Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 13

I open this discussion somewhat tongue in cheek, but not entirely.

I believe the current conspiracy theory article is flawed in the following ways: 1) how it defines a conspiracy theory, 2) what is considered a conspiracy theory ad 3) who it lists as a conspiracy theorist.

I think it's fair to say that there is a distinction between government, corporate and media corruption and what I will call for the sake of this discussion GRAND conspiracy theories, theories that attempt to explain everything in terms of a small group of secretive, highly powerful individuals who control or seek to control everything.

Unfortunately, for the purposes of advancing a point of view and/or seeking to diminish the status of legitimate research and discussion of aspects of government, corporate and media corruption it is far too easy to tag research and discussion topics with the term "conspiracy theory." For example, a government official engaged in a criminal conduct (say, manufacturing justification for war where none exists) can claim that individuals pursuing this line of research are "conspiracy theorists."

Someone who does not like Domhoff's conclusions could call him a "conspiracy theorist" and thereby add him to the hodge podge of names currently on this article's list of conspiracy theorists.

Were someone to do such a thing they'd be justified by the fact that Domhoff's publicly stated beliefs are similar to beliefs of individuals who are currently on the "conspiracy theorist" list that's part of this article.

For example:

1. "Who Rules America?" The conventional answer to this question raised by the title of one of Domhoff's books is that the people do. Domhoff does not believe this and has written an entire book to explain his views.

2. If the people of America do not rule their own country, then who does? Domhoff is unequivocal about that. He says they are:

"The owners and managers of large income-producing properties; i.e., corporations, banks, and agri-businesses. But they have plenty of help from the managers and experts they hire."

3. Do these people rule at the local level too? According to Domhoff, no. His answer: "The local level is dominated by the land owners and businesses related to real estate that come together as growth coalitions, making cities into growth machines."

4. Do elections matter in the US? The convention answer, of course, is yes. Domhoff disagrees. His statement on the matter: "They usually matter a lot less than they could, and a lot less in America than they do in other industrialized democracies. That's because of the nature of the electoral rules and the unique history of the South.'

Al quotes from here: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica

In Domhoff's world view, the US is ruled by the owners of large corporations, banks and agri-business and because of flaws in its electoral system it is LESS democratic than some other industrialized nations.

It would be very easy for a conventionally minded person to take exception to Domhoff's views and declare his research and opinion to the the ravings of a "conspiracy theorist." Of course, America is ruled by the people. Of course, elections are the determining factor in how the country is run. Of course, America has the most democratic society in the word. To clam otherwise is to suggest that something else is really going on therefore to be a "conspiracy theorist."

As I look at the list of "conspiracy theorists" in this article I see:

Mae Brussell who documented the extreme right wing affiliations, including some actual Nazi associations, of individuals who had working relationships with the Nixon, Bush and Reagan White Houses. Her research was largely based on articles appearing in mainstream news sources.

David Emory who conducts similar studies.

Lyndon LaRouche who, like him or not, is a political figure with a political organization that often appears on electoral ballots. As for his felony conviction, he shares that distinction with many US political figures. It's not terribly relevant to his classification as a "conspiracy theorist" unless the intention is to smear him.

Ken McCarthy who maintains a video directory of topics related to government, corporate and media corruption, the overwhelming majority of which come from mainstream media news reports.

Oliver Stone who made a feature film based on a book written by the District Attorney of New Orleans who investigated and indicted numerous figures in that city he believed were involved in the Kennedy assassination.

Robert Anton Wilson, a self-described "stand up neuro-physicist" who wrote about "conspiracy theories" as manifestations of psychological functioning.

These are writers/compilers whose work I'm familiar with. What standards are being used to include them on this list or to add others to it? For example, merely being a researcher and commentator on the details of governmental, corporate and media corruption does not seem to me to be adequate justification for tagging someone with this label.

The intention of this post is to stimulate thought and rational discussion. It's not my intention to diminish the efforts that have been made to assemble this article, only to point out the difficulties involved in doing it in an unbiased manner. If there is to be a list of "conspiracy theorists" those on it must conform to a commonly accepted definition of what a "conspiracy theorist" is.

