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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
Paul Krugman (8 May 2006). "Who's crazy now?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 August 2019. A conspiracy theory, says Wikipedia, 'attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance.'
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
A:A key feature of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable, in the sense that they rely on circular reasoning and thus resist any attempt to assess their veracity. At best one can say that conspiracy theories are, by definition, not even wrong. This kind of hair-splitting misses the point, however. Conspiracy theories are not descriptions of real events. If they were, they would be called conspiracies.
This article has WP:RECENTISM issues. It is severely lacking in information about conspiracy theories before the 20th century. It also doesn't give an answer as to why that is, because there is little to no coverage on the history of conspiracy theories or the origins of conspiratorial thinking in societies, other than one or two sentences about them becoming more commonplace in the 20th and 21st centuries. PBZE (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the topic above, the topic "Conspiracy Theory" is very controversial, especially when it comes to academic articles like Wikipedia, so it was kind of to be expected, there would be generalized ideas on the subject, so even if the article is 'WRONG', I don't think it's a disaster like many say, but, it is undeniable that there may be mistakes in the article. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you say has no connection to the contribution above. And there is no point in repeating your talking points, which are already handled in the archives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There usually isn't a lot of literature about topics before they were identified. In this case the concept was first described by Hofstader and the term was coined following JFK's murder. It's similar to terrorism, genocide and terms for various ideologies.
I'm editing shortly to
-shorten that lede and remove links
-de-duplicate citation links if needed.
-review for statements of opinion
-other stuff
--what do you think? Nimbocrux (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice... let's get a consensus. Ok then....to be more specific, i will overwrite text from the page title up to the "Origin and usage" with the following (for a start)
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that suggests a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often politically motivated, when other explanations are more probable. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that such theories are based on prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence. Conspiracy theories are distinct from actual conspiracies and often oppose the mainstream consensus among experts, being resistant to falsification and often reinforced by logical fallacies.
Historically, conspiracy theories have been linked to prejudice, propaganda, wars, and genocides. They can also pose obstacles to public health measures and societal trust, contributing to outcomes such as poorer population health and the radicalisation of extremist viewpoints. Conspiracy theories have become widespread in mass media (and especially social media), emerging as a cultural phenomenon. Efforts to reduce conspiracy beliefs include promoting analytical thinking and reducing feelings of uncertainty and powerlessness.
I think this captures the energy of the article and removes citations. The replaced cited information that was in the old lede is repeated (and cited). Nimbocrux (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A conspiracy theory is distinct from a conspiracy; it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics..." This should say "it is", "not it refers to". A conspiracy does not "refer" to a conspiracy; it is one. Or at least it needs some kind of rephrasing. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B179:C8D1:FF57:859 (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A conspiracy does not "refer" to a conspiracy; it is one. But a conspiracy theory refers to a conspiracy. And that is what the sentence says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]