Misplaced Pages

Talk:Conspiracy theory

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ravensfire (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 14 March 2014 (→Verifiability of conspiracy theories). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:48, 14 March 2014 by Ravensfire (talk | contribs) (→Verifiability of conspiracy theories)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article was selected as the article for improvement on 9 September 2013 for a period of one week.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

Template:Pbneutral

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
[REDACTED] Alternative views Top‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

It is requested that an image or photograph of Conspiracy theory be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

Major changes to intro paragraph needed

There is an extreme lack of sources in the intro paragraph to this article, and in my opinion the writing and ordering of content is substandard. Removing all but the first paragraph would leave an introduction that is short and to the point, and prepares the reader for what follows, i.e. a discussion of both real and imagined conspiracies and how we study them. I would like to hear if there is any opposition to these changes. If none comes forth I will go ahead and make the change.Csp0316 (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The second two paragraphs are not necessary. They reduce analysis of real conspiracies to a mental illness or 'need to believe,' suggesting that any critical analysis of an event that uncovers actual conspiracy is somehow accidental and that theory proof is somehow divorced from theory formulation. It is frankly senseless to believe that humans cannot intentionally cause events to occur and that everything is random. It's also senseless to believe that nothing is random, but this intro section only discusses the former notion. The fourth paragraph saying that conspiracism has 'squeezed-out democracy' doesn't seem to make any sense. It's a non-sequitur. One can theorize about conspiracies and also participate in a democracy. The note about Hitler and Stalin agreeing to divide Europe acts as if such a conspiracy was unique, when hundreds of large-scale conspiracies have been uncovered since then.

Consensus appears to exist for major edits to the paragraph. A minority of editors appear to be promoting very narrow views on CT from a small handful of scholars. Since several of the scholars such as Hofstadter are prominent, it's OK to represent their views later, but they don't belong in the intro.

The article begins by noting distinction between the discovery of real conspiracies and the dismissal of over-application of conspiracy theory, but proceeds to focus solely on the latter. Even Rothbard's view is mischaracterized. He endorsed 'conspiracy theory' and believed that many major events thought to be relatively random were largely authored by conspirators.

At least half of the article should discuss real conspiracies, how they were uncovered, and methodologies for uncovering them. Psychology theories about theories on conspiracies should be a sidenote to this article, or better, a separate article.Csp0316 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraf has problems. It has 10 citations, but they are all at the very end, even tho' it is a moderately long paragraf and has a number of factoids. You can't tell which sources support which factoid. The citations should be diffused thruout the paragraf.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Leads should only summarize what's in the body, and nothing more. If a claim has a source, it should be cited only in the body. If there's something that's only in the lead, we're doing it wrong. See WP:CITELEAD. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:37, March 3, 2014 (UTC)
That is generally correct and also is the way it is IME usually done on WP, although the authority you cite does not exactly EXCLUDE citations in the intro: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." In any case this intro is well supported by the body. Paavo273 (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's my understanding, that the lead may not need references. In that case are some of the references that I criticized for being clumped, unnecessary? If so, remove them. If some or all of them should stay, though, I recommend diffusing them so that you can tell which sources support which factoid.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Solomon. The references were added this way by another editor and I have not had time to look at it. I believe some of the references appear later, and some may be left over from earlier versions of the intro and do not apply to the current content.Csp0316 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Weasel words" in intro

@Bhny: 1. Rel your reference to Weasel words, just as with citing sources, you can't cherry pick what you want from the rule. You need to comprehend and follow the entire rule. The second paragraph of the rule you cite, as also quoted above, states, "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution." It's fine if you want to choose some other term, but citing authors in the intro is not a great idea for the reasons much discussed previously in talk. This short guideline also provides an answer to your previous objection that the topic sentence of a paragraph was vague. 2. Editors should also know and follow the rules, especially when referred to them. On January 6, the fellow editor wrote, "I can't follow your long arguments about policy." You don't need to follow any argument of mine. Just comprehend and follow the stated policy. Paavo273 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your editing of neutral 'some' to an unsupported 'most' is a valid example of a weasel edit that has been made. Several others were made previously but have already been corrected. I'm OK with using some in the intro re: Hitler conspiracy as long as there is a second prominent scholar cited. Otherwise he would need to be named.
This has already been discussed, but just because an academic has said something about CT does not warrant its inclusion in the article, let alone the intro. Barkun, as opposed to Chomsky or Rothbard, is hardly a household name, even among highly educated people.
I removed 'long' since there is only one example given and it is from less than 100 years ago. More examples from at least several centuries must be cited to use that word.
Saying 'CT is attractive to mentally ill' is problematic. Mentally ill people may formulate correct conspiracy theories as well as incorrect ones. Distinction needs to be made rather than labeling all theories made by the mentally ill or those with disorders as the product of their condition. I changed 'used' to 'abused' to denote misuse and make thematically consistent with false application sentence. While I do not endorse Hitler's actions, it is certainly conceivable that a leader could justly employ a correct conspiracy theory to achieve political ends.Csp0316 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Paavo273, we're not writing some high school essay here. The intro is supposed to be self-contained. It doesn't hide information that is later revealed. "A scholar" obviously must be replaced by the name. "Some scholars" can be replaced by the main people referenced in the article. Read some of the WP:GOOD articles on[REDACTED] to get a feel for how to write. Bhny (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

