers to something being a crock of shit, i.e. "if you die in a dream you die in real life". This does not literally imply that all tales told by old wives are nonsense. Marie Curie published The Discovery of Radium at age 53, while she was married to Pierre Curie; while it was indeed a tale told by a wife who was old, I hope everyone can see that it would be asinine beyond belief to describe the book as an "old wives' tale". Similarly, the Catilinarian conspiracy, the Watergate conspiracy, the lightbulb makers' conspiracy, and the conspiracy to give Hitler ultimate power all happened, and people have theorized at great length about all of them.
In fact, for many conspiracies, it would be an inane fringe position to claim they aren't real (e.g. "all elections in Turkmenistan are 100% free and legit"). Even ridiculously outlandish claims that check all the boxes for being nonsense, like "the CIA spent years secretly dosing people with mind-altering drugs and then lied about it", have turned out to be real. So I do not think there's any way to reliably distinguish, a priori, the difference between a "conspiracy theory" (idiotic nonsense) and a "conspiracy theory" (established fact): it is necessary to examine the actual merits of the claim. For the sake of clarity, I think a reasonable person would want to make some distinction when describing the two, e.g. "false conspiracy theories" versus "true conspiracy theories", or something along those lines.
With that said, the lede of this article seems somewhat lacking: it is not terrible, but I don't think it is great either. It opens by saying that "a conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable". This does not seem true to me. This is a little complicated, so I will explain. It is obviously true that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used by many people (i.e. journalists, politicians, podcasters, people in daily life) to refer to nonsensical claims. However, this is true only of the phrase: like I said, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of conspiracies which are completely true. Legitimate scholars publish theories about these conspiracies on a regular basis (Arthur Robinson (1994). "Avoiding the Responsibility: Cicero and the Suppression of Catiline's Conspiracy". Syllecta Classica. doi:10.1353/syl.1994.0005.; Ruth P. Morgan (1996). "Nixon, Watergate, and the Study of the Presidency". Presidential Studies Quarterly.) If we say that these are false, we are the crackpots writing original research to support fringe theories!
We go on to utter a very strange sentence: "A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, including but not limited to opposition to the mainstream consensus among those who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy, such as scientists or historians". While this is certainly helpful, and better than not saying anything at all, it seems a little confusing and inadequate. Right after we say this, we devote the bulk of an entire paragraph to claims that people who believe in conspiracy theories are unintelligent, paranoid, narcissistic, and schizotypal.
You can see that most of what I'm saying here is indeed supported by the article as it stands; the sections "Origin and usage" and "Difference from conspiracy" are both helpful and necessary. However, I think that more of the stuff from the latter section should be in the lead, and that the article should be overall more clear about the fact that it describes a term versus an actual category. If I may be blunt, the page should look more like a Wikipedia article and less like an essay arguing against people who believe that 9/11 was fake. jp×g 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Issues with weight and structure
This article definitely has a fair few issues, not least with its weighing of different material and its chaotic structure. There appears to be a huge overemphasis on illustrating and criticizing US conspiracy theories, often in an overly specific and not particularly prose manner. (Such that a globalise template would not be inappropriate.) This issue bleeds over into the structural problems, with sections such as "examples", which is a rather trivial section seemingly serving as a host for a link to a list, and itself just presenting a collection of US conspiracy theories. More generally, the page is made up of a patchwork of smaller sections with little more cohesion than that. There is notably no history section, with the history of conspiracy theories parceled away into other sections in pieces. The section currently entitled "Consequences" begins with some obvious history material, and this also illustrates the lack of cohesion across the page. It points to governments in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union using conspiracy theories to conduct witch-hunts, while rather conspicuously missing out the US and McCarthyism - one of the greatest examples of a conspiracy theory-fuelled witch-hunt in history - because this material is stowed separately in the "politics" section. That is no service to the reader. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Articles must reflect the weight in reliable sources. Official stories by democratic governments (broadly defined) are usually not considered conspiracy theories, even if they meet all the criteria. TFD (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are referring to McCarthyism? If so, there are plenty of sources assessing either the political phenomenon itself or at least the paranoid beliefs on which it was based as conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't found any books or articles about conspiracism that include McCarthyism. Can you link to any? TFD (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, a tertiary source that references it is Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. The same source also includes an entry on Floridation as a related anti-communist conspiracy theory during the same period. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Flouridation. "Floridation" is the process by which the US slowly turns into an expanded version of Florida. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I had to check, and we do not have a section on what is one of the archetypal conspiracy theories. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's missing from Conspiracy theories in United States politics too it seems, so yes, there are a few pages making that rather conspicuous omission. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I had to check, and we do not have a section on what is one of the archetypal conspiracy theories. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- AFAICT, your source does not refer to McCarthyism as a conspiracy theory but introduces it as an aspect of anti-Communism that helped fuel conspiracy theories about fluoridation etc. So did the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the loss of China, actual spy cases, and Soviet development of the atom bomb and putting the first satellite into orbit. TFD (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The encyclopedia of conspiracy theories calls it the "conspiracy of communism" - I don't think that conspiracy in this particular context means not conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's a fundamental difference between believing that (for want of a better word) an "enemy" country (or its controlling political ideology writ large) is conspiring to infiltrate one's government and social institutions, and the kind of conspiracy theories which this article deals with, especially when one considers that we had just finished involvement in a war in which such things absolutely did happen on both sides. That's not at all a justification for McCarthyism or a indication of approval for it, it just means that it's a different kind of thing, and not a "conspiracy theory" as discussed in this article. It's rather like saying that the widespread belief in the South prior to the Civil War that Northern abolitionists wanted to destroy Southern culture is an example of a "conspiracy theory" in this article's meaning. Such an expansion of this article to include McCarthyism and Southern misapprehensions about abolitionist's motivations would unfocus it in such a drastic way as to make it much less useful to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- As it stands, I am not aware of the article making any clear distinction between government-led conspiracy theory and any other kind of conspiracy theory. It mentions several governments and notes that conspiracy theories are often closely linked with both propaganda and witch hunts - both of which were clearly hallmarks of the second Red Scare. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Those subjects are more than adequately covered in other articles. Their inclusion here would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT, at the very least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it mentions governments taking advantage of conspiracy theories rather than govt led ones. And of course it's never our government, it's some foreign non-democratic one.
- McCarthy's claim that he had a list of 205 Communist Party members in the State Department was plausible. Compare with a common theory among extreme anti-Communists at the time that 50,000 Communist Party members had become priests in the U.S. in order to infiltrate the Catholic Church. Or that the Soviets controlled water boards across the U.S. in order to add fluoride to water. Also, McCarthy's claim was falsifiable. Just ask to see the list and investigate the people on it. But the other claims could not be proved or disproved. TFD (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
And of course it's never our government, it's some foreign non-democratic one.
- I would say that this is rather the point here. It smacks of systemic bias. This page is devoid of history/context. On page 73 of the encyclopedia it continues with anti-federalism, noting that"The United Status was founded on conspiracy theories..."
The page currently presents a rather stereotypical caricature of conspiracy theories with conspiracy theories being something that only foreign governments and fringe nut jobs in the West partake of, rather than as a rather more widespread psychological phenomenon and common off-spin of unhealthy paranoia that democratic institutions have also readily fallen prey to at times in history. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- As it stands, I am not aware of the article making any clear distinction between government-led conspiracy theory and any other kind of conspiracy theory. It mentions several governments and notes that conspiracy theories are often closely linked with both propaganda and witch hunts - both of which were clearly hallmarks of the second Red Scare. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's a fundamental difference between believing that (for want of a better word) an "enemy" country (or its controlling political ideology writ large) is conspiring to infiltrate one's government and social institutions, and the kind of conspiracy theories which this article deals with, especially when one considers that we had just finished involvement in a war in which such things absolutely did happen on both sides. That's not at all a justification for McCarthyism or a indication of approval for it, it just means that it's a different kind of thing, and not a "conspiracy theory" as discussed in this article. It's rather like saying that the widespread belief in the South prior to the Civil War that Northern abolitionists wanted to destroy Southern culture is an example of a "conspiracy theory" in this article's meaning. Such an expansion of this article to include McCarthyism and Southern misapprehensions about abolitionist's motivations would unfocus it in such a drastic way as to make it much less useful to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- The encyclopedia of conspiracy theories calls it the "conspiracy of communism" - I don't think that conspiracy in this particular context means not conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Flouridation. "Floridation" is the process by which the US slowly turns into an expanded version of Florida. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, a tertiary source that references it is Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. The same source also includes an entry on Floridation as a related anti-communist conspiracy theory during the same period. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't found any books or articles about conspiracism that include McCarthyism. Can you link to any? TFD (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are referring to McCarthyism? If so, there are plenty of sources assessing either the political phenomenon itself or at least the paranoid beliefs on which it was based as conspiracy theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
"Controversy" part
Time ago, there is a part named "Controversy". It must be put back. :2.138.38.101 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I support creating a section with information about cases of abuse of the term, because the term is routinely used to disparage opponents and quash debate, as it happened with the COVID Lancet letter. It literally and fraudulently stopped scientific debate about the origins of the virus, worldwide. Researchers, physicians and scientists felt their reputation and even jobs were in danger if they dared to study the possibility of a lab origin. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Generaly we avoid controversy sections. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Are there expert sources that contain analysis and commentary supporting the idea that the term 'conspiracy theory' is being abused in a prominent and substantial way? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think the expert sources suffice to be reliable sources like news reports. As far as I know, conspiracy theory is not a topic like a medical article or other subjected to specific guidelines more stringent than other articles regarding expert sources. I was checking an interesting article about the subject from New York Magazine titled, "The Surprisingly Contrarian Case Against Lying About Science".[1] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- One philosopher is Kurtis Hagen, who has dealt with the concept of conspiracy theory. He has written the book "Conspiracy Theories and the Failure of Intellectual Critique", where he deals with the use of the term "conspiracy theory". It turns out that there are several authors, and each one uses a different definition of "conspiracy theory". In the section on definition, this fact should be cited and the different definitions by different authors (Hagen, Dhentit, Coady, Keely, Pipes, etc.)