Nolatime (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

This article already addresses the fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is sometimes or often misused by the Establisment to blunt criticism from serious intellectual dissidents such as G. William Domhoff and Noam Chomsky. That being said, one has to be careful to not confuse conspiracy theories (which has come to refer to theories which explain a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a "secret team" or "shadow government") with actual

political conspiracies. As for the section dealing with conspiracy theorists (which I've never added names to), I've only deleted the mention of Robert Anton Wilson for now since I don't have the time to look at the others. I agree with you that we need to come up with a guideline so that everyone knows who should and shouldn't be added to this section. Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person. Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is widely believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk

) 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mae Brussell - deceased/Robert Anton Wilson - deceased/Alex Jones - living/Dave Emory - living/Oliver Stone-living/Lydon LaRouche-living/Ken McCarthy - living/Jeff Rense - living/ Nolatime (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

I note that I made several adjustments to the "List" with the goal of adding detail and diluting what I considered biased and inacurate (reporting only the most sensational segments of a person's bio to the exclusion of other information) and that in some cases these were reverted. I believe Jeff Rense was one of the people. It's just not accurate to say that all that he reports on are UFOs and 911 conspiracy theories. Like him or dislike his, he is entitled to an accurate and complete statement about the nature of his work. A quick look at his web site will confirm the wide variety of topics he covers.Nolatime (talk)Nolatime —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

One of the academic sources for the

--Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You neglected to say why you felt the nedd for this addition to the talk page, and why you included this big quote in such.Slarty2 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

yep, he keeps removing all other newer discussions except his favorite old quote above. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

it's as if he is

owning this talkpage. 93.87.231.231 (talk

) 14:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't own the Conspiracy theory article and its talk page. However, I have taken responsibility for both in order to ensure that the article is improved to meet Wikipedia's good article criteria. According to Help:Archiving a talk page, it is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page to avoid that page becoming too large. Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. On the other hand, there are circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion. That being said, the reason why I always keep old quote above is because this article attracts many cranks who may not understand the rational skeptical yet neutral perspective from which this article is being edited. --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

there is a bot that archives, so you don't need to take that "responsibility" and burden upon yourself. i don't know who you refer to as crank, but i think that your labeling yourself as a 'rational skeptic' doesn't make you so. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I freely choose to take responsibility and burden upon myself despite the existence of this bot. What I don't need is you telling what I don't need to take. I never labeled myself a “rational skeptic” but, as imperfect as I am, I try my best to contribute to this article from the rational skeptical yet neutral perspective Wikipedia demands. --Loremaster (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know who removed my critique of G. William Domhoff's article and what justification was used to do so. There was nothing "old" about my post. It was posted less than a month ago. Nor was it "bulky." I grant that it may be a "burden" for those who want this one article by Domhoff to serve as Holy Writ on the subject, but if this article is going to be used this way, it should be open to evaluation and discussion.

To repeat a summary of the recently removed post, Domhoff's writings elsewhere make assertions about the governance of the US than are certainly not part of the consensus. He states (and I provided the exact text in the post that was removed) that: 1) citizens do not run the country, 2) international and domestic business forces both on a national and local level do, and 3) elections really don't matter much. This is certainly not what's taught in approved Civics textbooks, therefore by the standards used in this article Domhoff himself a conspiracy theorist.

Domhoff also states in the conspiracy theory article that eventually everything that goes on in government and in business is public and therefore it's ultimately impossible for there to be such thing as a secret government or corporate operation that has a "ruling" effect. It's hard to know where to begin to respond to such a preposterous assertion, but here's a short version:

1) There are agencies of the United States government that have as part of their core standard operating procedure systems for keeping specific facts from the public including the media and the Congress. Many thousands of people are employed this way and elaborate systems for information security exist to keep specific information and activities secret.

2) While I guess it's theoretically possible that all facts kept secure by these trained professionals at great expense are knowable, there are two practical questions that Domhoff in his wisdom fails to consider: 1) the practical problem caused by the sheer mass of these secrets and the relative lack of resources to ferret them out and 2) to adapt and paraphrase a quip from the economist John Maynard Keynes about inflation: "Yes, in the long run, all government secrets will eventually be uncovered, but in the long run we'll all be dead." My point being that the timeliness of information is everything and learning the facts about something "eventually" from a functional point of view can be as bad as never learning them at all.

Deliberately concealed government, military and corporate operations are a fact of daily life. To paint anyone and everyone who expresses an interest in these operations as a conspiracy theorist is both unsupportable and illogical.

My original purpose is raising this issue was to point out what consider a very serious problem with this article that has not been addressed: Specifically the list of "conspiracy theorists" that is part of this article is randomly and carelessly constructed and shoddily researched and documented. The whole list should be removed and re-assembled individual by individual only after clear, thoroughly discussed standards for what constitutes a conspiracy theorist are established.

If "conspiracy theorist" means one who believes that a small group secretly controls the world, then 90% + of the individuals on the conspiracy theory list should be removed immediately, esp. those who are living. Interest in underreported or unreported phenomenon does not make one a conspiracy theorist by this standard. In fact, if you look at the history of science, invention and discovery, breakthroughs in understanding in countless fields come specifically from people who are not part of the "consensus" and take what is an initially "unpopular" view of certain topics.

The ongoing failure to create clear standards for labeling living people as "conspiracy theorists" puts this list in its present state in violation of wikipedia's guidelines on living people.

