Talk:Conspiracy theory

Further reading

I am wondering if there are any thoughts on reorganizing the "Further reading" section that seems a bit extensive. Should books be grouped separately from journal articles? - Location (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I don't see what the stuff I have reverted [1] adds but I would like to hear reasons why it belongs. Per WP:BRD I have deleted it, twice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hostile, WP:DOREVERT, WP:DONTREVERT. anyhow, it expands on dismissive usage of the phrase, as quoted by the book, which by the way was already used as a resource for another statement in the article. the section is about that, isn't it? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement in question appears to be this: "Michael Parenti argues that Noam Chomsky uses 'conspiracy theory' as a dismissive label to silence political opponents and to deliberately set up for disparagement the perfectly legitimate investigations by linking them to motifs which have come to symbolize the irrationality of conspiracy theories." This article is not about Chomsky or Parenti's view of Chomsky. It doesn't belong here. - Location (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Other authors, like Rebecca Moore, are quoted.. so where's the difference? Why is Kennedy example justified, Nixon example justified, and Chomsky's usage for Kennedy investigations not justified? After all, Chomsky is well known expert on linguistics, language, and public discourse and Manufacturing Consent. In fact, Chomwky's opinion has a whole section in this article! Statement could be made shorter though... 178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Location has summed up my thoughts nicely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Upon close examination I find that Rebecca Moore is selectively quoted (or one might say cherry picked) to make it sound as if she condemns 'conspiracy theory' as an unfair and dismissive label, when she actually goes on to describe at length the paranoid irrational qualities of the vast bulk of conspiracy theories in general. The article does require a brief and reliably-sourced mention of the concept that "conspiracy theory" has occasionally been used unfairly. But this concept should not be given undue weight with selective or out-of-context quotes, especially ones from Michael Parenti. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you include sources only from 'institutional view' supporters, you will never get a source for dismissive usage, will you? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE and WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not WP:UNDUE, on contrary.. Both are notable for their work which is very much relevant to this article. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you mean by "'institutional view' supporters", but there are various academic sources that discuss "conspiracy theory", "conspiracy theorist", and the use of the terms as pejoratives. Moore, in fact, offers a general statement in which she alludes to the use of "conspiracy" or "conspiracy theory" in two different contexts, and one of those contexts is as a pejorative. - Location (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If Moore uses the term with both connotations, citing only one (as though that were Moore's view) does not comport with WP:NPV. This whole page is tilted to discourage suspicion of politically powerful people, while the politically powerful people themselves accuse everyone else in the world of conspiring against THEM. Just to name a few of the oft-cited anti-power conspiracies appearing regularly in popular media, there are KKKristians, Muslim International This, Muslim Brotherhood That, Antisemitic So-and-sos, Mafia Nostras, Ultra-Whitewing Gunnits, Trade Unionists, the Gun Lobbyists, Central American Drug Gang, LLC., and Anonymous Hackers Inc. It's all a little odd and off-balance. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You state that the "whole page is tilted to discourage suspicion of politically powerful people, while the politically powerful people themselves accuse everyone else in the world of conspiring against THEM", yet you want to remove an academic source that acknowledges that the term is at times used derogatorily. That is odd. - Location (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, you are confused between the remarks of different editors. I do not advocate removing any sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, than he will also reply to my reply instead of you... as I see you don't have one. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with his/her reasoning is all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So to argue Location's argument: This article is not about Chomsky or Parenti's view of Chomsky. It appears this article does have Chomsky's view on 'conspiracy theory', and views of other authors of people using 'conspiracy theory', and yet, somehow it should not have view of an author i provided on Chomsky's usage of 'conspiracy theory'!? Does this appear to be arbitrary and cherry picking? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The view that "conspiracy theory" is used dismissively as a pejorative is not unique to Parenti's or his view of Chomsky. Inserting that statement in the middle of a discussion about its use as a pejorative is not necessary. The reader is left to wonder why the article is switches gears to talk about Parenti's views of Chomsky, then switches back to discuss the pejorative use of the term. In other words, the insertion of that material is what is arbitrary. - Location (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This statement is not only about its pejorative usage, but about its deliberate use to dismiss political opponents, which is another and stronger usage. It expands on Rebeca's view, and also is relevant as later section talks about Chomsky's view. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And how is that unique to Chomsky (e.g. [2])? A more thorough discussion of that point can be found in various academic sources (e.g. [3]). One other thing. You wrote:

