Talk:Conspiracy theory

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.

Article is poorly written and argumentative

Much of this page is inflammatory conjecture

Conspiracies happen. And this page paints any theory or thought about a situation that isn't confirmed, is de facto bats**t insane and shouldn't be tolerated.

This entire article needs to be rewritten to be nonpartisan and less accusatory Knst132 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. But there is a strong status quo in this page guarding the place. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

there is a strong status quo in this page guarding the place. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

No, as they are right, there is, and we are both part of it, its called reality. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What a convenient little dismissal. Nerdwizard (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No amount of WP:SCREW can stand long against properly sourced, well written and reasoned material. Broad generalized complaints are always easier than doing the footwork of actually refactoring articles. So… be bold and fix it yourself… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

To be promptly reverted. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 – If the output isn't trash, one typically isn't reverted. Even if so: that's where well written, sourced, and reasoned come into play. That gets ya Ninety-ninety percent of the way there. The rest, is just a small matter of editing… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is very right to get back the section "Controversy". Another way, translate the section "Controversia" from Spanish article.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

there is a strong status quo in this page guarding the place If you mean there is a broad WP:CONSENSUS of experienced editors that agree non-notable minority views need not be given weight in this particular article, you are correct. Equivocating and navel-gazing on the topic might be covered at Philosophy of conspiracy theories however, depending on the sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyediting is literally what many would consider navel-gazing though. I mean who in society in general engages in protracted discussions about whether there should be a comma or a word in a sentence or not? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do, and when they do they are called Conspiracies, what we do not do (and should not to do) is give Conspiracy theories the same weight as proven Conspiracies. Thus we goi by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" is controversial. There is no unanimity on its definition. Many philosophers and historian are against the pejorative meaning of the term "conspiracy theory." Among them, Dentith, Kurtis Hagen, Charles Pidgen, Micheal Parenti, David Coady and others. Their point of view should appear in the article, as it does with the article in Spanish. 2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be great if you share the citations of those authors. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There are some interesting papers about conspiracy theory:

https://philpeople.org/profiles/kurtis-hagen

https://philpeople.org/profiles/charles-r-pigden

https://philpeople.org/profiles/david-coady?app=678z

https://philpeople.org/profiles/m-r-x-dentith

And a very interesting book about conspiracy theories by Kurt Hagen:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Conspiracy-Theories-Failure-Intellectual-Critique-ebook/dp/B0B25V15X6/ref=sr_1_5?crid=6BJHL72XVGTA&keywords=kurtis+hagen&qid=1695657719&s=books&sprefix=kurtis+ha%2Cstripbooks%2C551&sr=1-5

You can get a free sample for Kindle with some chapters. Even if you don't read the entire book, those chapters are very interesting.

You can see Spanish wikipedia:

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADa_conspirativa#Controversia

You can use Google translator.

I would like to have contributed to the article in English, but I am afraid of being reverted.

2.138.45.126 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The doctoral thesis of philosopher Matthew Dentith named "In defence of conspiracy theories":

https://philarchive.org/rec/DENIDO-2

2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Many papers about 'Conspiracy theory theory':

https://philpapers.org/s/Conspiracy%20theory%20theory

2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

More papers:

https://www.academia.edu/search?q=conspiracy%20theory&utf8=%E2%9C%93

2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read these, the first hit on https://philpapers.org/s/Conspiracy%20theory%20theory says ", I take conspiracy theories to be self-insulating beliefs in conspiracies. On this view, conspiracy theorists have their conspiratorial beliefs in a way that is immune to revision by counter-evidence. I argue that conspiracy theories are always irrational. " that does not support your contention in ajny way, so if you are just going to post random links without even reading them, well there is nothing more to discuss. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read several of the articles, not all the articles.
2.138.45.126 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well put quote and fits with this article. Helps explain why a group of people two years ago waited for months at the grassy knoll for JFK Jr. and JFK to appear. That the Kennedy's and Trump were direct descendants of Jesus and JFK Jr. would run as Trump's vice-president, even after they failed to appear. [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You are basically telling us, "Spend a few hours reading through these sources and get back to me if any of them support my view. I myself have better things to do with my time." TFD (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read many of the papers that appear in those links. If I have put them here, it is because @Thinker78 wanted citations. Those links may also be useful to other readers. I would put quotes from those authors on this Wikipedia if I knew it wasn't going to be reversed.

