Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 5

message: The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.
The reason the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is logically self-contradictory is because everyone with an I.Q. high enough to tie their shoes is a believer in conspiracies. Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.
Thus, those making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" are also believers and/or promulgators of notions regarding conspiracies--often far more so than the person being accused as being a "conspiracy theorist."
A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate a plan which involves doing something untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component of conspiracy).
It certainly says something regarding the intellectual blinders one making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is wearing that they don't even stop to realize the logically self-contradictory nature of this charge, as going by the literal meaning of the two words in the phrase "conspiracy theorist." For the one making this charge is himself a believer in conspiracies.
And so it is here where we come to the real meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" as it is used by those making the charge. What they mean by this  charge is that the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which have not been offically sanctioned by the accuser's government--whereas the accuser making this charge believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which his government has deemed appropriate for the public to believe in. The difference between the two is that the accuser believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are statist in their implications, in that they merely reiterate the offical government line--whereas the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are anti-statist in their implications, in that they go against what the accuser's government would have the public believe.
Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so?--209.208.77.64 09:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to argue with you over this for the same reason that I don't spend my time mud wrestling with pigs.  But I do think that you should consult a dictionary for the definition of "theory".  It does not "suggest a principle or law of operation".  Laws have been proven as verifiable.  Theories have not.  Thus the word applies for the term "conspiracy theory".  Dismas|(talk) 09:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, talk about an ad hominem attack! That is a way to dehumanize me by conflating me with animals used for slaughter. I will here ask you to please stop psychologically projecting upon me. I've actually read many dictionaries on this matter, including having read Wikipedia's very own entry on the term "theory." Apparently you would have people believe that you've never heard of the General *Theory* of Relativity and the *Theory* of Evolution. Is not the General *Theory* of Relativity a physical law? Go ahead and look at Wikipedia's own entry on "theory." You'll find that it has no relevancy to almost any belief in conspiracy. So please now answer my question: if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so? That is the issue here with the misapplied term "theory." The logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack of "conspiracy theorist" is against those making claims regarding historical events which go against the claims of the political establishment. Such people attacked by this ad hominem are making claims regarding historical events based upon historical inquiry. Either the event happened or it did not--just as with the historical claim of rain having fallen on a certain day and at a certain place.--209.208.77.64 10:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Is not the General *Theory* of Relativity a physical law?"  No.  That's why it's called a "theory".  See Theory of relativity and you'll see in the evidence in the first sentence.  I'm done... At least you made me chuckle and shake my head... Dismas|(talk) 10:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The General *Theory* of Relativity is certainly a physical law in the sense that every experiment to date has confirmed it, i.e., in the sense of a principle that is known to be true to date. By your use of "law" in this context, nothing could be a physical law unless proved *a priori* (since experiment can't prove a general principle but merely confirm it). Granted, using "law" in this sense isn't logically rigorous in the utmost of sense if one means by "law" something which is known cannot possibly be violated, but all mainstream physicists that I am aware of speak of the "laws of physics" (i.e., as they are currently known). At any rate, this is a total diversion by you from my actual statement. I said "The term 'theory' suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution." Notice I said "principle *or* law," so your own incorrect cavils regarding the term "law" are irrelevant even on their own terms. The point is that merely making a claim regarding a historical event is not the same as positing a principle or law of operation. So, once again, please now answer my question: if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so (whether they be either right or wrong)?--209.208.77.64 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations

message: Almost all of this section is devoted to the idea that Jews have prospered by lending money for profit, in a manner justified by their religious beliefs. Although this is an interesting topic, I'm not sure what it belongs in the "conspiracy theory" article unless someone can clarify what the conspiracy is supposed to be. Is the conspiracy supposed to involve the Jews making back-room deals to jack up interest rates, or to hiding their financial activity from the general public? (It seems to me that on usually doesn't need to "conspire" in order to lend money for profit. So why would the Jews need to?) Or is the conspiracy supposed to involve non-Jews spreading this rumor about the Jews in order to discredit them? Or is it something else? --Ryguasu 12:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a legitimate point on this page because it is the start of many of the worst conspiracy theories about Jews. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has already been cited as an example of that sort of thing. Edward I's treatment of the Jews in England is another example of a conspiracy theory starting from that point. Hitler also used aspects of the money lending point in his attacks on Jews. It's not so much a conspiracy theory in and of itself as the starting point for a great many theories. David Newton 11:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone justify the "Anti-Semitic belief systems" section? 