"Michael Parenti argues that Noam Chomsky uses 'conspiracy theory' as a dismissive label to silence political opponents and to deliberately set up for disparagement the perfectly legitimate investigations by linking them to motifs which have come to symbolize the irrationality of conspiracy theories."

And this is what Byford wrote:

"Parenti argued that Chomsky uses 'conspiracy theory' as a dismissive label to silence political opponents, and that he deliberately sets up for disparagement the perfectly legitimate investigations into the plot to assassinate Kennedy by linking them to motifs which have come to symbolize the irrationality of conspiracy theories."

This is both a copyright violation and a misrepresentation of the original quote. - Location (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote above statement should be even shorter.. not a copyright violation as it is not under quotes, and also not a misrepresentation, as JFK was mentioned in previous sentence. It is not unique to Chomsky, but Chomsky is renowned scholar, Hillary Clinton is just a (lying) polititian. Parenti seems to be just as academic as Coady, judging by google scholar citations. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

First, not using quotation marks for copied material is still a copyright violation. Dropping a phrase from the quotation only misrepresents the quote; it doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation. Second, if you truly wish to make the point that "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss political opponents (not just Chomsky), then Coady or some other academic source would be a much better source. - Location (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Section currently writes: ... in the aftermath of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, it has acquired a derogatory meaning,.. and somehow you think citing an example of the reason why that specific conspiracy theory is used in derogatory way is irrelevant? I don't understand why you think Michael Parenti is not a scholar? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, we have a reliable secondary source (Byford) that shows there is at least some independent awareness of Parenti's "I believe JFK was killed by a government conspiracy so don't dismiss all conspiracy theories" assertion [4]....but only as part of a larger discussion by Byford regarding the epistemic threshold between real and bogus conspiracies. Extracting only Parenti's POV from Byford's narrative would be misrepresenting the source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's another one [5] but not sure why it would be any more valid than above? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Who has made the argument that it would be less valid? I cannot access the full article, but it appears to be written by two academics at Boise State. - Location (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This dissertation has a good list of resources at the end, grouped by official vs 'conspiracy theory' view.. not that those articles lack resources.. they have hundreds of them!. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Are we trying to use this article as a platform for discussing the JFK assassination? - Location (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

nope, there's separate article for that. JFK was onset of term usage, and that's why it is mentioned in the article.. you were mentioning other scholars, i thought i found a decent resource.. 89.216.22.102 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not usable here, though. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This RS seems to have the credentials. What is your objection, Guy? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sure opponents have double-checked every statement in the article the way they are scrutinizing the one I proposed. :) 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I will admit that I stopped reading after the first sentence: "Despite growing evidence to the contrary over the last fifty years, the mainstream media in America have stubbornly clung to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and was himself murdered there two days later by Jack Ruby, who also was acting alone." - Location (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC) - Location (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I know how it is. The soul simply revolts at such heresy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, conspiracies are only in our heads. I stopped reading after in a Central Intelligence Agency “benign cover-up” .. no way CIA would cover up anything.. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, we should not be adding material that's sympathetic to the fringe backlash against the use of the term "conspiracy theory". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the link, it is very informative, especially the video! I wondered why people here resist to alternative info, maybe they are subscribers to NSA checks as well :P But wait, are you opposing global research as a source (nobody provided it) or Cass Sunstein as a credible author ? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The question here is definition. Do you call such sources "fringe" because they lack credentials, or are they "fringe" because they oppose the Comintern Pentagon? Please explain. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I admit I was puzzled by what JFK and the CIA have to do with conspiracy theory as a term -- until I read the link, which makes it clear that fringers believe the CIA launched a program to discredit conspiracy theorists after the JFK assassination by actively demeaning the phrase "conspiracy theory" with the help of mainstream media, corrupt politicians, etc. I don't think we even need to discuss why stuff such as this qualifies as WP:FRINGE under Wikipedia's editorial policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:FRINGE. It doesn't suggest what you propose. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sfarney: The objection is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source, we rarely include dissertations as sources in articles, especially when so many other sources are already cited. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right, Sunstein's paper, which by the way supports a 'fringe' view that CT's should be taxed, and similar nonsense, gets the whole paragraph in this article, and yet a common perception among CTer's which I cited is more 'fringe'? 178.148.10.191 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you did not get it right. The Sunstein/Vermeule article does not support the view that the government should tax those who disseminate conspiracy theories. Their answer is the more nefarious sounding "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups". How the government should respond to conspiracy theories is a legitimate topic of discussion and should be expanded upon. This article certainly does not do it justice. Rather than use a quote that gives weight to the hypothetical responses in the introduction to their discussion about cognitive infiltration, perhaps this article should actually discuss what they had to say about cognitive infiltration.