2.138.31.60 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more helpful if you quote the relevant passages of the cited sources, specifying page number and adding the citation after each quote (check Wikipedia:Citing sources). And of course, context is important. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To do this, the "Controversy" section must be restored. There are several interesting quotes for that section (from Dentith, Hagen and Pigden). I will make such appointments if I know it will not be reversed.
Furthermore, the "Controversy" section on Wikipedia says that the controversy exists, nothing more. It doesn't say the critics are right.

2.138.51.171 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

wp:brd is clear, you only make a bold edit if you have good reason to think it will not be reversed, as there is plenty of objection here to this, you must be aware it will be reversed. So do not do it without getting wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be consensus on recovering the "Controversy" section. What do others think?

2.138.51.171 (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

*"Controversy" is misleading. There is no controversy in mainstream academia regarding the nature of conspiracy theories. Recently, there has been a rather small group of philosophers who have expressed disagreement with mainstream understandings: Charles Pigden, David Coady, MRX Dentith, Lee Basham, and Kurtis Hagen have argued philosophically in defense of conspiracy theories. Fringe believers are very excited about this because it opens the door for conspiracy theories of all kinds to be taken seriously, especially the ones they feel have been unfairly denigrated (JFK, 9/11, Covid, election fraud, aliens, etc). These philosophical squabbles are fairly recent and are confined to obscure philosophy journals, so the mainstream hasn't picked up on them. Being a WP:MAINSTREAM reference work, Wikipedia doesn't lead topics in new directions. Instead it lags behind and waits until a preponderance of high quality sources record the level of interest in that new direction. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Obscure philosophy journals? When is it "obscure" a philosophy journal? Are philosophy journals less important than sociology journals or psychology journals?

2.138.51.171 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

In relation to JFK you should have been better informed. Look at the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations article, which states: "The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the following year, which concluded that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

2.138.51.171 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracies do not exist. Therefore, everyone convicted by the courts of conspiracy has been a victim of a judicial error.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have confused this article, which is about claims of conspiracies that don't exist, with the article Conspiracy, which is about those that do. MrOllie (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory means "theory about a (possible or alleged) conspiracy." If conspiracies exist, some of these theories may turn out to be true. Many proven conspiracies started out as just a "conspiracy theory." 2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not the definition of the term given in the reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There are many definitions by different philosophers. See the work of Kurtis Hagen talking about several definitions.

2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This deserves its own threaded discussion with proper sources. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The terms "generalism" and "particularism" used by intellectuals in relation to the evaluation of conspiracy theories should be included here. 2.138.35.26 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory means "theory about a (possible or alleged) conspiracy." If conspiracies exist, some of these theories may turn out to be true. Many proven conspiracies started out as just a "conspiracy theory." Of course. With some basic philosophical convolution, you can deconstruct anything to prove anything, theoretically. But that's not what this article is about. As mentioned above, Dentith, Kurtis Hagen et al may have a place at Philosophy of conspiracy theories. You've been pursuing the same argument here for two months using varied IPs. Continuing to lobby here against consensus is WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:DISRUPTION. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie Varied ips (dynamic ip) are a thing because internet service providers in many places actually charge if a person wants to have the same ip all the time (static ip). No idea why you assume is even the same editor. If you see, an ip did not start this thread. Also, editors routinely follow a page to comment in its changes, that's the purpose of watchlists.

In addition, the ip brought info I did not know and I am interested to know more about. It is relevant info to improve the article and to me it is not disruptive but actually helpful. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Therefore, I ask the ip to share with us the sources they have in mind. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. Sticks need to be dropped. When something is not based in reality, Wikipedia says so. Conspiracy theory advocacy is the archetypal WP:FRINGE editing, and anyone willing to engage in it is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's objectives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's ironic you mention sticks need to be dropped while at the same time talking about "conspiracy theory advocacy". Be consistent.

You are confusing advocacy with presentation of information. Also, one thing is fringe editing another thing is suppression of helpful information. Again, if someone has reliable sources about the information they are presenting, not allowing them to post them is undue censorship and disruption. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No one is being suppressed nor prevented from pursuing lines of argumentation or presenting evidence backing such positions.

Please note: discussion of behavior belongs within User Talk; broader topics not immediately related to this article may belong elsewhere (WP:VP, WP:HD, WP:RD etc.).

Also: WP:COAL. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROFRINGE edits are stifled, and rightly so. Academic debate should not be stifled, but we only have to render WP:DUE academic claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [refactored to reflect current indentation-- dsprc ^[talk] 03:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)]

So let me get this right; a " conspiracy" exists.a theory about a supposed conspiracy, does. Or exist? How do things become confirmed true if they aren't a suspected theory in the first place?