believe vs refuse to believe

I feel the section 'why people believe' leads the reader to some degree into an impression that rejecting conspiracy theories and accepting the establishment account should be the default position. Of equal importance is why people refuse to acknowledge evidence of conspiracy theories. While the section is light on material, I feel it is appropriate as it keeps theme of contrast between real/false theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csp0316 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Intro needs to be a summary of the article.

I have deleted the following wording as it infringes wiki policy in a number of ways.

While theories on small- and large-scale conspiracies are often correct, some psychologists believe that false application of conspiracy theory can be endemic to certain mental illnesses and disorders. Some recent political regimes have misused conspiracy theories to manipulate their subjects (e.g., Hitler's “Jewish conspiracy”).

If only some psychologists believe this, then it should not be given such prominence in an introduction to the term.

Who are these psychologists? This claim must be verifiable with reputable reliable referenced sources.

Why is there a vague claim made about "some recent political regimes" followed by an unreferenced example that does not appear, as far as I could see, in the rest of the article? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am in support of these changes, as well as a third editor. There is a single editor who has voiced support for the deleted content (Paavo273). The opinions of a handful of academics and psychologists do not share equal weight with the actual definition of the term. The previous version was several paragraphs long and I condensed into this brief paragraph, but it is not appropriate and IMO it would be better to remove it altogether.Csp0316 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, I have no objection to that paragraph's deletion. The objection I had was rel what Csp0316 was changing the intro TO. My only objection here, which I am correcting, is that a conspiracy only requires TWO people, not three. Of the ten sources cited by Mystichumwipe, those that mention a number at all, e.g., #2 and #4, specifically say TWO.
2. As pointed out by another editor, an intro s/b a summary of the article and can be up to four paragraphs long, but there was major disagreement over how that EXPANDED summary s/b presented. I am adding back a couple points that had been deleted from the old original lead. See this diff to read my original expanded intro below the old intro. (The Hitler/Stalin info appears under the conspiracism heading.)
3. The main point of contention as revealed by this page and the archived talk pages is that Csp0316 maintains that this article should be about something other than what it is, i.e., conspiracy theories that are real, e.g., "At least half of the article should discuss real conspiracies, how they were uncovered, and methodologies for uncovering them. Psychology theories about theories on conspiracies should be a sidenote to this article, or better, a separate article.Csp0316 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)" As mentioned above, IMO this will never fly, although it may be the proper subject of some other article, such as, e.g., a list article on real conspiracies.
4. "If obscure scholars and psychologists want to be in the business of redefining words, they should start by submitting an application to MW or Oxford. When we are stating the meaning of a word or phrase, if there is a source vacuum then we can accept such a source, but if major reference works are cited they have higher authority.Csp0316 (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)" As far as I can tell, Csp0316 is taking issue with a huge percentage of the substance of this article and using DICTIONARIES to rebut the copious scholarly source citations. In fact as the term has evolved as presented in the article, "conspiracy theory" has a significantly greater and DIFFERENT (mainly NEGATIVE and FALSE) meaning from the two words individually defined and added together.
5. Unless an editor is clear rel the meaning of the term as the TERM OF ART that it is and rel the thesis statement of the article, it will IMO be an exercise in frustration.
6. Csp0316's most recent contribution, "Why people refuse to believe" is IMO unlikely to withstand scrutiny in its present form, for at least two reasons: The way it is presented legitimizes the professor's unconventional views. The first source, Inside Higher Ed. features an article about how the professor is being pilloried in his home state (and that his views are self-admittedly controversial) AND vegsource.com does not measure up as an RS. MAYBE this material has some place in the article but is not IMO worthy of this treatment. See WP:Undue weight. Paavo273 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your views are still in the minority and multiple editors other than myself have voiced problems with your edits. The fundamental issue here is that you want to turn conspiracy theory into something else based on how scholars you align yourself with view the subject and on the temporary connotations the word has to some people. This article was in the past inundated with edits that added one-sided material by obscure academics, and you have fought to keep these fringe psychology theories that have come to dominate the article. Those are the sections that need a separate article. You seem to want to have your psychology theories become the main article while the actual article subject is treated someplace else. There is a reason this article has been named recently as needing significant improvement. The previous intro paragraph was completely inappropriate and focused almost entirely on abuse of conspiracy theory by mentally ill people and despots. The fact is that CT is simply theories on conspiracies, often great and often small. Some are correct, some are not. The word phenomenon is inappropriate. Situation is more inclusive and appears in all reference sources while phenomenon does not appear in any. Regarding added paragraph, there is no shortage of RSs that can and will be added at a later date. Moreover, you mischaracterize the controversy around one source. One newspaper editor and a politician protested Woodward's views, but his own university and national association of professors strongly defended him. Considering that there is a page-long section on a single, short-lived media trope ("fusion paranoia"), including four paragraphs about a single article in a newspaper, it's frankly laughable that you would throw the relative weight of a 4-line paragraph on a major subject like cognitive dissonance into question. Csp0316 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