message: Have removed the following text from the article:
*Another article exists which lists and describes a vast array of conspiracy articles, including a series of global conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories peculiar to the United States of America, conspiracy theories peculiar to Canada, and conspiracy theories peculiar to the Arab and Muslim world. This includes a discussion of Zionist conspiracy theories regarding the September 11th 2001 Terrorist Attacks.
Firstly if such an article exists where is it, and secondly the red link (which is only linked to from here) is a target for vandals of wikipedia. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 14:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: A recent addition by Gzuckier discussed an original date of 9/17 or 9/18. I'd never heard that before. Do you have a cite? Quadell (talk) 19:23, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
:With the information that the news agency was 'Al Manar', I can now find a few such sources:
:4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At World Trade Center On Sept.11 
:AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report 
:Beirut, Lebanon - Monday, September 17, 2001 
:4,000 Jewish Employees in WTC Absent the Day of the Attack
:<http://11september.2itb.com/jews_absent.htm>
:<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=jews++rosh+world+trade+center&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=003601c1bf2a%24f764e200%24026c61cb%40presario&rnum=2>
:According to Nexis and the Google search engine, the first mention of Israeli involvement in the attacks came in a Sept. 17 report on Lebanon's Al-Manar Television. The Los Angeles Times reports that the terrorist group Hezbollah has free access to Al-Manar's airwaves, and the station's Web site claims that the station exists to "stage an effective psychological warfare with the Zionist enemy."
:The next day at 6:26 a.m., the American Web site Information Times published an article headlined "4,000 Jews Did Not Go To Work At WTC On Sept. 11," and credited it to an "AL-MANAR Television Special Investigative Report." This was not the first time that Information Times had pointed the finger at Israel. The day after the attacks, it warned in an article that the "terrorist government of Israel … cannot be ruled out" as a suspect. Information Times purports to be edited by Syed Adeeb from the eighth floor of the National Press Club at 549 15th St. NW, Washington, DC, 20045. The Press Club says it has no such tenant and repeated messages sent to the e-mail address for Syed Abeed listed on the site bounce back as undeliverable. Directory assistance for Washington, D.C., has no listing for Information Times.
:<http://slate.msn.com/id/116813/>
Actually, the claim that no Israelis were killed at the WTC appears to be correct.  All the victim lists I've found only list 1 Israeli death, and it was on a plane, not in the WTC..  Whether there were any Israeli employees working there normally I don't know. - Mustafaa 20:50, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosh Hashannah theory 

message: This is a good article, but it could really do with a section on the psychology of conspiracy theories. Why are they so prevalent for instance ChrisG 18:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 'owzat? Adhib 16:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: psychology of conspiracy theories

message: I removed this section from the article.  The text was
:It is sometimes claimed that not only the bad economics terminated the communism in Eastern Europe, but that because of bad technology and frequently occuring UFOs, the principle of Cold War - the equilibrum of terror - was not maintainable any more. This theory can be claimed by some extraordinary and well documented UFO incidences in East and West before 1989.    
At first, I though I'd just fix up the English and POV, but when I was done I had
:It is sometimes claimed that the fall of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War was caused by UFOs.
And the references 1) are all in German, and 2) look like they aren't that good anyway.  dbenbenn | talk 19:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret reasons for the end of communism 

message: OK, I've started trying to lick this into better shape. Apart from new subsidiary articles exporting some of the discussions to stand on their own, I'll be removing the occasional paranoid fantasy or re-describing it in non-commital NPOV. Oh, and I'll also be pasting dubious 'facts' here for debate about whether they warrant reinsertion into the article: for a first example, I think Al Capone might have had something to say about this ...
:* The Mafia was essentially completely unknown to outsiders until Joe Valachi revealed them in 1963.
Adhib 09:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the snafu and thanks to Cberlet for the rescue job. Seems my set-up (iMac, 'course) can't handle editing stuff that's way over-length. The edit window just gives me the first 40kb or so, hence the ugly snip that occurred, even when I reverted. This means the bits I valued from my own contrib of the 23rd (material on the Chinese Embassy in the War sub-section; 16:09, 23 Feb 2005 ) are inaccessible to me to copy and paste across to their appropriate home in Cberlet's new Conspiracy theories (a collection) article. Anyone got any advice? Adhib 15:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying-up 

message: Dear User:Bogusstory Let's not have a revert war.  The definition is cafefully worded. Your attempts at editing have been poorly written, often barely coherent, and opinionated.  If you want to discuss what you are trying to say, this is the place. But let's not have a revert war.--Cberlet 22:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus Edits