The term "conspiracy theorist" is routinely used as tactic to smear individuals and discourage research directions and they've been numerous instances of this on wikipedia itself. For every "crank" who pushes a pet theory, there is a reactionary who paints individuals whose writing he or she dislikes with the""conspiracy theorist" brush as a way of personal attack. Nolatime (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Nolatime, both your previous and current critiques of Domhoff were in fact bulky and so full of (well-written) straw man arguments that they discourage most people from responding to them. That being said, your previous critique was not deleted but moved to the archives because I responded to it and you seem to be satisfied with my response. As for your critique of the list of conspiracy theorists, I created a new section in which to discuss a guideline for such a list. So I don't see what your problem is. --Loremaster (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

i think a word Machiavellian does need to be sourced, and even by mainstream wp:reliable_sources. :P 93.87.231.231 (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

why? --Loremaster (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry on Machiavellianism provides a succinct definition straight from the Oxford English Dictionary, saying that it is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct". Seems to fit the conspiracy bill perfectly, actually. In this situation, "Machiavellian" is simply an adjective, and a fitting one, at that. No need for a source.

To clarify, someone who is described as Machiavellian uses deceit and exploitation to stay in a position of power over others. Is that not what conspirators in shadowy organizations such as the New World Order are said to do? --clpo13_(talk) 06:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. --Loremaster (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly

WP:OR. 93.87.231.231 (talk

) 10:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have an extreme interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding original research that no one shares. --Loremaster (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

u r right. i'm an extremist, and you are a psychic (being able to read everyones mind). 77.46.171.76 (talk) 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful and instructive for contributors and editors of this article to familiarize themselves with the work of Project Censored, a project based out of Sonoma State University.

This is a quote from one its supporters. Their site is here: http://www.projectcensored.org/

"Project censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcast outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." — Walter Cronkite

The organization was started in 1976, publishes an annual yearbook and has sponsored numerous conferences.

"Through a partnership of faculty, students, and the community, Project Censored conducts research on important national news stories that are underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media. Each year, Project Censored publishes a ranking of the top 25 most censored nationally important news stories in the yearbook, Censored: Media Democracy in Action, which is released in September. Recent Censored books have been published in Spanish, Italian and Arabic."

What's the point?

The point is that there appears to be significant confusion by some contributors to this article over what constitutes "conspiracy theory" and what constitutes critical evaluation of the news media and its output.

Are false stories sometimes planted or spring up from no traceable source that spread and become "urban myths?" Of course. Are there occasions when stories (or theories) are constructed out of falsehoods with malicious intent? Again, of course.

Setting that aside, there are numerous news stories of importance that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media." So many so that a university has given over its resources to create a permanent center to study the phenomenon.

Interest in the failings of the news media and specifically in stories that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored" does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" in the way it is used in this article.Nolatime (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Academics Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman elaborated the propaganda model 20 years ago so interest in the failings of the news media and specifically in stories that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored" does not make one a "conspiracy theorist". However, conspiracy theorists often misinterpret same failings of the news media that Project Censored will document as part of a grand conspiracy of the Illuminati to secretly rule over the world or whatever hysteria is currently popular in their circles. That's the crucial difference the article is trying to explain. You need to get it through your head that this article isn't about critical evaluation of the news media and its output. It's about conspiracy theory! --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding mention of Gerald Posner in a list of "leading scholars of conspiracism". I'm surprised no one thought to bring the dispute to the talk page before now.

So, should Posner be included in this list? Can he be considered an academic with a focus in studying conspiracy theories? Can others in the list? Please discuss here before going back to the talk page to revert so we can avoid any more edit warring. --clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Posner is an investigative journalist and an author but, as far as I know, he isn't a scholar. However, I think the paragraph can be modified to include him if someone thinks he absolutely should be. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article quotes heavily from neoconservative critics of conspiracy theories, such as Michael Kelly, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Hofstadter and Daniel Pipes. Conspiracy theorists would typically respond to this by arguing that these very sources might be part of a conspiracy to hide the truth on the part of neoconservative organizations on the World Wide Web. ADM (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is obviously B.S. Just because someone is a neoconservative it doesn't mean they can't offer a relatively objective and accurate critique of conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to be rude. Anyhow, ADM suggested that majority of critics in WP article are neoconservatives. Is that true? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not true. Some of them are. Some of them are not.

