" 

 ==Domhoff on conspiracy theories== 

 This is an extremely useful specific reference relevant to this article: There Are No Conspiracies by G. William Domhoff .    
 Here's Domhoff's lede: 

 In my opinion, that's an excellent analysis by a sociology professor at UCSC. But currently this article obscures this analysis.    

 :Ludvikus, I don't want to personally attack you but this is another example of why I think you are a problem and that I don't your opinion seriously. If you actually had read the Alleged conspirators section of the article, you would know that we actually quote this entire passage. It even used to be in the Lead until Batvette and other contributors made me move it to the Alleged conspirators section. SO CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE ARTICLE BEFORE CRITIQUING IT?    

 ::I will NOT do any of that because it's the lede that has the heaviest weight. And the current lede tells me that the article stinks of rotten eggs. If you don't fix the lede, no one should bother with the rest of the article. The lead is the way of telling you whether what follows is garbage or not. So fix the lede to conform to the body.    

 :::Except for conspiracy theorists who hate the fact that the lead is critical of New World Order conspiracism, you are the ONLY person who thinks the lead is bad. And since you confess to not having read the article in its entirety, no one can nor should take seriously your opinion of the lead since it is a summary of the the article.    
 ::::At the moment, you're the ONLY person who thinks it's great - could it be because people are afraid to contradict you? After all, they can read here how you deal with a WP:Good faith attempt to improve this article?    
 :::::Oddly enough, I think the lede could be improved; perhaps a summary of the quote would be helpful, although I doubt that  would agree to a sensible summary, as he's misinterpreted that, as well as the article.  —     
 ::::::Arthur, I'm not opposed to adding a summary of the Domhoff quote in the Lead section but, as you can see from discussions in Archive 3, it was a major dispute that drove the Domhoff quote from the Lead section to the Alleged conspirators section. Do we really want to open that can of worms again?    
 :::::Ludvikus, the version of the lead that existed before you arrived with your grand proposals to revamp the entire article was the result of a consensus reached after many debates between me and other contributors who had problems with the previous version I had written as well as recommendations that came from the peer review. So the notion that people are afraid to contradict me is proven false by the very process that produced the pre-Ludvikus version of the lead.    
 *Can you guys please stop talking about me, and focus on the Article? On the other hand, at the moment only the tree of us are in the room. Nevertheless, besid