The terminology of 'conspiracy theory' needs to change, because it's become a buzz term for dismissing people. If conspiracies happen, why don't they happen until they're confirmed to have happened? Are we not permitted to theorize about high level corruption?

And why is there no distinction between conspiracies about fanciful and non-fanciful things?

It's too broad a term, and the article leans very partisan toward one specific viewpoint, which doesn't paint a complete picture of the mosaic of people that might entertain alternative ideas, which is important. Knst132 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Knst132 It is not about truth or not truth due to epistemological constraints; information needs to be backed by reliable sources and as such, Wikipedia works by reflecting what reliable sources state. Of course, the process of adding info to articles is not perfect but if you have info backed by reliable sources, you are welcome to bring it to the table. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Link “List of conspiracy theories” to the See Also to be consistent with other articles of this variety

Frequently on Wikipedia, when you see a broad topic like this (see also: the pseudoscience article), you have the concept defined and then a list of instances of the concept. For consistency I think that the List of conspiracy theories page should be linked from this one. I currently lack the permissions to make this change which is why I haven’t done it yet. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

A part does not equal the whole

The lead sentence of this article is factually wrong and has NPOV issues, specifically the clause stating "when other explanations are more probable." Conspiracy theories where other explanations being more probable are a subset of the broader category of theories about conspiracies, some of which are the most probable explanation; to label all conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations when this is only true for some is the fallacy of composition.

That sentence as it is written, describes conspiracy theories with a pejorative connotation, which by definition, cannot be a neutral point of view. The factually incorrect assertion is attributed to cherry-picked sources on which undue weight is placed, when sources that do not describe conspiracy theories in a pejorative manner could be used instead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence does a nice job of clarifying that the term may be understood by some to have a negative connotation, rather than stating so in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose modifying the first two sentences to read:

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. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're working from a false premise here. This is a particular term with a particular definition, which is well supported by the cited sources.

When there is a theory out there about a conspiracy that is probably true, that's not what this article is about, it is a different beast altogether. We do not need to contort the lead of this article to try to cover that situation.

Describing conspiracy theories as likely to be false is not a neutrality problem any more than saying the same about delusions. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Delusions, unlike conspiracy theories, are by definition false.

The same is not true of conspiracy theories, which are "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon" -- the definition does not exclude such beliefs that are true.

A conspiracy theory is a specific type of theory (a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained) and theories can be true or false -- unless you also wish to change the lede of theory to read "A theory is a false type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking."

Of course I'm aware that most people connotatively view conspiracy theories as likely to be untrue. But such is a subjective opinion, and when subjective statements can be sourced to reliable sources, they ought to be qualified, and not stated in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources do not chop the definition in half as you are doing here. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I trying to grasp at what you position is. My claims are:

(1) The definition of conspiracy theory, which is cited in the origin and usage section, makes no mention of veracity, as does the one i cited above.

(2) This notion of "conspiracy theories are false" is a cultural conception, not a fact, and it should be qualified as such.

(3) Sources which express opinions, no matter how reliable they are, should be qualified as such.

To which of the above do you disagree? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

All of the above, though (3) is technically correct and simply irrelevant here. To quote the article: when other explanations are more probable that is part of the definition. This is not a problem, just as it is not a problem that delusions are false by definition as you correctly stated. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well if you disagree with points (1) and (2), then you ought to revise this article's origin and usage section, which states exactly what I am saying as points 1 and 2. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Even assuming you are right: That is not how Wikipedia works. Editors should not remove sourced text just because they disagree with it. We have a lot of work reverting the edits of people who do exactly that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that MrOllie is wrong to say that points (1) and (2) are invalid because they are backed by reliable sources that are IN THIS ARTICLE ALREADY. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Language changes over time. Sources about how the term was used in 1863 or urban legends about the CIA don't have anything to do with how academic sources define it today. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You're strawmanning and not giving me a fair shake here.

OED is a contemporary source. The contemporary research cited in that section [2] Conspiracy_theory#cite_note-55 also state as such and says that it use used commonly in a derogatory way but is not per se implausible. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The OED does not overrule other sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The journal articles cited in the lead in no way overrule the OED or journal articles I just cited above.

Because reliable source disagree, we should qualify claims and not state them in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think the OED definition is fringe and can't be given undue weight, it shouldn't be included in the origin and usage or the lead. The origin and usage section doesn't get a special exception for the logic that you are applying to the lead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No one has said that, but have fun attacking that Straw man. MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say you said that. I think you don't think that. I'm arguing that OED definition should also be in the lead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And you are making the fallacy fallacy by not addressing the substance of "The journal articles cited in the lead in no way overrule the OED or journal articles I just cited above.