libertarian socialist. So what? --Loremaster (talk

) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the example you just provided is a much better answer than the previous "B.S." thing. anyhow, editor expressed a concern that article might be biased towards a point of view of a specific ideology. that's all. i guess most useful would be if (s)he provided a list of non-neoconservative critics... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As a self-identified left-wing progressive, I can assure you that this article is not biased towards a neoconservative point of view. I was the one who included the mention of some of these critics not because of ideology but simply because they provide a relatively objective and accurate critique of conspiracy theories despite their personal ideological bias. That being said, the article could benefit from mentioning more non-neoconservative critics of conspiracy theories to neutralize any accusation of bias. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations

i think editor user:Arthur_Rubin should choose his words more carefully. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

instead of calling my edit a WP:Vandalism, you should try to find a source for your claim. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism; or at least "repeated edits against a clear consensus" and not supported by policy. If you want to remove the word, seek an RfC, but it's unlikely the result will be different than last time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting. clear consensus? search thought archives reveals this. great fu***** consensus you are talking about. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

and not supported by policy part is even more interesting... 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page before this dispute gets out of hand. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Should a word Machiavellian be added without a source being provided? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As clpo13 explained on 19 August 2009:

That being said, in an interview for the New Internationalist magazine, Micheal Barkun, a political scientist specializing in the study of conspiracism in American culture, states:

So I chose the word "Machiavellian" to summarize Barkun's notion that conspirators in most conspiracy theories are portrayed as cunning, duplicitous, and even evil. So this isn't a case of original research. Regardless, I don't understand your obsession with opposing the use of the word "Machiavellian". Can you explain it? --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

we should cite sources, not other wikipedia articles. i have no obsession with the word, but it seems you do, and you are projecting that obsession to me. i only ask you find a source for it, which you didn't do so far. why? i don't know. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

in addition, what has UFO conspiracy theory to do with "Machiavellian" thing? "Machiavellian" conspiracies are a subset of all conspiracies. is that so hard to understand for you? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:93.86.164.168, you seem terribly confused.

1. Wikipedia does not require we cite a source for one word, especially an abjective, unless it radically changes the commonly accepted meaning of a concept.

2. We only cited the Wikipedia article on Machiavellianism to make you understand that the word "Machiavellian" simply means that the conduct of an individual or a group is marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.

3. I'm not obsessed with using the word "Machiavellian" but, as User:Clpo13 explained in the quote above, it is simply the best word to describe conspirators. I describe you as seemingly "obsessed" only because for weeks now you insist on deleting this word without explaining why you think it needs to be sourced.

4. All conspiracies are Machiavellian. The conduct of conspirators is by definition marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith. For example, most UFO conspiracy theories imply that malevolent space aliens are in cahoots with shadowy government agencies who cover-up their mutual existence. This obviously requires Machiavellian conduct.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we add a bunch of other unsourced adjectives, like: egoistic, narcissistic, antisocial, untrustworthy, malevolent, immoral, etc. After all, they all describe as well those guys, don't they? I guess you won't mind me adding some of these adjectives, do you? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All conspiracies are Machiavellian. give me a source for that one. i think it is b.s. if an advanced UFO is malevolent, why would it need to be in cohoots with primitive human agencies? sounds ridiculous to me. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle conspiracy theory is Machiavellian? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Bermuda Triangle" myth isn't a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy requires conspirators, by their nature. Please stop your

disruptive editing. Verbal chat

07:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:93.86.164.168, you are now embarrasing yourself.

1. As I explained before, adjectives that do not radically change the commonly accepted meaning of a concept do NOT need to be sourced. "Egoistic", "narcissistic", "antisocial", "untrustworthy", "malevolent" and/or "immoral" are all good adjectives but I (and others) think that, for the sake of conciseness, "Machiavellian" is the best and only one we should use since it not only encapsulates all the other adjectives you mentioned but it also has a political dimension that is especially relevant to the subject of conspiracy theories.

2. I don't need to provide a source for something that can be demonstrated through pure logical argument. That being said, even if malevolent aliens don't need primitive human agencies, it doesn't change the fact the most UFO conspiracy theorists claim that these aliens are engaging in conduct that is marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.

3. The Bermuda Triangle is nautical lore not a conspiracy theory. And with that you proven to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about. ;)

--Loremaster (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

bermuda triangle was linked in see also section. anyhow, i'm just annoyed by the uncunning duplicity editors have when editing articles. for example, when i removed unsourced word mainstream, i was accused of being a vandal, but when you guys add whatever you want, you are being logical and cromulent. whatever.

i can BET that if add a sourced statement now: since threats and plots are common in international relations, the perception that others are machiavellian cannot be easily labeled as pathological. ^[19], i'll get immediately reverted, and called names. very Machiavellian of other editors, i must say! :P 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the Bermuda Triangle is not a conspiracy theory, it is possible that some conspiracy theorists speculate that a group of human or alien conspirators is using the myth of the Bermuda Triangle to capture planes and boats in order to abduct people (which obviously is a sign of cunning, duplicity or bad faith...). If so, that would justify the link in the See also section. Regardless, there is nothing duplicitous about using unsourced words if they are common SYNONYMS for the words used by sources. As User:Baccyak4H explained below, that's what Wikipedia editing is all about. However, deleting adjectives without any explanation beyond the claim that they are are unsourced is ridiculous.

