Jump to content

Talk:Conspiracy theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki education assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DET313205 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Emjo2000, Samath1a, SethBruder, MCaro99, Amonroyr, Pmmuab77.

Article needs more coverage on history

[edit]

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.
The problem is in applying a modern concept to conditions in earlier society. TFD (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De-sprawlificatory changes pending, particularly to the lede.

[edit]

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]

Too vague. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably review WP:CONSENSUS, the recent Talk page archive, and discuss your proposed changes in more specific detail before you edit the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 4 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]

Edit request

[edit]

"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]

Disagree, it makes sense. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 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]