Talk:Conspiracy theory

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q:Are conspiracy theories inherently false? A:A key feature of conspiracy theories is that they are unfalsifiable, in the sense that they rely on circular reasoning and thus resist any attempt to assess their veracity. At best one can say that conspiracy theories are, by definition, not even wrong. This kind of hair-splitting misses the point, however. Conspiracy theories are not descriptions of real events. If they were, they would be called conspiracies.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Paul Krugman (8 May 2006). "Who's crazy now?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 August 2019. A conspiracy theory, says Wikipedia, 'attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance.' Sean Illing (11 April 2019). "The Trump-Ukraine story shows the power of conspiracy theories: This book explains why conspiracism is on the rise in American politics". Vox.com. Archived from the original on 1 October 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2019. Nancy Rosenblum: That's right, and I'm so glad you said that, because Wikipedia actually defines a conspiracy theory as a false threat of a conspiracy, and that's not true.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Knuteson (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (special:diff/927825243)

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 9 September 2013 for a period of one week.

Section sizes Section size for Conspiracy theory (41 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 21,134 21,134 677 677 Origin and usage 10,096 13,352 411 656 Alleged CIA origins 3,256 3,256 245 245 Difference from conspiracy 4,260 4,260 204 204 Examples 1,133 1,133 77 77 Popularity 8,639 8,639 432 432 Types 1,095 4,097 59 156 Walker's five kinds 928 928 10 10 Barkun's three types 1,277 1,277 9 9 Rothbard: shallow vs. deep 797 797 78 78 Lack of evidence 4,590 4,590 147 147 Rhetoric 6,274 6,274 696 696 Consequences 8,723 8,723 595 595 Interventions 73 22,420 0 2,169 Target audience 1,750 7,321 177 743 General public 2,395 2,395 225 225 Conspiracy theorists 3,176 3,176 341 341 Reducing transmission 1,728 1,728 51 51 Government policies 4,625 4,625 511 511 Public health campaigns 4,420 4,420 514 514 Backfire effects 4,253 4,253 350 350 Psychology 8,740 27,650 394 1,378 Attractions 10,287 10,287 546 546 Causes 4,562 8,623 261 438 Projection 2,210 2,210 82 82 Physiology 1,851 1,851 95 95 Sociology 3,396 5,982 242 451 Influence of critical theory 1,109 1,109 72 72 Fusion paranoia 1,477 1,477 137 137 Viability 4,249 4,249 261 261 Terminology 1,908 1,908 38 38 Politics 3,396 18,750 197 952 Arab world 2,978 2,978 156 156 Turkey 4,579 4,579 173 173 United States 7,797 7,797 426 426 See also 404 404 0 0 References 17 90 0 0 Informational notes 42 42 0 0 Citations 31 31 0 0 Further reading 7,647 7,647 0 0 External links 569 569 0 0 Total 161,871 161,871 8,889 8,889

"probable"

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful sinister groups, often political in motivation),[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.

So my concern starts with the fact that the assertion of a 'conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss what might be a valid argument, or an attempt at explaining something. In order to try to prevent, or at least reduce this, I would like to ask that editors consider adding the idea that the probability of the more commonly accepted explanation is based on the existence of the current information at the time. Just because it's "probable" in 1950, does not mean that it is probable after government documents show that the CIA actually DID do LSD experiments on Americans. It's the dismissive and pejorative connotation of the word that I am attempting to address. Not all "conspiracy theories" are false. Sometimes the conspiracy theorist is correct, and is a pattern detector, a superior mind, someone that knows more than most people, or they have information that others do not, superior analytical skills, etc... They are not all crack-pots. Sometimes the conspiracy theorists are our best and brightest, and we should be listening to them, and not dismissing them because we have a flawed and faulty belief in the definition of the term "conspiracy theory".72.180.111.79 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia offers encyclopedic information, it does not give life/policy advice. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this assessment wholeheartedly. This article is loaded with appeals to authority and ad populum errors, implying through innuendo that "qualified" thinking is presumably valid while those who dare to deviate from hive-minded norms are just paranoid. There are many historic examples of conspiracy theorists being right. The potential for legitimacy within conspiracy theories should be explored in context in the interest of balance and honesty, and much more nuance also needs to be added to any narrative that explores the possibility of disordered thinking in order to provide the correct context as well. Well-argued skepticism is generally good. Asking questions is good. Questioning authority is good. This article is academically worded but reads like an ad hominem attack on critically thoughtful skeptics in many ways and a call to intellectual conformity, and it needs to be tightened up. Unencyclopedic. 24.44.13.50 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@24.44.13.50 I don't think the dominant political movements in the world right now agree with you that Asking questions is good. Questioning authority is good. That kind of skepticism isn't really welcome whether in China, Russia or the USA for that matter. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial That's a fair statement. 24.44.13.50 (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the article today is much more balanced than it was formerly. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:3C88:6560:F3A0:FFD4 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM applies to you too. Your narrative of "hive-minded norms" will more likely turn you into a flat-earther in a tinfoil hat than into a helpful Wikipedia contributor. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the methodology rather than the claim itself that makes it a conspiracy theory. Police questioning of Lee Harvey Oswald for example was carried out to determine if he had any accomplices. But that's different from someone having access to all the evidence and deciding there is no doubt it was a conspiracy. TFD (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2025 and 28 October 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nazifa Shahid (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Paulis28, Sbroadfoot.