message: The lead definition should not be focused on the political examples with "secretive powers" and "common understandings".  
I don't care who writes the lead definition, however I was not happy with the current one because I (and likely Rhobite) think it is incomprehensible and inaccurate compared to dictionary definitions and leans more towards the colloquial or political definitions.
The lead definition needs to be flexible enough to work for any special case.  The concept of "conspiracy theory" is really just the combination of the concept of "conspiracy" and the concept of "theory" or "guess". To conspire is to plan together to do something, usually bad but not necessarily. For example you and your mom can conspire to surprise your dad with a party! So a "conspiracy theory" is a guess that a group of people conspired to do something. It is a guess, because the person guessing has no direct knowledge that the group of people planned it and executed on it. In the previous example, after the surprise party, your dad might suspect that the two of you were in on the surprise because he doubts either one of you could have pulled it off on your own (his conspiracy theory) and ask you both how you planned it. [Perhaps only your mom knew that he would be there at that time and only you could have invited his friends.]  After revealing these facts to him, his theory becomes a fact.
If you check the new definition of conspiracy theory, you will see that my above example is correct usage of the term.  However the previous lead definition would not allow for it.  Bogusstory 09:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd. The meaning of "conspiracy theory" is not just the defs of the two words mashed together. And please put future comments at the bottom of the page.--Cberlet 14:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: 'the concept of "theory" or "guess".' 
Nonsense. The word 'theory' does not mean 'guess'. Matthew Platts 16:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 20:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

message: i need comments:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing
--Striver 19:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  London 

message: I have to say, I agree with Striver. This is an incredibly arrogant and blatantly biased article, and I'm surprised no-one's stuck a POV flag on it. I am currently trying (gradually) to broaden it a bit, without (hopefully) going too far in the other direction. 
Since I think the vote about 'Conspiracy theory' ended with the conclusion that 'CT' wasn't a perjorative, then it's only fair to do something about this article, which seems to believe that all conspiracy theorists are nuts.
Garrick92 14:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm not paranoid, but ...

message: The bulleted paragraph MKULTRA seems to be garbled.  Will the author please rearrange the sentence fragments?  I can't figure out how the last sentence is supposed to read.  J S Ayer 14:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''MKULTRA'''

message: "proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic."
As do proponents of a certain car, computer, fashion label or political party. The point of is ?
I think this unfortunately falls into the category that I'm seeing a lot of on Wikipedia recently; soundbites in the introductions of articles which really have no place being there and are not informative or educational to new readers at all with the potential to skew or distort the entire article.
The other argument to this would be that logic has been rigourously and studiously applied by many individuals who have the burden of being labled 'conspiracy theorists', for example surrounding 9/11 to come to the legitimate alternative conclusion that the official explanation surrounding the attrocity is incomplete or just plain wrong.
Personally, I take issue with "proponents sometimes substitute zeal for logic" which is a superficial and misleading stereotype that doesn't belong in an introductory paragraph.
:The phrase is drawn from the work of Barkun, Goldberg, and others. It is a common assertion of these and other scholars, although others disagree, as is noted in the article. This page offers a range of views, but the views of most scholars and reputable publications is skeptical of conspiracy theories as a genre.--Cberlet 15:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with introduction 

message: Hi, some of my recent edits are based on a big discussion on this page:
Please join in.--Cberlet 19:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See discussion on other page

message: I do not think the following claim is true, and it certainly is not cited:
:"It is important to add that this article itself - purely by discussing the 'psychology' of conspiracy theories - could be used to support an argument that 'conspiracy theorists' (i.e., anyone and everyone who believes, or tends to believe, in a non-orthodox explanation for at least one social 'event') are somehow mentally ill. There is no evidence that would support such a sweeping claim. However, there is plentiful evidence to suggest that humans have an urge to conform, even superficially."
Anyone have a cite?--Cberlet 01:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited assertion

message: The term "conspiracy theorist" as it is almost always used is simply nothing more than a logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack.
The reason the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is logically self-contradictory is because everyone with an I.Q. high enough to tie their shoes is a believer in conspiracies. Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.
Thus, those making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" are also believers and/or promulgators of notions regarding conspiracies--often far more so than the person being accused as being a "conspiracy theorist."
A conspiracy is simply when two or more people formulate a plan which involves doing something untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component of conspiracy).
It certainly says something regarding the intellectual blinders one making the charge of "conspiracy theorist" is wearing that they don't even stop to realize the logically self-contradictory nature of this charge, as going by the literal meaning of the two words in the phrase "conspiracy theorist." For the one making this charge is himself a believer in conspiracies.
And so it is here where we come to the real meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist" as it is used by those making the charge. What they mean by this  charge is that the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which have not been offically sanctioned by the accuser's government--whereas the accuser making this charge believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which his government has deemed appropriate for the public to believe in. The difference between the two is that the accuser believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are statist in their implications, in that they merely reiterate the offical government line--whereas the accused believes in and/or promotes ideas regarding conspiracies which are anti-statist in their implications, in that they go against what the accuser's government would have the public believe.
Also, the term "theory" as it is used in this logically self-contradictory ad hominem attack is misapplied and inappropriate. The term "theory" suggests a principle or law of operation. Thus you have the General Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution. Yet almost always the logically self-contradictory ad hominem charge of "conspiracy theorist" is against those who are making specific claims regarding historical events. To illustrate this point, if someone says that it rained over the Bahamas on September 2, 2004 are they then a "theorist" for saying so?--209.208.77.64 09:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The (Non) Logic of "Conspiracy Theory" Accusations