Talk:Conspiracy theory

Archives
May 2003 May 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 – November 2003 October 2005 October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 – December 2006

"Mental illness"

People really need to do some research on psychological warfare tactics. This article is basically one big piece of it. It has been popular in recent times to treat anyone who believes in "conspiracy theories" as mentally ill. The very term "conspiracy theory", which is used to describe any theory conflicting with the official one we're given, denotes in itself a crackpot theory with no evidence to back it up. This is intentional. We have been trained this way by the TV portrayal of "conspiracy theorists". If the news calls something a conspiracy theory, then it's just some crackpot, right? No need to actually look into the theory for yourself, and see if it could be true.

But my main point is the implication that anyone who believes in a "conspiracy theory" (it's not my favorite term, and when I use it, it's just to refer to the definition above -- a theory that conflicts with the official one) has a mental illness. You hear psychologists (or pseudo-psychologists) talking about why people have a mental or emotional "need" for these theories. Again, this article is full of it. This at once assumes that the theories are not true (not that any research has been done, but they're just crackpots, right?), while implying, quite strongly, that the person has something mentally wrong with them, some instability that causes them to need to use these ideas as a crutch. The fact is that a lot (but not all, by any means) of these "theories" are true, and the evidence isn't even hidden. It's put right in front of you, but you're trained not to look at it. You're trained to enjoy sex and violence, while the actual books written by the people involved, in which they admit to their plans very candidly, gather dust on library shelves because they don't contain any of these things. And this is how it's meant to be. Legally they're not keeping anything a secret; they're publishing all their plans. They just know we won't read them anyway, or so few will that it won't really matter.

That was a bit of a tangent. However, my point is basically that people need to actually look into these theories before writing them off. You're being trained to do that by the media. Of course, once you stop writing them off, you've got to be very careful to also stay skeptical, because the conspiracy world is filled with disinformation. The idea is that once someone gets to the point where they are starting to realize what's going on, they cannot be left to search and discover in peace. Therefore, the intelligence agencies flood the internet with disinformation about space aliens, 2012, and other New Age garbage. And it's not just the internet. They fund a lot of crackpots to write books on these subjects, and spin it off in a different direction to confuse people. See David Icke, with his reptilians, "infinite oneness" and "the world is an illusion". That is disinformation, put out there to lead people in the wrong direction, and to discredit the people doing the real research. Nalencer 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Nalencer

If you want to criticize use of the term, it would be best not to include something (your ideas about the media and disinformation) which is essentially a conspiracy theory. Suicidesamurai 05:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's also true. I'm not going to beat around the bush just so people won't dismiss my opinion. Anyone can see the way the media programs the public, if they pay attention. The problem is that most people don't. They're trained that the media always tells them the truth. Is it not rather telling that, no matter how much evidence you provide, a lot of people can not comprehend of what you're saying unless it's on the news? Most people have no critical thinking skills left, and they just believe and repeat whatever they're told by the TV. Nalencer 17:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Nalencer

Johnson 1983

What does the Note 2 listing of the age of his Johnson have to do with the article? Would someone either remove this, or explain what a "Johnson 1983" is.58.107.15.245 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I had not considered this subject before, but it occurs to me that the term "conspiracy theory" is not commonly used by scholars, but is more commonly used by people to discredit things they feel uncomfortable with. Actual nonsense can be dissected and its weaknesses exposed, but for people unable to dispute a subject, the term "conspiracy theory" avoids addressing the subject.58.107.15.245 08:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is commonly used by scholars. See, for example, Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow.