Regarding the dissertation, I still haven't seen a specific argument for what material you would like to include. Primary sources are sometimes acceptable, but I agree with Guy that Wikipedia usually frowns on dissertations. You could always take this to WP:RSN, but again you will need to reference specific material. - Location (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

you didn't read the article for this talk page then. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have, now stop being so vague. This is not a forum. Are you proposing to remove the material, add to the material, or leave it as is? - Location (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

i didn't link to dissertation for the sake of it, but for the sake of sources it provides on the bottom. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So there is nothing in particular that you want to cite to the dissertation, but rather you are just pointing out that the dissertation has a list of sources in its bibliography. Is that right? - Location (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

you asked for more sources. I thought the one i provided was enough.. but you keep complaining about its merit just to avoid adding a sentence to the article. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall asking for more sources. What is the sentence that you wish to attribute to the dissertation? - Location (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

My bad, it was LuckieLouie.. anyhow, this source from dissertation can further strenghten some points about political usage: Noam Chomsky, “On Historical Amnesia, Foreign Policy, and Iraq,” 178.148.10.191 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the content that was deleted was good material and i don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. ElectraGrrl (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You all people can sure talk a lot too. I think it's clear that Chomsky spoke about conspiracy theory and Parenti summarized Chomsky and that is about the topic what the article is about so it's relevant and i think when somebody says that's not relevant they need to explain themself better because there is reason to think it relevent. ElectraGrrl (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bob Blaskiewicz section undue

I think the Bob Blaskiewicz section is WP:UNDUE. I don't think that Blaskiewicz is an authoritative source who deserves the huge prominence of text in the article, including an indented quote:

According to John Ayoto's 20th century words, the phrase "conspiracy theory" was originally a neutral term and only acquired a pejorative connotation in the mid 1960s, implying that the advocate of the theory has a paranoid tendency to imagine the influence of some powerful, malicious, covert agency in events.[21] However University of Wisconsin assistant professor and scientific skeptic Bob Blaskiewicz researched the use of the term “conspiracy theory” and found that it has always been a disparaging term, having been used to describe "extreme hypothesis" and implausible speculation as far back as 1870. According to Blaskiewicz:[22]

While proponents of alternative knowledge are correct in asserting that it is possible to unfairly discredit someone by calling them a “conspiracy theorist,” they must also remember that just because you are called a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean you aren’t one.

