"

 Operation Northwords 
Listing Operation Northwoods as a conspiracy theory is bias and unfounded by the very definition of Conspiracy Theory that this article gives. If a conspiracy theory is a theory involving a ""coordinated group"" which ""is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities"" then Operation Northwoods does not fit the criteria. First of all, the CIA does not try to keep its self hidden or secret. It is a known agency and the plans of Operation Northwoods are no more a Conspiracy Theory just because they where kept secret then any of its other actions that the CIA plans or performs on a daily basses that are all kept secret from the general public. Secondly, Operation Northwoods was not a conspiracy within the CIA either. Not one CIA member kept it a secret from anyone who should have known about it. It other words the protocols and the chain of command for this plan was followed precisely as they should have been. And because of that fact, it was shot down, the architect of the plan was fired, the plan never took action and it was well documented which is why we know of the plan under the Freedom of Information Act. This is the exact opposite of a conspiracy theory.   

 Conspiracism 

The section conspiracism says:

'Conspiracy theories are often not taken seriously, because so many conspiracy theories - almost by definition - lack readily verifiable evidence. 

This phrase is unnecessary to introduce conspiracism and is full of weasel words: ""often taken not seriously"" (has anybody made a statistic?) ""many conspiracy theories lack verifiable evidence"" (how many?) and it happens ""almost by  definition""(??) what in the definition states tht the theory has to lack evidence???  

If nobody has nothing to comment about that I will delete the sentence above.  

I disagree with the above sentence - and for sure it is not neutral but  guess that it meant that the conspiracy groups hides the evidents and/or create them (vide the 9/11 passport [I don't want to argue was it fabricated - I mentioning that accorsing to some people it was fabricated]).   

 Sequence of sections and bias 

The way this article is set up suggests a very, very strong POV and it is not even really attempting to be neutral. First problem is the examples, for one they shouldn't be the second thing since it's mainly a partial list. This should be towards the end of the article. Also there is the descriptions:

The John F. Kennedy assassination was a plot by people in high places and not the work of lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. Oliver Stone's film JFK is based on this premise.

While this is a conspiracy theory, one I think is somewhat likely, it is actually the most extreme of conspiracy theories in this regard. Other theories were that this was a mob hit or carried out by Cuba or the Soviets. The UFO conspiracy theory is also stated in the more extreme manner. Some theories are that the U.S. government conceals an alien presence because they're afraid of it causing a scare, which sounds more reasonable than, ""to be used for war and other ideas, mainly towards the New World order.""

Also the fourth section is almost completely dedicated to explaining conspiracy theories in a discrediting manner, treating them like psychological abnormalities or attempts by confused individuals to make sense of a nonsensical world. It seems to be the most common and most annoying criticism of conspiracy theories. This section also is half of the actual article, with the rest mainly being an explanation of the terminology and even mentions of fictional conspiracies. Very little of this article goes to treating conspiracy theories as a justifiable practice in critical thinking that like all legitimate studies can lead to rather ridiculous theories. For instance, there are legitimate questions about 9-11, such as the $100,000 given to Atta by a head of the ISI. There are also allegations that the 9-11 Commission due to its structure and the associations of its head with the Administration was unable to do a thorough and independent investigation, with it ultimately being little more than a coverup. In every case critical thinking demands some form of explanation or theory for such facts. For instance one is that the Administration is trying to cover up connections between Pakistan and/or Saudi Arabia and 9-11. This w