Jump to content

Talk:Conspiracy theory

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LordParsifal (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 22 August 2022 (→‎U.S.-originating conspiracy theories targeting other countries: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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.

'Justification' of conspiracy theories

I admit I haven't read every word of the article, but para 2 of the lead, which discusses theories' resistance to falsification, doesn't seem to mention the common argument of theorists that any debunking of the theory is ipso facto proof that the debunker is part of the 'conspiracy'. This seems to be to be a powerful pseudo-argument in support of any theory, and deserves a mention. Chrismorey (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's encompassed in the first sentence of the paragraph:
Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.
This idea is more explicitly touched upon in the Rhetoric section. Specifically:
Similarly, the continued lack of evidence directly supporting conspiracist claims is portrayed as confirming the existence of a conspiracy of silence; the fact that other people have not found or exposed any conspiracy is taken as evidence that those people are part of the plot, rather than considering that it may be because no conspiracy exists. Happy (Slap me) 14:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Disinformation"

@Altanner1991: I removed your unexplained addition of the "Disinformation" category, as I don't understand how it's relevant to this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: The template is at the same time the disinformation template as well as the misinformation template, meaning topics such as Deception, Denialism, and conspiracies of various nations are organized under this navbox. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite parse what you're saying here. But it sounds like you're conflating this article with real, proven conspiracies, which is off-base. Misinformation is not the same as disinformation. That's why I removed the category template, it's inappropriate for this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page discusses conspiracy theories so the navbox goes on that page. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That... still doesn't make sense. This page doesn't get added to the navbox until you add the category template. And you've yet to justify why this category template should be added to this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but now I'm the one who doesn't understand. Could you please point me to the meaning of category template? Altanner1991 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're adding the {{Disinformation}} template to the page, which places it in Category:Disinformation.
I'm trying to understand why you believe this should be added to the Disinformation Category. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange. You thought I added the category Disinformation and then you said that navboxes are only added after categories, and yet you are a highly experienced Wikipedia editor from 2006. How do you explain your odd behavior? Altanner1991 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one with odd behavior? You're the one going around in circles and refusing to explain your reasoning. I try to explain why your addition makes no sense, and you come back being obtuse and insulting me.
Fuck it, I'm not going to bash my head against the wall trying to get a sensible answer out of you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a navbox, not a category. Categories are added with the [[Category:]] template whereas navboxes are added with curved brackets {{}}. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the edit and thought you had added both. My apologies.
That said, you just hit WP:3RR, so you really need to quit forcing this into the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this closer... Category:Disinformation is not tagged on this page. That's why I was confused before. Perhaps someone manually added it to that navbox? regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory and Misinformation mention each other and overlap in premise, and furthermore the related concepts are plentiful, for example cognitive bias. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definite difference between disinformation and misinformation, and I feel the former does not apply. Cognitive bias is a completely different subject. That said I'm already frustrated by this debate, so I'm just going to back out. Do whatever you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I for one think that until the Misinformation and Disinformation templates are separated, that it would be a good navbox, although I will wait to see if others have comments. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox started from scratch on January 17th, 2017 and has had conspiracy theories since June 2nd, 2017 (link).
Still, comments from other editors would be welcome. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do categories anymore, but categories need to be sourced. You cannot add category:X unless the article says that the article subject is X, and for the article saying that, there must be a source saying that the article subject is X. See WP:CATV: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. The justification mention each other and overlap in premise is not good enough, even if it were disinformation that is mentioned and not misinformation. If the article about cats mentions that cats eat birds, you cannot use that as justification to add the cat article to Category:Birds.
I don't know about navboxes, but it would be very weird if one could add those without verification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Interventions portion of the article currently talks about misinformation (and I have added the link) so it would make sense that the misinformation navbox be included on the page. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently talks about a lot of things, including Psychology, Sociology, Politics, etc. We use WP:CONSENSUS to decide what categories and navboxes are appropriate rather than edit-warring or tendentious argumentation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, consensus is the only way. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence, but lean towards inclusion of this category. Conspiracy theories are often one of the primary outputs of disinformation campaigns. Examples include Creationism (that scientists conspire to suppress info on it), the big lie (claiming that the election was stolen by a conspiracy against Trump) and the antivaxx movement (claiming that there's microchips in vaccines to track people, etc).
The other side of the coin is the fact that including it in that category seems to suggest that this article is disinformation, when it clearly is not. But that's not a powerful argument, because this is an encyclopedia, quite the opposite of disinformation. Happy (Slap me) 14:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
because this is an encyclopedia, quite the opposite of disinformation
Well, Conservapedia exists. I'm just sayin', encyclopedias can be disinformation.
That said, I don't think this article fits the category, because while conspiracy theories can be disinfo, they're often just misinformation repeated by people who either don't know better, or don't want to know better. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox is for articles that are either disinformation or misinformation, and not necessarily both at the same time. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the category. And frankly, that navbox is overly broad.
This is why I always !voted to get rid of categories & navboxes when the topics come up, they're just more trouble than they're worth. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never changed the categories and would like the article in the navbox. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe conservapedia is an encyclopedia in the same sense that I don't believe creation science is science.
It may pretend to be, but at the end of the day, it's just so much bullshit made up by people who can't handle reality. Happy (Slap me) 20:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Misinformation"

