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.

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) 20,818 20,818 679 679 Origin and usage 6,931 9,901 250 449 Alleged CIA origins 2,970 2,970 199 199 Difference from conspiracy 4,272 4,272 204 204 Examples 1,133 1,133 77 77 Popularity 8,451 8,451 404 404 Types 1,090 4,092 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 7,479 7,479 278 278 Rhetoric 6,096 6,096 696 696 Consequences 8,543 8,543 595 595 Interventions 73 22,643 0 2,169 Target audience 2,002 7,602 177 743 General public 2,411 2,411 225 225 Conspiracy theorists 3,189 3,189 341 341 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 4,195 4,195 350 350 Psychology 8,752 27,684 396 1,380 Attractions 10,310 10,310 546 546 Causes 4,561 8,622 261 438 Projection 2,210 2,210 82 82 Physiology 1,851 1,851 95 95 Sociology 3,386 6,029 243 452 Influence of critical theory 1,131 1,131 72 72 Fusion paranoia 1,512 1,512 137 137 Viability 4,308 4,308 261 261 Terminology 1,908 1,908 38 38 Politics 3,417 18,895 197 952 Arab world 2,978 2,978 156 156 Turkey 4,610 4,610 173 173 United States 7,890 7,890 426 426 See also 404 404 0 0 References 17 90 0 0 Informational notes 42 42 0 0 Citations 31 31 0 0 Further reading 7,643 7,643 0 0 External links 569 569 0 0 Total 160,958 160,958 8,790 8,790

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.

Semi-protected edit request

Just a small edit request, on the first sentence of the wiki for 'conspiracy theory'...

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), when other explanations are more probable.

Can it be re-written as

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy (generally by powerful groups, often political in motivation, and frequently concealed), when alternate explanations are more widely held as true by the general public. Fredderf24 (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't strike me as an improvement, so I'd oppose such an edit. I'll also note that the current lead sentence of the article is the result of a well attended RFC (see archive 20/21) and is the result of a lot of discussion by a lot of different people, and it should not be rewritten lightly - I doubt anyone wants to kick that process off again. MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

when alternate explanations are more widely held as true by the general public <--- Not what our cited sources say, so no, it's not an improvement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2025

Incoherent request and argumentation. Not actionable. Rolling up to prevent further nonsensical comments.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. The info in this is not correct yet there is a lock to prevent correction so that false information is pushed. Wikipedia is a complete joke. Lies and bullshit with correction prevention. What a joke. Wikipedia is the last place to search for info 135.180.78.134 (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] In an edit request, you are meant to say what you want changed, not a vague rant (ohh and read wp:soap). Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] So that it can be met with a dismissive and entirely subjective response, as evinced above with the 'semi-protected edit request', such as 'this doesn't strike me as an improvement, so I'd oppose such an edit?' The 'so' in that logic is entirely arbitrary by objective logical standards. This website consistently fails to meet its own pretensions to objectivity, so much so that the entirety of this article presupposes necessarily falsity with regards to conspiracy theories, even though nothing would epistemologically warrant such a presupposition. At most, 'less likely' should be the final induction made, not thoroughly incredulous disavowal, as is the case with this article. 154.5.50.30 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] necessary falsity 154.5.50.30 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"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]

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article is currently 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).

— Assignment last updated by Nazifa Shahid (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]