The pared down version of the intro has received a lot of support and contributions from other editors. It's more precise and concise, and focuses on the definition of the subject rather than giving undue weight to the views of a handful of little-known academics who specialize in conspiracy theory. Otherwise there haven't been many significant changes to the article other than in the proven conspiracies section.

If you have issue with the recent additions to the 'proven conspiracies' section, cite which ones. All of the 'proven' additions are conspiracies (planned, secret, illegal, and unethical) which were originally suspected as such by some (who were ridiculed by adherents to the non-conspiracy belief), and later uncovered or declassified. All are based on direct government admissions or have consensus by most historians (e.g. Reichstag), and none can be considered controversial, but again, if you have issue with certain additions, make them known instead of an unsupported 'dubious' label. All of the proven conspiracy content that has been added is well-sourced in the respective main wiki articles on the subjects, and is not considered controversial or dubious in the source articles. The changes to intro and additions that have been made since the version you restored are productive, have consensus, and have not affected the bulk of the article.Csp0316 (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You state in your recent edit summary that "consensus supports current version, see talk". Can you please indicate where, and by whom, this 'consensus' is given? I can't see much evidence of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Much of the discussion has expired from the talk page, but in the last several weeks at least 4 editors have voiced support for the single paragraph intro that focuses on the definition of conspiracy theory instead of the 4 paragraph intro weighted towards psychology theories about conspiracy theory, founded on the belief that CT is mental illness, which stands in stark contrast with conspiracy theories that have been and continue to be proven correct.