Blaskiewicz criticizes recent claims that the phrase “conspiracy theory” was invented and deployed by the CIA in the 1960s "to discredit those who dared to question the Warren Commission" and expose covert activities. Blaskiewicz notes that such claims have existed "since at least 1997", but due to having recently been promoted in a book by Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith, "conspiracy theorists have begun citing this work as an authority".[22] Speaking in support of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, deHaven-Smith claimed that "the U.S. political elite 'silences and stigmatizes' legitimate questions" by unfairly labeling such views as conspiracy theories.[23]

Being a "scientific skeptic" essentially means that one calls oneself a "scientific skeptic" and belongs to a sort of club. It's not a title that one earns with a great amount of effort such as "physicist" or "legal scholar". It's kind of unchallengable. One needs only to blog on the topic, or to publish a single article in Skeptical Inquirer or some such thing. It doesn't qualify one as an authority on this topic to the degree that would warrant his opinions to be included, and certainly not at such length. That section of the article reads like "the Bob Blaskiewicz show". The article might as well have a subsection titled Bob Blaskiewicz as it reads now. SageRad (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

At least this Shermer article is published in Scientific American, a publication with some respectability. If we're going to include the Skeptic™ position, that might be a better source for a brief section of content. I'm also concerned about the pervasive use of Barkun in the article at the expense of other points of view, in terms of WP:UNDUE. SageRad (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)=

I think Blaskiewicz is needed to explain the mainstream view with regard to "pejorative meaning" of the term. Here is a version of that section previous to the Blaskiewicz addition and related changes. As you can see, sources were limited to the Ayoto book and a "selectively quoted" Rebecca Moore. The result was undue weight on the idea that conspiracy theory is an unfair pejorative label...it was created in the mid 60s (supporting the deHaven-Smith fringe argument that the CIA created it)...and a real conspiracy like Watergate was never stigmatized or labeled with this pejorative phrase, etc. etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

By "explain" do you mean "explain why it's wrong"? I question his expertise and the due-ness of such a long passage with a quote that seems polemic, like this article has become his soapbox. SageRad (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's purposes, Skeptical Inquirer is generally considered an independent reliable source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. And, to avoid using Wikipedia's voice, Blaskewitz comments are all attributed -- like Rebecca Moore, Brice Cummings, Frank Mintz -- and many others in the article. What part do you consider, undue, soapboxing, etc? What do you want to take out? What do you want to leave in? I'm curious how you envision the ideal Conspiracy theory#Pejorative_meaning section. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer deals in more than "fact." When it ventures into politics, philosophy, and religion, it is out of its domain of RS because the facts cannot be cross-checked with True/False so easily established. That is the crux of the argument about Skeptic® as a universal RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. Skeptical Inquirer's research of the term 'conspiracy theory' and its criticism of a 9/11 Truther is "out of its domain"??? And what is "Skeptic®" or "Skeptic™"?? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Louie - It's Trolling. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That is quite an accusation. I'm an editor, commenting on an article, toward the goal of improving the article. Here's what i mean. There is a subculture of people who assume the title of Skeptic™ and this is what i mean by using the "™" symbol. They appropriate the language of skepticism and self-declare an "expert" status on many topics about which they are not experts, but a sleight of dialogue in which their self-definition of being a "skeptic" makes them an expert on any topic about which they write. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia based on actual expertise in the form of reliable sources within the closest relevant field available. In the case of the subject of conspiracy theory, that would be subjects like linguistics, sociology, and psychology. There is no university degree in "skepticism" although there are some conferences and some related magazines, but it's more like a subculture like those people who dress up for Civil War reenactments, not a field of study like sociology or anthropology or physics. Therefore, i speak about this phenom in an effort to improve our understanding of reliable sourcing, to be sure that Wikipedia reflects the best sources, and not self-styled experts who are more like bloggers. Sorry for the length of this comment, but it's a serious accusation that needed addressing. SageRad (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Blaskiewicz is Assistant Professor of Critical Thinking at Stockton University. I think it's reasonable to consider him an expert in the field. Since Ayoto is a single expert it is fair to counter his view with that of another single expert, especially since this is a core part of Blaskiewicz's curriculum, not just a side-specialty. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the length given to his writings goes beyond that, and the indented quote reads to me like a soapbox given to him:

While proponents of alternative knowledge are correct in asserting that it is possible to unfairly discredit someone by calling them a “conspiracy theorist,” they must also remember that just because you are called a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean you aren’t one.