- 2.138.34.36 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am unsure if anyone listed as an "independent schooler" woud be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Kurtis Hagen argues that conspiracy theories, including those that conflict with official accounts and suggest that prominent people in Western democracies have engaged in appalling behavior, should be taken seriously and judged on their merits and problems on a case-by-case basis.
This obviously doesn't reflect the majority view of expert sources. I suppose it could be explicitly noted in the context of a minority view, but a more appropriate place for this kind of navel-gazing would be at Philosophy of conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)- Even a "minority view" must come from a recognized expert and reliable source in order to be included in the article. As Slatersteven wrote above, I'm not certain that Kurtis Hagen meets those criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Kurtis Hagen is reliable. There is a reference to them at the article Cass Sunstein.[2] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- One reference in a grouping of five. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- A writer in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy might be a reliable source. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- One reference in a grouping of five. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think Kurtis Hagen is reliable. There is a reference to them at the article Cass Sunstein.[2] Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- "I suppose it could be explicitly noted in the context of a minority view". Exactly. And I believe it should be in this page because the purpose is to balance this article properly according to WP:NPOV. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, even minority views must come from a subject expert. Being an unemployed philosopher and writing a single book about a subject not actually in his area of expertise may qualify him as being a subject expert. I think that it's the burden of those who wish to quote him to provide evidence sufficient to get a consensus here that he is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Probably wouldn't hurt for someone to read the book as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is the author unemployed and how many books on the subject have been written by the other sources used in the Conspiracy theory page? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Again, even minority views must come from a subject expert. Being an unemployed philosopher and writing a single book about a subject not actually in his area of expertise may qualify him as being a subject expert. I think that it's the burden of those who wish to quote him to provide evidence sufficient to get a consensus here that he is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Even a "minority view" must come from a recognized expert and reliable source in order to be included in the article. As Slatersteven wrote above, I'm not certain that Kurtis Hagen meets those criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I support creating a section with information about cases of abuse of the term, because the term is routinely used to disparage opponents and quash debate, as it happened with the COVID Lancet letter. It literally and fraudulently stopped scientific debate about the origins of the virus, worldwide. Researchers, physicians and scientists felt their reputation and even jobs were in danger if they dared to study the possibility of a lab origin. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/lab-leak-hypothesis-lying-about-science-is-bad-for-liberals.html
- ^ Kurtis Hagen, "Is Infiltration of 'Extremist Groups' Justified?" International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24.2 (Fall 2010) 153–68.
On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
The article "On the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs", by David Robert Grimes, is important, and it needs a chapter in this article.
2.138.34.36 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- For what? Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- It has been cited many times.
- 2.138.34.36 (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I fail to see then why it needs its own section then. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- If not, put in another section.
- 2.138.34.36 (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you want us to say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Try reading the article. It's here: Conspiracy_theory#Viability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's not incumbent on the editors here to do your work for you. If you want to get a consensus to add a "chapter" on this source, you must make the arguments necessary to get agreement from other editors. Otherwise, it will stands as Not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I fail to see then why it needs its own section then. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Revert
I reverted a change and mistakenly labeled it "vandalism" in my edit summary. I removed the addition not due to vandalism, but because the information added doesn't seem to belong in the place it was added, and consensus was not gained for the information added. Again, my apologies for the incorrect edit summary. King keudo (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I added information about David Grimes' article. It must no be reverted.2.138.38.109 (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Rethoric
In section "Rhetoric" it should be good to add a subsection like "Rhetoric of oficialnoids" 2.138.38.109 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- What's an "officialnoid"? Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Conspiranoid is the person who believes in unofficial conspiracy theories. Officialnoid is the person who only believes official conspiracy theories.2.138.38.109 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- It appears to have something to do with song lyrics.[1] Which means that it's not usable here, any more than Frank Zappa's assertion that dental floss is an agricultural product. Acroterion (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Conspiranoid is the person who believes in unofficial conspiracy theories. Officialnoid is the person who only believes official conspiracy theories.2.138.38.109 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- How about "Rhetoric of anti-conspiracists".2.138.38.109 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- How about "Rhetoric of anti-conspiracists".2.138.38.109 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)