If there is any question to the stability of the article, all of the recent edits were made to the proven conspiracy section. There were several dozen edits due to the style of my editing. Other editors might have made the changes in only a few edits. Prior to that, the article could not be considered unstable. I am happy to retract any of the added proven conspiracy material, but ask that editors cite specific sections that are not appropriate. All of the added material is comparable to the long-standing content in the section previously. It is well-sourced in its main articles and while not well-known, is not the subject of controversy.Csp0316 (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I asked for evidence (including names) regarding consensus for the 'current version' - not just for a shorter lede. That is what your edit summary claimed existed. And regarding the section on 'conspiracy theories that have been and continue to be proven correct', where is the section on 'conspiracy theories that have been proven to be false'?
Incidentally, you referred earlier to "the views of a handful of little-known academics who specialize in conspiracy theory". Have you read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources? This would seem to suggest to me at least that academics specialising in the subject of an article are precisely the sources we should be using. What Misplaced Pages-policy-based grounds do you have for suggesting that including the views of these specialists is "undue weight"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, Mystichiwum, Jdkag, Dragonflysixtyseven, myself, and several others whose posts have expired have all voiced support for the 1-paragraph intro, and Bhny, Jdkag, and myself have voiced support for expanded discussion of proven conspiracies. I have no problem including the views of those academics in the article, but they are one-sided perspectives that use psychology theories to marginalize conspiracy theory. They get full exposition of their views in later sections, but do not deserve to get a second full exposition in the intro. It looks silly, contrived, and out of place when following the straightforward and objective first paragraph. If you want to create a section that discusses major conspiracy theories that were conclusively proven to be wrong and are no longer subject to controversy (the same criteria that has been used to mention proven conspiracies), I'm fine with that. The list of proven conspiracies has been present in the article for several years now and is not a recently added section. If you have issue with certain added content, elaborate on specifics. Even after the added content, the article is still weighted heavily towards casting CT as a psychological and sociological disorder or phenomenon (rather than an intellectual method and methodology for uncovering real conspiracies). Since very few people have even heard of these academics, let alone share their views, it has to be assumed until demonstrated otherwise that their view is of a tiny minority, therefore not appropriate for the intro but OK for later sections.WP:Undue weight Csp0316 (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to 'where in Misplaced Pages policy you base your assertion that academics specialising in a subject should be excluded on the grounds of 'undue weight'? There is certainly nothing in policy that suggests that 'nobody has heard of them' is a valid reason. This is an encyclopaedia - we are expected to inform our readers of things they haven't heard of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear you're reading my whole comments, or have read the article itself. The views that were previously part of the intro are currently discussed in the body of the article. Previously, they had their own sections in the body, but were repeated again in the intro. Since they hold an apparent minority viewpoint they don't belong in the intro, but I'm OK with their work being fully discussed later, as it currently is.

Also, after viewing some of your edit comments, it doesn't appear that you understand the 'verified conspiracy' section. The Holocaust was once thought to be an incorrect conspiracy theory, but was later proven to have happened, which is also the case for all of the other mentioned conspiracy theories. That's why it was mentioned in that section. You were correct to remove state terrorism and false flag operations since they lacked detail. For the record, those two items have stood for years and were not recently added.Csp0316 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've had enough repetitive crap from you. You clearly don't understand Misplaced Pages policy regarding sourcing - you don't get to exclude academic specialists in a subject just because they are 'a minority'. Of course they are a minority - academic specialists are a minority by definition. What matters - all that matters - is whether the views of these particular academics are in the minority amongst academics as far as their views on the subject are concerned. Which you have completely failed to demonstrate. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook - we don't include or exclude content on the basis of whether we 'like' it or not.
And as for your comments on the Holocaust, I suggest you actually study the subject a little before making more facile comments - you clearly have little understanding of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It still appears that you haven't read the actual article. If you had you would have noticed that the academics in question and their views are currently fully covered with multiple paragraphs each in the body of article and have not been excluded from anything. The issue has been whether or not they should be covered again in the intro paragraph, or whether the intro should remain as it is, a brief overview of the subject at hand, not a platform for an academic to plug his most recent book. I spent many years at a prestigious university studying history, including WWII and the Holocaust. Until the war was ending and camps were encountered by Allied troops, many did not believe rumors of mass extermination of Jews and dismissed them as incorrect conspiracy theory.Csp0316 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:LEDE: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". If the views of people who study the subject belong in the article (if?), they must be mentioned in the lede. It is a summary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to work up a sentence or two that summarizes the overall views of the academics, that is OK, but it's not appropriate to give an intro paragraph to every academic who happens to publish work on CT (which was the previous state of the intro). I previously did this, but other editors wanted to delete the section entirely and leave it as is, and I am OK with that. Incorrect CTs as well as those based merely on a hunch are already mentioned in the intro, and this is enough to prepare the reader for ensuing academic discussion on how and why these kinds of unsupported and often false CTs are formulated.Csp0316 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability of conspiracy theories