This quote is rhetoric, doesn't say much but says it fancy-like, and it has nothing to do with the disputed claim about an inflection point in the meaning of the term "conspiracy theory" in the 1960s. SageRad (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Concrete proposals:

• At minimum, remove the indented quote, which is rhetoric and not on topic here.
• Removed the title "scientific skeptic" from Bob's description, as that's not a professional title but a self-assumed title.

SageRad (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I corrected his institutional affiliation, left "skeptic" in as he's a co-host of a long-running skeptical webcast and has been a target of public attacks as a result of his skeptical activism especially over the egregious cancer quack Stanislaw Burzynski, but removed the quote and part of the next para as superfluous. It is sufficient, I agree, to demonstrate that the claim of the pejorative origin is disputed, and that it is abused by cranks to try to legitimise conspiracist thinking. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It reads a lot tighter to me without the indented, off-topic quote. I removed the stray phrase "According to Blaskiewicz:" which was left hanging there. I still take issues with the use of "skeptic" as a title but at least it is phrased as "skeptical activist" which is better. In fact, the more i think about it, that phrase seems very accurate and good. It may help to reduce the tensions between those who want to use the term Skeptic as if it's a professional title, and those who want to delete that, as it seems to capture the reality of the situation -- it is a kind of activism and it's fair to state it like this. Thanks and big props for this turn of phrase. SageRad (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

LuckyLouie's reorganized it and it's looking better. Good cooperative editing for a change, feels alright. SageRad (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Watergate

Watergate is an example of a conspiracy, not an example of a 'conspiracy theory'. The article as it stands elides the two. If there is a better example of a 'conspiracy theory' that later proved to be closer to the truth than mainstream understanding, we should have that here. If there is no better example, we should remove the paragraph. Adhib (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Adhib (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting. Was there a point in time when it was not known for a fact who did it? According to Watergate scandal, there seems to be an intervening time in which it would have been a conspiracy theory that then was proven to be correct. If that is the case, then perhaps it's quite useful in this article, and it illustrates the aspect of cover-up that is mentioned in the lede. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A 'conspiracy theory' that later proved to be closer to the truth than mainstream understanding? Well, some conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination was true. Look here: United States House Select Committee on Assassinations: The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy. Fer48 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We have some pretty good analysis in high quality sources [6], [7] of Watergate as an example of a proven conspiracy, but the sources make it clear that Watergate doesn't necessarily define the epistemic threshold between real and bogus conspiracy theories or lend credibility to conspiracy theories in general. @Sagerad: IIRC, there was never a question of "who did it". The question was more like "how far up the command chain in the Nixon White House did the planning and authorization go?" It was a different world in 1972 with a different news cycle, a limited number of print and TV outlets, and no social media. Although the White House did respond on one occasion by calling Woodward and Bernstein's allegations a 'conspiracy theory', the term got zero traction at the time, with the most commonly used term for the affair being "scandal". - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, very interesting. Thank you, LuckyLouie. SageRad (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Conversely, the suffix -gate is now mostly attached to events that are better characterized as scandals than conspiracy theories.—Odysseus1479 20:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. That's a neologism from Watergate.

Coincidentally, i just came across mention of Watergate in Keeley (1999) as follows:

Conspiracy theories, as a general theory, are not necessarily wrong. In fact, as the cases of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair illustrate, small groups of powerful individuals do occasionally seek to affect the course of history, and with no trivial degree of success.