Putting aside that there is a difference between an unsourced word (which is usually fine) and an unsourced statement (which is usually bad), there is nothing wrong with the sourced statement you wrote. However, you would have to add it somewhere in the article where it makes sense. If not, that would be the only reason why I or someone else would delete it. For example, in my opinion, it would not be perninent to add such a statement in the the lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• No problem It's a perfectly cromulent word being used correctly. Verbal chat 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes Reasons given at Verbal 20:02 20 Sept and Loremaster 17:47 20 Sept. Machiavellian is a descriptive and characterising adjective, more than appropriate to characterise here. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• referred from signpost Of course Our job as editors is to summarize and paraphrase, keeping the meaning as true to the sources as possible. This word does that well. That is not to suggest you may not propose a better one. "cromulent"?!? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia article on cromulent. Verbal chat 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment per RfC: This isn't really a question about sources but about style. I really like Machiavellian as a word but I'm not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia. It just carries too much baggage and is too colourful. We should aim to be a bit more boring. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. 1) Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia has a good article on

Machiavelianism. 2) I choose the word Machiavellian because its accuracy and political connotation but also because it sounds far less melodramatic that the word "evil" which is the word used by some sources. --Loremaster (talk

) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

i am sure then, that out of all those encyclopedias, you will succeed to find at least one that uses the word in the conspiracy theory article. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times I have to explain this to you until it sinks in but, as editors of a free encyclopedia, we have the freedom to use synonyms for words used by reliable sources. Therefore, the fact that there might be no other encyclopedia that uses the word "Machiavellian" in their definition of the term "conspiracy theory" is irrelevant since it would simply mean that Wikipedia is far more discerning and insightful. Are we done? --Loremaster (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To add my two cents into the fray, I would agree with Blue-Haired for my affection for Machiavelianism as a word and that this is a matter of style. I believe it need not be sourced. However, the word is highly loaded, almost to the point of being provocative. I would suggest using a different word for this, only because of being too provocative. If this goes against consensus, I'll withdraw and let it stand. Dinkytown (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to have such a wordy opening. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

After many edit wars and disputes, the lead has been extensively discussed by several editors until the current consensus was reached. In other words, the lead is fine as it is. However, I would welcome copy editing... from someone who doesn't have a reputation for idiosyncrasy. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite or refocus

I don't see much similarity between

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any

secret team" or "shadow government

", rather than broad social forces and large structures of human collectivities.

A Conspiracy theory is the claim that a

criminologist

asserting a legitimate claim that a conspiracy exists.

Secret Teams, shadow governments

as characteristics of conspiracy theories.

Ludvikus (talk · contribs) claims he's only editing for verbosity. (And it's incorrect to say that Barkun used Machiavellianism as an example. That's our word for the common concept he's referring to.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with User:Loremaster - Machiavellianism was definitely NOT my contribution into this complex scheme of things. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur is not confused. He is quoting the text you rewrote!!! --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Machiavellianism" was not a term I wrote into the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a sentence in the lead that contains the abjective "Machiavellian". In your previous edit of the article, you deleted that entire sentence and created a new sentence with the term "Machiavellianism". So no one is confused except you. --Loremaster (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite his good faith, my observations of, and conversations with, User:Ludvikus have convinced me that he 1) is zealously compelled to revamp articles on topics he is suddenly interested in but is utterly ignorant about, 2) has a convoluted interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, and 3) has an idiosyncratic style of editing articles and commenting on talk pages. Obviously I have found all of this extremely irritating. So you are all warned. --Loremaster (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful for you to be informed that I've been, for a few years, a substantial contributor to almost all the WP articles related to the WP article

Antisemitic, diatribe. Please feel free to discover my expertise by simply tracking down the WP articles cited there. I say this now here, because I hope that after editor(s) do that, the discussion here may proceed more smoothly, which is my sincere wish. --Ludvikus (talk

) 18:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the good work you may or may not have done on the Wikipedia articles related to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I am basing my judgement on the recent conversations we have had and the dubious work I've seen you do on articles I am watching. With that said, I take my leave. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• All those conversations where numerous attempts to get to keep your personal judgments about my contributions to yourself. If you noticed, I've not made one judgment about you. I strongly urge you to keep these kind of judgments to yourself because it's extremely disruptive to the substance of the conversations here. This talk page is not for the purpose of evaluation one anothers worthiness as a Wikipedia editor. Do you not understand that? Do you, or do you not understand that you are required to talk about the topic, and the particular issue raised - not about the person who raised the issue. Please let me know if you understand, and then lets clean this Talk page of all the remarks about one another - including this remark. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what the lede now says.