Because reliable source disagree, we should qualify claims and not state them in wikivoice." Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

When a source is silent on a factual claim (as is the OED), that cannot be construed as disagreement. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

When a source's definition of conspiracy theory omits the condition that thing must be false/implausible/unlikely to be considered a conspiracy theory, that source necessarily makes the claim that a thing can be a conspiracy theory irrespective of whether or not it is false/implausible/unlikely. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If I say dog means "a canine which is named Fido" and you show me multiple sources that define dog without mention of "Fido", it does not mean that your sources are neutral as to whether or not being named Fido is a necessary condition to be considered a dog; it means that they do not think Fido is a necessary condition to be considered a dog. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You're making assumptions there which aren't reflected in the sources. If a source doesn't mention a thing that counts for precisely nothing, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories which are more likely true than false fall under OED's definition; yes or no? Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The premise of the question is flawed, so I cannot answer. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What controversial assumption is contained in the question? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It assumes that there are conspiracy theories that are more likely to be true than false, for one thing. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Would theories about conspiracies which fail the "other explanations are more probable" condition -- like for example, the theory that British aristocrats conspired with the Confederates -- be considered "conspiracy theories" under OED's definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is fruitful to try to apply modern definitions to usage from 1863. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Theorized conspiracies which are not implausible exist in any time period. The question is whether they are considered conspiracy theories.

Under the OED definition, they clearly are, which you clearly don't want to admit.

The OED definition should also be included in the lead to not give undue weight to sources which state conspiracy theories are unlikely to be true by definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not answering your questions because they are not germane to the matter at hand, which must be based on Wikipedia's policies, and not our personal impressions of what definitions should be. And as I mentioned earlier, when the OED is slient on a point that cannot be construed to mean that it disagrees with the other sources. MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is am absurd conclusion, and you are refusing to engage with my contentions in good faith. It is not unreasonable for me to make the adverse inference that you refuse to answer my questions because an answer would prove that I am right. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie is right to refuse. This is not the place for such discussions. Read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

In the case of a definition, yes it is! Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How is it making an assumption to say that theories about conspiracies, regardless of plausibility, fall under OED's definition because OED's definition places no weight on plausibility? Peter L Griffin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I sense a pattern here, whether intended or not, quite similar to Argument Clinic. Luckily Wikipedia content is decided by a WP:CONSENSUS of experienced editors using policy-based rationale rather than a process of wearing down of opponents in endless circular debates. At this point, Peter L Griffin's proposal for making fundamental changes to the article topic is best retired, or if he wishes, submitted at a venue such as WP:NPOVN or WP:FTN where wider opinion is available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Peter L Griffin, the encyclopedia summarizes what WP:RS say about a given topic. You may disagree with what cited sources say, but it doesn't change editorial policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

At best, a conspiracy theory might be "unproven" for a short time, but even that situation is rare, because it normally has several parts, and it is rare for all of them to be factual. (It only takes one faulty brick to bring down the whole structure, and conspiracy theorists tend to be contrarians who are at war with many (not just one) aspects of what society considers facts.) Usually, some of the aspects of a theory are already proven false and/or they question and ignore proven facts, hence the theory is already false from the beginning. It is created to support some weird and false idea held by its creator. A theory that is proven true is no longer a conspiracy theory but a fact.

As far as our practice here goes, articles for false conspiracy theories often include the words "conspiracy theory" in the title. If the theory is proven true, we retitle the article and remove those words. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's overly generous to say that "other explanations are more probable" and some of the sources for this statement are stronger, for example calling them false beliefs. TFD (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And some other of the sources do not make a claim as to whether or not they are false.

If reliable sources disagree on a factual claim, should that claim be included unqualified? Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this is necessary. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

When is a Conspiracy theory not a Conspiracy theory?

When its a Conspiracy.

We have an article on real ones, this is about the false ones. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your thinking is far too binary; something not having been proven true does not mean it is false. The true-false dichotomy exists theoretically, but only when all the facts are readily available. Sometimes things cannot (or have not at this time) been proven to be definitely true or false, and the lack it being proven true does not mean that one can confidently assert in wikivoice that it is false.

A conspiracy theory is a theorized conspiracy which has not been proven true. It has not necessarily been proven false, and may be proven true some time in the future.

• Conspiracy theory which is proven true -> Conspiracy
• Conspiracy theory which is proven false -> Conspiracy theory
• Conspiracy theory which has not been proven true or false -> Conspiracy theory

An example of the last category would be the Georgia election racketeering prosecution against Donald Trump. The prosecution's theory is that Trump "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election.