The article relates with the article on Misinformation and I think the Mininformation navbox should be at the bottom of the page. Please voice your opinion on that connection for the articles (the above section discussed category templates and disinformation). Altanner1991 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"When other explanations are more probable"

What kind of citation ascertains the probability of reality? Can we ask that oracle about the most probable future for us? I'm sure all of us would like to know. However if this oracle is unable to provide an answer, how can it know the probability of any reality?

I request a deletion or modification of this passage on above grounds. It's obvious WP:POV LordParsifal (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the concept of probability is indeed not very useful when it comes to such things. The probability of an idea being true, given a set of facts, is always subjective, even when the Bayes formula is used. Only the probability of a set of facts being like that, given that a certain idea is true, can be computed without further assumptions. Plausibility is better, although it is subjective too.
But it is in the source like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we can say that no one who has any credibility believes this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believes what? Are you implying that all conspiracy theories are doomed to be less probable than all official lines of all events? There would be no conspiracy theories if conspiracies didn't happen from time to time. LordParsifal (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I am saying we go by what credible sources (i.e. wp:rs) say. So if RS (for example) say "When other explanations are more probable" so do we. Nor are we talking about reality, we are talking about explanations as to how likely a given idea is. FOr that we go to credible sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any credible sources which are unaligned with the powers-that-be, or more broadly (in the Marxian/Foucaultian sense), which are unaligned with Power? Wikipedia should self-reflect critically what is credible when Power might have ulterior motives, and that is doubly important in an article about the concept of "conspiracy theory." The bourgeoisie would naturally try to make the proletariat think that it's not scheming in any way against the proletariat. Or am I spouting some sort of weird conspiracy theory here? Is Plato's Republic and Marx's life's work one big conspiracy theory, and therefore "less probable than another Explanation(TM)?"
What I'm saying is important with regards to Wikipedia's founding programmatic goal. Which is what? A free encyclopedia, edited by users.
Or are we doomed to toe the corporate line? Is that a free encyclopedia?
I will now go over the "sources" and check how they try to discredit the very concept of a conspiracy theory itself. Such an assertion is audacious and tenuous and does not deserve to be in an article on a Free encyclopedia. Cheers. LordParsifal (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If your position is that the news media and academia are in the pocket of the government (or some other shadowly elites, it is hard to tell) then yes, you are spouting some sort of weird conspiracy theory here - MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your attempt at a straw man argument, I never said what I personally believe because I merely believe in WP:NPOV. But from what is clearly intelligible in your post, the logical conclusion is that damned should be Plato, Marx, Chomsky, Debord and Baudrillard, for they all spouted such "weird" concepts that were just weird "conspiracy theories." Guess all of academia is into what amounts to just some weird conspiracy theories. Nuts! Quick question: is CRT a conspiracy theory? LordParsifal (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, I personally have owned several CRTs over the years. MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_20, which includes relevant citations. The sentence originally had a pipelink to Occam's razor which helped better clarify it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

U.S.-originating conspiracy theories targeting other countries

This source was rejected by Venerable Editors(TM).

[1]

I am asking for an explanation how what is depicted in the article is not a U.S.-originating conspiracy theory (by the very definition of the word). How does that work?

If this primary source isn't allowed, then is there any non-corporate source that I could use (one that's listed as credible)? Or are all permitted sources merely Credible(TM)? Let me open this discussion. LordParsifal (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Miller, Greg (19 August 2022). "Russia's spies misread Ukraine and misled Kremlin as war loomed". The Washington Post.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
The objection is not to the source, the objection is that the source does not actually contain the claims you are attempting to add to the article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing here is tantamount to citing a photo of a plane you can't identify as proof that aliens are visiting Earth.
"I don't believe this story, therefore this story must be false, therefore this story is a conspiracy theory because it involves spies," is no more logically valid than "I can't identify this airplane, therefore it's a UFO, therefore aliens must be here because they are related to UFOs." Happy (Slap me) 19:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured perhaps there was some misunderstanding and that sourcing on Wikipedia perhaps doesn't work like that (can't use primary sources?) but the whole concept of a primary source is so tricky in the modern age, with paper being a nearly outdated medium and so on. Regardless, under the definition provided by Wikipedia (which was formed using the only possible credible sources), the theory put forth by American intelligence in the article linked, is a conspiracy theory, which targets a foreign country, and is therefore an example of a U.S.-originating conspiracy theory. Is there any further misunderstanding or did I get something wrong? Thank you for your patience and your attempt at elucidation. LordParsifal (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conspiracy_theory&oldid=1105997736"