I deny that it is. Although diverse people believe in

libel. --Ludvikus (talk

) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by Fringe science? As you've been redefining other terms, I couldn't say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops - typo - had "S" instead of "s." Corrected the typo (red now is blue in the above subsection title). --Ludvikus (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: The expression in question is currently in the lede. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The expression in the lede (the last time I checked) is

fringe theories at the time), but I'm not sure the redirect is quite appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how come fringe science mentions not a single conspiracy theory, not one (& doesn't talk about the subject)? There's a contradiction between the WP article, and what you're claiming now. Reading fringe science, it follows that every conspiracy theory is not one. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And what justifies calling "Fringe science" this: "[[Fringe science|Fringe theory]]"? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a scientific fringe theory would be fringe science. And, as you could see if you actually looked at the diffs, fringe theory is a clarification of theory, rather than of conspiracy theory. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fringe theory article has been redirected to the Pseudo-scholarship article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

that's absurd redirect, as even google can tell you [16] 212.200.205.163 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you, you've convinced me that we need to create an article for fringe theory. --Loremaster (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And while you're doing that I strongly urge to drop the expression from the lede where the term is currently linked to a non-extent notion. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A term doesn't need an article to justify it's use. That being said, your suggestion that the term "fringe theory" is a non-existent notion is absurd when Wikipedia has an official guidelines page called Wikipedia:Fringe theories! Furthermore, the term However, the internal link will be deleted since it links to a disambiguation page. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created an article stub for fringe theory so I have restored the internal link in the lead section of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It's clearly Disruptive and inappropriate to discuss an editor's past record for the purpose of winning an argument, or discrediting him in order to win the argument. It's nothing but a
  WP:Personal attack. It's highly distracting from the topic at hand which is Controversial. Please Self-Revert you're Reversion of the Tags for {{Cleanup|section|Personal attacks}}. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk
  ) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

*Yawn* --Loremaster (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that neutral response. Much appreciated. Friendliness is OK by me. In that spirit, may I ask you two - are you both (the minimum required to be acting in concert) - "Conspiring" against me? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the idea that I should try to organize a "conspiracy" to get you permanently banned from Wikipedia. I will when I find the time. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you (Ludvikus) please note that "conspiracy" is irrelevant to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, except possibly as related to the disputed

WP:AGF. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

18:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What was nonsonstructive and disruptive about his/her edits ? Certainly you are not going to label every disagreement as disruption, are you? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. On another article, he insisted on re-adding material until more editors disagreed with the material than agreed with it, including himself.
2. On this article, he was threatening to do something similar, quoting inactive editors as agreeing with him, when it could easily be disputed as to whether what they would have agreed with him, even if they haven't changed their mind(s) about their edits.
3. He still, on his talk page, makes it clear that he will keep making changes to articles until there is a consensus (which he defines as a majority, treating himself as a an editor voting in favor) against those changes.
   WP:BRD
   clearly suggests, to anyone who can read, that if your edit is removed, you should not re-add it unless there is consensus in favor of it being appropriate. (Note: I said in favor of it being appropriate, not necessarily in favor of inclusion.)

Is that enough current disruption? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is kind of tricky how you define consensus if not by the presence of majority. Certainly i can not claim consensus if it is only me who claim something, can I ? So i don't think it is disruptive to re-add material if there is majority supporting it. Anyhow, I could challenge now a number of statements in the article, and remove them, but experience tells me they won't be discussed here before being re-inserted. So you accuse him of the same things that even you are doing. I think it is disruptive to call others disruptive. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. As usual. I had been willing to assume good faith, but now I'm sure that you're either Ludvikus or another editor who had been previously disruptive on this, or other related, articles. As I noted above, L would add material until there was consensus against the addition; BRD suggests that, if a change is reverted, it should remain reverted until there is a consensus in favor. Even if you read "consensus" as "majority", that's a significant difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

you did it again. people disagree with you and you call them disruptive. whatever. pointless discussion. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree it's pointless. Do you want to seek

WP:CONSENSUS on the question of whether 212.200.205.163/Ludvikus is disruptive? I'm perfectly willing to bring a user conduct RfC, if necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

?? it's your time. do with it whatever you want. you just have it less and less. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:212.200.205.163. It's clear, Arthur Rubin, that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "disruptive." I strongly urge you to stop calling people disruptive, or bring up their Past in order for you to win an agrument. --Ludvikus (talk)

Well, you are 212.200.205.163, so, of course you agree. And, since you do not understand