A conspiracy theory? You bet. Is it false? We don't know yet.

Should it be summarily labeled as "unlikely to be true" because of the existence of other unrelated conspiracy theories which are false? Certainly not. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory (legal term) has its own article. This is not it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you are correct that the example I have given also has a legal component.

Here is another:

In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, but concluded that the commission's report and the original FBI investigation were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable.

A conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination, which comes from a government body. I think it would be unfair to call it unlikely to be true. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This logic is based on some assumption like "US politicians cannot get anything wrong", which is not one of the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What reliable sources say that this "conspiracy theory" is unlikley to be true? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

And are there enough that this can be stated in an unqualified wikivoice? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you please read WP:INDENT? You keep adding colons in a way that makes it look as if you are responding to yourself and refuting your own points. It's confusing and wastes the time of readers. I corrected it in this instance, but it makes the discussion a few lines above even more tedious than it would be without that.

What reliable sources say I am not interested in fetching the sticks you throw. This is the talk page of Conspiracy theory, not that of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and because of WP:OR, you are not allowed to draw your own conclusions and put them into the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, is this in this article, what conspiracy theories do we include do you object to including? Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See my above comment. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, but concluded that the commission's report and the original FBI investigation were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Another also mentioned in this article which I dispute calling unlikley to be true is:

The earliest known usage was by the American author Charles Astor Bristed, in a letter to the editor published in The New York Times on January 11, 1863. He used it to refer to claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're crazy uncle JimBob putting on a tinfoil hat and saying Joe Biden is an alien without any evidence is one type of conspiracy theory. It's also what most people think of when they hear the term "conspiracy theory." This is because, as is described in the origin and usage section, while the actual definition of the word is agnostic to whether or not the theory is plausible, and the word was not initially derogatory, the word is now understood in popular society to connotatively to be derogatory, though not by definition.

What I have mentioned above —- the New York Times' theory that the British conspired with the Confederates, and the House of Representative's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as part of a conspiracy -- should not be waved off as if they were just baseless claims that "Joe Biden is an alien."

Of course there are conspiracies which are real. As per the scientific method, any conspiracy must first be theorized before it can be definitely proven. And sometimes it is very difficult to prove or disprove a theory, so it will forever remain a mere theory of indeterminate truthfulness. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You are using the Heap fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so--What is the heap in this circumstance?

It seems more accurate to characterizing the position opposite of mine as using the fallacy of composition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a continuum between crazy uncle JimBob's claim and the House of Representatives' theory, just as there is a continuum between a few grains of sand and a big heap. JimBob's reasoning is crap and you can tell that it is crap, and the House's reasoning is crap and you cannot tell it is crap but other people can.

Your whole approach is flawed. Wikipedia articles are base on reliable sources. You are not a reliable source, therefore the article cannot be based on your reasoning. It is pointless to try. Go publish it in a reliable source, and if the reception is good, we may be able to use it. It's the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Plausible conspiracy theories

In the above section on the talk page, I have argued that, according to this article's own sources and "Origin and usage" section, a conspiracy theory is not dubious or implausible per se, but rather a descriptive term that gained a pejorative connotation in the 20th century.

Of course there are conspiracies which are real. As per the scientific method, any conspiracy must first be theorized before it can be definitely proven. Thus, some conspiracy theories, under the non-pejorative literal definition of "conspiracy theory", are plausible.

I listed, for example, the Georgia election racketeering prosecution against Donald Trump. The prosecution's theory is that Trump "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election. It is so plausible that this theorized conspiracy is true that Trump is standing trial for it.

Others argue that this article is not about those types of conspiracy theories, it is about our casual cultural conception of obviously loony conspiracy theories: QAnon, Pizzagate, Space Laser type stuff. As much as I disagree, if this is truly the consensus, then it naturally follows that we should remove the following conspiracy theories from this page:

• Claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests.
• The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations' 1979 finding that the Warren commission's report and the original FBI investigation on the JFK assassination were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable.

If the "when other explanations are more probable" clause in the first sentence of this article continues to be stated in wikivoice as applying to all conspiracy theories, it is only right to remove these plausible conspiracy theories from this page, as they do not fall within that pejorative definition of conspiracy theory. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As you say, this is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus above states that conspiracy theories are false. So now, I'm starting a separate thread to remove conspiracy theories that don't meet that definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"Other explanations are more probable" is not the same as "false". And the bullet points you are objecting to are in a discussion about historical usage of the term. Their presence in the article is relevant in that context. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)