The whole conspiracy theories that were later verified section is probably a good idea, a decent percentage of our readers will be looking for information like this. As long as this page also continues to document the conspiracist lunatic fringe. However this section needs many more sources, to allow other editors to verify. Note that the existence of this information elsewhere in Misplaced Pages is insufficient, although if a claim is made elsewhere that pages sources will usually be a good starting point for research. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup it needs sourcing, if it is to remain - and to be specific, it needs sources which make clear that they were the subject of conspiracy theories which were later verified to be correct. I've already removed some hopelessly vague ones, as well as the ridiculous 'example' of the Dreyfus affair - which as even the lest-informed should know concerned the conviction of Dreyfus as the result of a false antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Frankly though, I have my doubts about including such a list, even if properly sourced. It looks too much like original research to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
All of the mentioned proven conspiracies are documented by primary source documents, in almost every case in the form of admissions from the actual conspirators themselves (e.g. declassified documents). Is there any specific content that has been added that you believe will not hold up to scrutiny? If so please let me know and I can add further source documentation. Since nearly all of the proven conspiracies listed are matters of public government record and could readily be supported by ample sources, I do not consider them to be on un-solid ground.Csp0316 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what needs sourcing - if these are examples of 'conspiracy theories' we need evidence that people held such theories - and that these theories were later proven correct. And yes, every example cited needs proper sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the section is called 'proven conspiracies' and simply discusses the reality of conspiracies, it is more appropriate to change the heading to list of proven conspiracies. After this changes further sources aren't necessary as we're dealing with major events here. Major events like COINTELPRO and Operation Gladio do not need to be sourced to demonstrate that they existed, and none of the main articles for the listed conspiracies indicate controversy or a lack of supporting source material.Csp0316 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If the subject of the section is 'proven conspiracies' it doesn't belong in the article at all - the subject of this article is conspiracy theories, not conspiracies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Since it is evident that the list related to (allegedly) 'proven conspiracies' rather than 'proven conspiracy theories', I have removed it as off-topic for the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

From the intro through the entire body of the article, the contrast between correct and incorrect conspiracy theory is being highlighted, i.e. the sociological and psychological ways that incorrect conspiracy theories develop, as well as the intellectual methodologies that can be used to formulate correct theories. That is why a discussion of actual conspiracies is appropriate here, to demonstrate what a real conspiracy looks like, and demonstrate the characteritics that a false one may have. The section has stood for many years and been collaborated on by many editors, and has never been nominated for deletion. Your attempts to delete the whole section have been reverted. Csp0316 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So now we are writing a 'how to spot real conspiracies' manual are we? Nope - not even remotely compatible with an encyclopaedia. Anyway, I've seen enough facile arguments for tonight, and will return to this later with substantive proposals for a complete restructuring of the article to ensure that it is (a) on topic, (b) properly sourced, and (c) compliant with Misplaced Pages policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an article on Greenland or photosynthesis, it's an article on psychological and intellectual processes, therefore discussion of how and why those processes work the way they do is entirely appropriate for Misplaced Pages. If we follow your line of thought the only material left in the article will be the intro paragraph, which in reality is as much as a traditional encyclopedia would probably grant this subject. However, the article has become something more, and in order to keep it balanced all aspects of CT must be covered, including a brief list of only the most notable conspiracies that were eventually verified after supported and unsupported theory had been put forth for years. Countless activists theorized about COINTELPRO long before it was admitted, some blacks and American Indians theorized they were being intentionally poisoned and infected by the government, and this CT also applies to NSA spying, NAU, MKUltra, Mockingbird, Gladio, and every other listed real conspiracy, with the possible exception of Sunshine. All of those conspiracies went through many stages of doubt and were thought by many to be incorrect CT before enough evidence was uncovered and enough time had passed to consider them to be verified. Csp0316 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Changes to list of proven conspiracies. I removed JFK from the list, since there is still a lot of controversy around it, and many people who have studied the event believe Oswald acted alone. I changed the wording on North American Union and reeducation camps. While most would agree that the text of the manual prescribes what is commonly understood to be reeducation, some consider it to be sensationalist, and while the Army did write the instructions, I have not seen sources that document that FEMA or DHS accepted the instructions. Regarding the NAU, I changed the words to include only the talks and not further implementation. There have indeed been secret diplomatic talks that are well-sourced, and that they occurred is not a matter of controversy. If you think anything else in the list is bunk, then explain why it is bunk. Most of the material in that section has withstood scrutiny for many years, and the content added is among the least controversial since it has been made a matter of public record by the government and is not contested in any reliable source.Csp0316 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Either add sources which demonstrate that these are notable as conspiracy theories, or accept that they are off-topic for an article on conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I checked some of the articles linked from your list and more than a few don't even mention the word conspiracy. Your list needs to have a source (a good, reliable secondary source calling it a conspiracy theory that was proven true. Honestly, this is a subject that has seen a fair amount of academic research. What may be viable here are a couple of good examples of conspiracy theories that were proven true and how perception changed over time based on that academic research. Your list as it is now though? No way. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Conspiracy theory Add topic