— Assignment last updated by Nazifa Shahid (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for any mentioning of I. Winslow Ayer

This man was prolific in purchasing advertisements in many notable newspapers after Lincoln was killed. He claimed that the confederacy obtained the secret of Greek fire. He called his conspiracy theory “The Great Northwestern conspiracy. His advertising hit the front page of some newspapers that reported about the then recent successful assassination. I am not sure that such an aged and forgotten theory would be notable enough for inclusion. I am still literally and singlehandedly recovering from a stroke and also too constrained to express the boldness to include such mention myself. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:3C88:6560:F3A0:FFD4 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for “the great northwestern conspiracy” returns numerous first page results, so perhaps it may just barely break the notability barrier. Please consider the inclusion of this old conspiracy theorist so that readers will discover that the topic is not merely a modern phenomenon. Thanks 😀 He may have been formerly regarded as the “Alex Jones” of his day. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:3C88:6560:F3A0:FFD4 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diff from conspiracy section

It may be more accurate to replace the word covert with unlawful. This would help immensely to inform people that conspiracy need not be secretive. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:3C88:6560:F3A0:FFD4 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the conspiracy article has been updated to reflect this well known fact. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:3C88:6560:F3A0:FFD4 (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change covert to unlawful please see recent additions to talk page. 2603:3014:C06:3C00:3C88:6560:F3A0:FFD4 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theories tend to be internally consistent and correlate with each other"

This doesn't appear to be what the source is saying; rather it appears to be saying that conspiracy theorists hold internally consistent beliefs. Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite a passage from the source that supports that interpretation? I'm reading the source now, and not seeing that (indeed, I'm not seeing where it suggest that the conspiracy theories are internally consistent, either, though I'm not done yet.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph under "WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES?".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to internal consistency in that paragraph is to the various studies used by the paper to judge people's belief in conspiracies. It's saying that the various surveys are consistent within this line of questioning. I.E. they all ask similar questions (likely touching upon the JFK assassination, 9/11, the moon landings, etc) and they all grade belief on the same scale (A Likert-type, which grades agreement with statements on a scale of 1-5 or 1-7).

That paragraph does state that beliefs in conspiracy theories correlate with each other. However, I'm not seeing anything about the beliefs themselves, nor about the believers having internally consistent beliefs.

Conspiracy beliefs correlating to each other doesn't indicate consistency on its own. For example, a person might believe that Al-Qaeda was working for the CIA, while also believing that Mossad is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Those two beliefs would contradict each other (if the US government was, in fact, managing Al-Qaeda, then the government would presumably be able to quickly rule them out as suspects, and would be disincentivized to blame them, even in the absence of a known perpetrator).

I would expect the statement "conspiracy theorists hold internally consistent beliefs" to be evidenced by, for example, data which shows that conspiracy theorists tend to have specific narrative beliefs about the nature of the world, and they believe those conspiracy theories which support that narrative, while not believing others.

To use some well-documented examples, I would expect that data to show that those who believe in the Reptilian conspiracy theory also believe that UFO research is being conducted at Area 51, but do not necessarily believe that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, because the first two are based in a consistent narrative, while the latter is not.

All of this is compounded by the fact that rationalization plays a central role in conspiracy theories. With enough rationalization, any two seemingly-contradictory beliefs can be reconciled, and in the case of conspiracy theories, those rationalizations often form new conspiracy theories themselves. For example, people who believe in Pizzagate may also posit that Reptilians come from a society in which Theistic Satanism or something bearing a very strong resemblance to it is the dominant religion, thereby reconciling the seemingly disparate views that powerful people in the US government are sacrificing children to Satan and that the US government is secretly controlled by aliens.

The problem here is that I don't see the source really stating anything about the internal consistency of anything but the studies it used to establish the beliefs of conspiracy theorists. So while I tend to agree with you that conspiracy theorists have internally consistent beliefs (due to rationalization), and I believe that conspiracy theories need to be internally consistent in order to be believable at all, I think a better correction would be to change that sentence to state merely that belief in a given conspiracy theory tend to be correlated to belief in others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who believes in one conspiracy theory is likely to believe in others, even if their claims are mutually incompatible. TFD (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. I stated as much explicitly, and I outlined how they do that in the comment above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]