This article was written all in all to make it seem that any Conspiracy Theory is just alot of middle class people running around with some wild idea in their heads. God forbid we take into account that these may or may not be true. Almost all Conspiracy Theories are involving the government, so of course they are discredited or covered-up. Does no one see that? I mean--they must there are websites and movies and statements and organizations everywhere that meet and discuss these things...there must be SOMETIHNG behind it. But most articles you will find filled with definitions and clips from someone elses suggestions and novels and not their own and we just let it slide. There is no way around it. No one will ever take new ideas seriously because of articles like this one. It made me want to vomit. I literally feel sick knowing that hundreds of people have looked at this article and probably 40% won't think twice about it...will never question it and will never form their own opinions about the truth and the power given and all the open windows for cover up and corrupt(ness?) I have to go get tums. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.98.55 (talk • contribs) 03:23, April 11, 2007 (UTC)

Try a little piece of candied ginger, and read a couple of the references listed in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was this conspiracy theorist?

There was once a popular American conspiracy theorist who had a rather large following among Left-wing/Right-wing extremists, then was abandoned in the blink of an eye. He was your average pre-Icke, pre-conspiracism-as-religion type whom focused on Kennedy, Moon landings, Roswell, 666 ID chips, New World Order, etc. One day, while giving a speech at some conspiracism convention, he announced that "the Mexicans", with the help of the UN/NWO, had implanted a small dwarf in his lower intestine which spied on him and gave him gas. His support evaporated.

If we could identify him, it would be a great addition to the list of conspiracy theorists. Childe Roland of Gilead 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he was a cousin to the guy who saw WMD in Iraq. Or it could have been J Edgar MacCrathy - the Red under every bed guy.159.105.80.141 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions to section common conspiracy theories

I have added several examples of common conspiracy theories to the list, with the intention of showing that the nature of conspiracy theories is not a black and white division between actual conspiracies (ie Watergate) and totally crazy urban myths (ie Watergate before initial allegations were taken seriously).

I recognize that there is a strongly held view among some contributers here that the term should only be applied to those theories that people who want to be thought of as reasonable should not ever consider.

But the diversity of the examples that I have added is intended to show that some conspiracy theories contain both an element of truth and an element of hysteria in varying degrees. Take for example the theories around conspiracies of child abuse. These theories have elements of mass hysteria and false accusations, but also a serious body of evidence involving actual criminal conspiracies.

Also, the choice to use the label "conspiracy theory" as a means to discredit any attempt to investigate a motive, opportunity, benefit, and cover-up is detrimental to citizen activism, and investigative journalism.

The term "conspiracy theory" includes, but is not limited to, some examples of group hysteria and individual paranoia. This aspect of conspiracy theories absolutely belongs in the article. However, the aspect of labeling attempts to bring to light facts not yet in the public domain, on the basis of inconclusive evidence, is prejudicial, illogical, and contrary to the empirical method. And so the article needs to also include a wider view of the history of conspiracy theories, including those theories that some interest group would have preferred had never been investigated in a serious light.

The process of identifying and bringing to light actual criminal activity among groups powerful enough to prevent an investigation absent public outrage is undermined by limiting the notion of "conspiracy theory" as something that defines insanity.