I'm not saying this is the best example of a "warranted conspiracy theory" but it's sourced there. SageRad (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The point here is to distinguish between items of the type 'conspiracy' (which, as above, are real phenomena that actually happen) and items of the type 'conspiracy theory' (a narrative form that may be more or less connected to real phenomena). In the case of Watergate, I see no evidence of the latter item existing. Woodward & Bernstein were applying a systematic investigative approach to a possible scandal, based on direct sources and professional standards of evidence, and said little to anyone until they had well demonstrated proofs to share. That they were testing a hypothesis that a conspiracy had taken place is far from being the same thing as their having held to a 'conspiracy theory' that was then proven. To suggest they're equivalent is to grant credence to 'conspiracy theory' by association with a type of narrative that deservedly carries more authority, because of the professional standards and accountabilities it comes with. Adhib (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources and terminology

I have encountered a few good sources on conspiracy theories merit inclusion. Keeley uses the terms "warranted" and "unwarranted" for conspiracy theories that are rational and irrational, respectively. Parish uses the term "conspiracy theory" for irrational ones, and "theories about conspiracies" for rational ones. In both cases, these are genuinely notable commenters on the subject, and they both distinguish clearly among sound and unsound conspiracy theories. And lastly, a new study by Dr David Robert Grimes looks at numbers of participants who are "in" on the conspiracy, versus probability of it remaining secret for a given period of time. SageRad (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Confusing terminology: Lone wolf

I don't understand what the bolded sentence below is trying to say. It seems like a non sequitur to the preceding sentence, which makes it even more confusing IMHO. I get the impression that it would make sense to people who are familiar with Barkun's work, which I'm not. My hunch is that it will be equally confusing to anyone who isn't already familiar with his work. I could be wrong, so I'm commenting about it here to see if others cares to weigh in. TBH, it makes such little sense to me that I wouldn't even know how to reword it to make it more clear, so if someone familiar with Barkun cares to make a suggestion, that would also be helpful.

Conspiracy_theory#Fusion_paranoia: Barkun has adopted this term to refer to how the synthesis of paranoid conspiracy theories, which were once limited to American fringe audiences, has given them mass appeal and enabled them to become commonplace in mass media, thereby inaugurating an unrivaled period of people actively preparing for apocalyptic or millenarian scenarios in the United States of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Barkun notes the occurrence of lone wolf conflicts with law enforcement threatening the established political powers.

Permstrump (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I reworded it. Hope I didn't do violence to the intended meaning. GangofOne (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

new content on "longevity"

The following was added in this dif. I am not sure the section header is appropriate. The sourcing with daily mail is not acceptable. Am not sure about WP:WEIGHT. Also, this work was not about how long a "conspiracy theory" could be kept secret, but rather an actual conspiracy.

Longevity

In a 2016 open access article, physicist Dr David Robert Grimes at Oxford University suggested an equation for estimating how long conspiracy theories could realistically remain a secret using the estimated number of people involved in the conspiracy as a variable. The equation expressed the probability of a conspiracy being either deliberately uncovered by a whistle-blower, or inadvertently revealed by a bungler. To estimate the chances of a whistle-blower, Grimes used Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA Prism project as a base.

Using this model and estimated how long some popular conspiracy theories could have remained a secret:

• The moon landing (estimated 411,000 involved): 3 years, 8 months
• Climate change fraud (estimated 405,000 involved): 3 years, 9 months
• Vaccination conspiracy (estimated 22,000): 3 years, 2 months
• Cancer cure conspiracy (estimated 736,000): 3 years, 3 months

Grimes generated a table estimating a maximum number of conspirators to stay below a threshold. Time frame, Maximum N:

• 5 years, 2531
• 10 years, 1257
• 15 years, 838
• 20 years, 628
• 25 years, 502
• 30 years, 418
• 40 years, 313
• 50 years, 251
• 100 years, 125

References

-- What do folks think about WEIGHT here? better section title? Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC) (added dif i forgot Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC))

I made the addition but agree with some of what you write. Let's work on it in the article space. I reverted your removal, but incorporated some of your points. The Daily Mail article is based on, and refers to, the artile by Grimes. --Bensin (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find Grimes made an elementary mathematical error. Martin Robbins noted it here: [8]. There are times when a primary source is good, I do not think this is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Thanks for link. I've reverted my edit until issue is resolved here. --Bensin (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a better source than the dailymail, [9] JuliaHunter (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Encyclopedia

I've added a link to Conspiracy Encyclopedia, recently promoted to Good Article quality status rating.

Have a great day,

— Cirt (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)