WP:CONSENSUS or, it would appear, any of the terms you agreed to in your unblock request (which I cannot find in your talk page archives; please block that section from being archived, or I will be forced to assume that you don't remember what you said, either), you are being disruptive. There are many editors with which I don't agree a bit with their changes, whom I do not find disruptive. You are and have been diruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

it is not nice to accuse people of nonsense. you should apologize, or at least admit you were confused (by god knows what). 212.200.205.163 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm NOT 212.... If I were, I'd be a
  WP:Personal attack here, of all places, violates Wikipedia rules. And it's wrong to try to get someone Blocked just because you cannot succeed in your substantive arguments herein. So I'm telling you again - stop Confronting, please. --Ludvikus (talk
  ) 19:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS: If you want to discuss this matter further, I suggest you do so on my Talk page. I will answer any of your personal questions there I see fit. Don't Disrupt this page by engaging in an
  Ad hominem argument to score points. You can try that on my Talk page if you think it's appropriate. I would also welcome it, if you explained to me your understanding of WP:Consensus - there, not here. --Ludvikus (talk
  ) 19:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I tried your talk page. You've not shown you understand anything I've said nor anything in the policies I've pointed you to, and you've archived much too quickly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK. So let's try again. I'm willing to listen to you there very carefully. If there's something I do not understand, please explain it to me. And I promise you - that if you teach me something I didn't know about how Wikipedia works, I'll go out of my way to thank you by awarding you the appropriate Barnstar. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK, taking to talk page. It might be better if you set the archive time to longer than one day, as I'm not necessarily on every day. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To understand the term "conspiracy theory" some actual definitions are required to ensure a foundation of understanding.

Conspiracy is defined as: an agreement by two or more persons to enact a plot, typically sinister in nature.

The publicly assumed definition of the term conspiracy theory is that of a noun, often spoken as a thing, as in "a conspiracy theory". The assumed definition of the term conspiracy theory is: A theory proposed by the mentally ill or the paranoid, that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

However, an actual definition of conspiracy theory is: 1.a term used as an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

Naturally, most of the public are aware of the term conspiracy theory, far fewer are aware of the term "coincidence theory", another assumed term.

Coincidence theory could be defined as: when facts or a set of corroborating data, known as proof, is beyond the scope of current understanding, it must be coincidence.

In truth, both of the terms, coincidence theory and conspiracy theory, are mental or emotional defense mechanisms employed by a receiver of information, not a sender. In either case, outright denial or a redirection into abstract coincidence is utilized by the receiver of the information. The use of the term conspiracy theory is not unlike snot produced by an allergy. In the case of the receiver of the information, the shock of the painful information is like an allergic reaction, the use of the defense mechanism, is the snot.

An adjunct definition of conspiracy theory: 2.a term used by an individual to cause distortion of information by triggering emotional denial by third party receivers of information.

The above definition is a description of psychological manipulation of a group to promote an agenda. It is employed when person (a) states a fact and person (b) does not wish for the audience (c) to believe or know it is factual. Thus, person (b) will state to person (a) that the information is a conspiracy theory so that audience (c) will mistrust the facts as something person (a) fabricated, then rendering person (a) as an indefensible "conspiracy theorist".

In both definitions, a conspiracy theory is always and only produced by the receiver of information.

It may well be a conspiracy that the current definition misguides the public into thinking a conspiracy theory is a noun produced by the provider of information, but that would simply be a theory. Our history is written by the victors. The victors in all cases were conspirators who's agenda won out.

Perhaps it would be prudent to call history, 'history theory' that would be more accurate as we understand that we don't truly know the full facts behind most historical events and so the gaps are filled with probabilities.

In closing, the fact is clear, a conspiracy theory is a defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable. It is a mental dysfunction by people who wish to deny facts, either to protect their current worldview or to ensure others remain locked within theirs. A catch-all term in place of kook, used by the delusional. It should be noted that the word myth and the term 'conspiracy theory' are closely related. Myth is information, that while widely accepted as truth, is mostly or completely false. Conspiracy theory is information, that while widely accepted as false, is mostly or completely true.

Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting indeed. can you give some sources please? i would like to read more! 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that but you beat me to the point: According to these un-sourced views just expressed above, what's the difference between C. T. and plain old

WP:Good faith, --Ludvikus (talk

) 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

i think the difference is that conspiracies are true, while theory in c.t. implies it is false. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree with Ludvikus. Furthermore, I would add that conspiracy theory is a controversial topic that is often under dispute. So please discuss substantial changes to the article on this talk page before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information.