See also the letter by Norman Mailer, et. al. to the editor of The New York Times Book Review published on June 17, 2007.~~ Michael J Swassing 16:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to only one of your examples; Operation Rescue really did have (at least some of their principals) recommending attacking doctors and vandalizing facilities. And the "pattern of criminal activies" in RICO claims, is much more expansive than even the legal definition of "conspiracy", which is, in turn, more expansive than the common definition.. I don't think I've removed any of the rest of your examples, and I agree that most of them clearly fit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In adding examples I made a conscious effort to balance left and right, and provide diversity in examples that include theories that have a large element of hysteria and examples where actual conspiracies were proven. I really cannot imagine an article about conspiracy theories being complete without some mention of RICO, the primary federal law meant to deal with criminal conspiracies. If Operation Rescue is not the best example to do this, then perhaps the Mafia is. After all, prior to significant convictions of crime family bosses there was a widely expressed view that the Mafia was a fictional creation of popular culture. A conspiracy theory, at that time, in the way you intend the meaning. I have not restored the example of Operation Rescue, because I'm trying to understand your point. Does the debate about the Mafia during the mid-sixties to late seventies better represent a conspiracy theory? And does that change shift the balance of the article (ie, I had Operation Rescue balancing the Earth Liberation Front in the same way I have the Vince Foster conspiracy balancing the "vast right-wing conspiracy.")~~ Michael J Swassing 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RICO really relates to conspiracy theories. The "pattern of criminal activities" under RICO only needs to be 2 listed criminal activities completed by 2 people acting in concert. Not really a "conspiracy" as we, or other rational people, would define it. (Although it doesn't appear in any of the Operation Rescue articles, I recall one of the leaders "suggesting" it might be appropriate if the abortion doctors were killed. If my recollection is correct, and if someone acted on it, that would be an open conspiracy, not really what is discussed here in this article.) If you really feel RICO is appropriate, perhaps the Mafia would be a better example. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it seems to me that you're concerns are reasonable; and that maybe I'm a bit too smitten with my own words. For the benefit of third parties reviewing this discussion I'll include the disputed item here (listed among the examples of common conspiracy theories): "* The prosecutions of anti-abortion activists under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act on the theory of a widespread conspiracy to commit property damage, assault, and murder at abortion clinics or against abortion providers." ~~ Michael J Swassing 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Reference 2 is to a BBC page, gives a different first use from that currently in the page: 'The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909'. Whether 'a history article from 1909' or 'an economics article from the 1920s', it would be useful to have the reference. Furthermore, a Google Books search suggests that the phrase was in fact used in books before 1909. Dsp13 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracies list

While attempting to preserve examples of left/right/apolitical theories, I have basically removed examples of plausible or true conspiracies. This is because "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative term which does not literally mean "alleged prior plan to commit crimes", but "implausible, convoluted, or highly unusual theory of supremely powerful actors manipulating events in secret".

To put it another way, something widely acknowledged to be true stops being a "theory" in the popular sense of the term. We don't talk about the "theory that Super Bowl XVII took place" or the "Cheese is made from milk theory". We do talk about the "theory of gravity" because it's a "theory" in the technical scientific sense of "overarching explanation of observations in terms of factors which cannot be directly observed".

Because I hate listcruft, I ask that if you wish to add plausible or proven conspiracies, you please remove some of the whacky conspiracies to make room. Eleland 07:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You have unilaterally removed content because you don't like it. Further, your reasons for doing so have been discussed, back and forth, above. Your opinion of what is and is not a "conspiracy theory does not have a neutral point of view. You opinion of what a "theory" is, is flawed. It is the policy of wikipedia to discuss major changes or deletions of content before removing other peoples contributions. You have unilaterally imposed a new rule for others to follow. Who the hell do you think you are?Michael J Swassing 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But we already have a place to put conspiracy theories: List of conspiracy theories. I disagree with Eleland's criteria for inclusion (I think it confuses the idea of Conspiracy theory with Conspiracy, but completely agree with what his reasoning, and his goal.

Rather than "proven" conspiracies, I think we should include a selection of "classic" conspiracy theories. We shouldn't need more than 5 or 6 of them to help the reader understand what a conspiracy theory is. Mark Chovain 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts

This article, as any other on Wiki, should be written in a neutral tone of voice. Primarily stating the facts. Criticism is fine, as long as both the pro's and cons are listed. 84.87.70.130 11:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Too many external links

I think we have way too many external links - it's starting to border on listcruft. As per WP:EL, we shouldn't be including links just because the linked site relates to the topic. We should not be linking to external sites that contain only information that would be included in a this article if it were a featured article.

Only sites that include useful information that can not be included in the article because of copyright or verbosity should be included. For articles on people, companies, or products, you'd normally only include a link to the official web site for the topic. For articles about terms, like this one, it's really quite unusual to have any external links at all.

Unless there are any major objections, I'm going to heavily cull the list of list in a few hours. I will copy all culled links to a table here on the talk page to assist with any further discussion, and give my reasons for removing them (citing WP:EL##Links_normally_to_be_avoided). I'll leave links that may make good references alone for now, but will list them as such here so we can look at getting them changed in due course. Mark Chovain 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)