2. I would also suggest that everyone read G. William Domhoff's essay There Are No Conspiracies, Daniel Pipes's article Michael Barkun on Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs, and Damian Thompson's article Lies, damn lies and 'counterknowledge' for a rational skeptical perspective on the subject.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great sources! Now look at this: "world government.". Does it expound a particular family "conspiracy theories"? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now look at the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article (which I have been improving for months). What's your point? --Loremaster (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A + B = C? Or conspiracy + theory? If we know what conspiracy is, and what theory is, then we can classify the scholarly (or by evidence) supported particular accounts of "conspiracies," from those of kooks, crackpots, and other disturbed characters who cannot help but believe in notable discredited "theories." Probably it would have been better if the expression conspiracy plots (in the sense of "to plot") would have been better. But we cannot create neologisms at WP. But maybe its better to merge this article with List of conspiracy theories The reason being that there's no "reason" or "theory" in a "conspiracy theory." --Ludvikus (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Without going into details for the moment due to my limited time, I can only say that I would strongly oppose any suggestion that we merge the conspiracy theory article with some related article even if your reason was valid (which it is not). --Loremaster (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm not rushed. Take as much time as you need. But think about this: Aren't both about the same pejorative? And is there reason to [[madness]? Is there a "theory" about "conspiracy theory"? If you wanted to study "conspiracy theories"? where would you go? At a university, which department would offer the course on it? What do all such CT's have in common? If nothing, then certainly a mere list would be sufficient. They all have in common the trait of being false. But that's so broad! I think our quest for sources and references should help on this - to ensure against Original Research and Neologisms. What more cane we do about such group madness except list these by name? --Ludvikus (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too tired but I'm having a hard time following you. As you know, the term "conspiracy theory" is obviously not a neologism. Not only does it have a long history but numerous mainstream journalists and academics have not only used the term but actually written on the subject of conspiracy theory extensively. It therefore clearly deserves it's own article and, as the article itself clearly explains, the word "theory" is, in this usage, considered to be more informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than mainstream scientific theory. With all of that said, although I am not opposed to merging the List of conspiracy theories into the conspiracy theory article, I would be strongly opposed to any suggestion that the conspiracy theory article should be merged with some related article or deleted simply because there is controversy over the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory". It simply doesn't makes any sense and I doubt you will find any support for such a proposal. --Loremaster (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"In closing, the fact is clear, a conspiracy theory is a defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable."

That's not a fact, that's a claim. No RS to back it up, boring. 78.48.97.4 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - but whom are you quoting? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"A Conspiracy theory originally simply meant a theory of a conspiracy."

Question: What's wrong with the above as a re-write of the opening sentence? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Instead of always wanting to hastily revamp articles to fit your idiosyncratic view of reality, could you please take the time to read and understand the content of these articles?

In the Terminology section (which is based on statements found in reliable sources), there is an answer to your question:

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any legitimate or illegitimate claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies. The word "theory" is, in this usage, sometimes considered to be more informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than mainstream scientific theory.

What part of this text do you not grasp? --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Response:

1. Conspiracy exists as a WP article.

1. Theory exists as a WP artcle.

1. The above effectively says that "conspiracy theory," in its ordinary sense, means what every two words ordinarily mean when one juxtaposes them.

1. So there's no need for this long- winded (yawn...) account given by that quote.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of terminology is so convoluted that I'm not going to waste my time refuting it so I leave it to others to try to knock some sense into you. --Loremaster (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I concur. Although I was intially under the assumption that Ludvikus was merely misguided, I now believe that he wants to impose his view on multiple articles loosely related to his claimed (sorry, I can't think of a neutral but accurate word) field of expertise,

The Protocols of Zion. His suggestions to New World Order (conspiracy theory) fit the same mold; he doesn't understand the real topic, Wikipedia polices and guidelines, nor the scope of the Wikipedia article. I suppose it could be part of a conspiracy theory to damage Wikipedia articles on conspiracy theories, but I can't imagine the goal of such a conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your personal opinion about me. But this is not the place to express it. Nevertheless, I think I'm partially at fault on that. I admit being provoked - and proceeded to demonstrate my expertise. I should not have done that - because I see now that I've opened a

WP:Refactor so these distracting observations on one another are removed from the article. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk

) 19:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• "
  big apple. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to New York City." Is that beginning verbosity really needed? --Ludvikus (talk
  ) 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"There are few topics of more profound and immediate significance than transparency and conspiracy, the twin specters of contemporary globality.
Harry G. West and Todd Sanders's collection displays both
the particularities of experience in different places and
the virtues of sustained analysis devoted to the treatment of this topic as one with general implications and transnational origins."
Rosalind C. Morris, Columbia University
"Transparency and Conspiracy connects with a central question presently before the field of anthropology and globalization studies:
how to interpret the varied cultural forms which alienation from modernity is taking today."
Donald Robotham, CUNY Graduate Center 

    In 
bureaucratic collectivist one-world government
.