Talk:Conspiracy theory

Archives
May 2003 May 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 – November 2003 October 2005 October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 – December 2006 January 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – December 2010

Conspiracy theorists section guideline

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an 'official' link for above must statement, and for the conclusive 'therefore' statement. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of mainstream there. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

it does seem wikipedia is becoming a mainstream encyclopedia. last time i was checking that policy (early 2008), there was no mention of mainstream in it. very unfortunate development -- encyclopedia that is going to mirror what mainstream corporate mass media owned by a few are repeating all the time -- beats the purpose of encyclopedia. luckily, wikipedia is an evolving system, so future editors may change this nonsense. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current list of conspiracy theorists. It's random, many of the names listed lack bios, the bios of the people who are listed are poorly researched and in some cases inaccurate, sensationalized and lacking in documentation. Putting the list in a table and adding birth years does not constitute unbiased research. The criteria being used appears to be "someone once said something somewhere that sounded like it could have been a conspiracy theory therefore I feel it's acceptable to list this person as a conspiracy theorist in wikipedia." This is clearly not in keeping with even basic wikipedia standards.

The intent to smear specific individuals like politician Lyndon Larouche (by highlighting his criminal conviction) or Dave Emory and Mae Brussel (by presenting a characature of their research and writings on the survival of fascism in the post-war era) is blatant and obvious. It's become especially obvious when accurate, documented and verifiable information has been added about these individuals and others and it has been removed and replaced with patently inferior and biased writing. These activiies constitutes a not-so-subtle form of vandalism of the article. I think it's blatant enough that the matter needs to be looked at by the larger wikipedia community for an opinion.

If there is to be a list of "conspiracy theorists," serious standards for inclusion need to created. It can't just be a matter of one persistent person's whim or opinion.

What has already been suggested is not a bad place to start: "we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist." It's a place to start, but it's still pretty thin criteria. Since conspiracy theorist is a derogatpry term and is a commentary on an individuals intelligence, integrity, and even sanity, this designation should be applied carefully only if the preponderance of references characterize the person this way. Even then, special care should be taken in the case of living persons.

I think the list needs to be removed in its entirety pending the creation of serious and standardized criterial for adding people to it. The rationale for including any individual living or dead needs to be open for discussion pro and con with serious data and documentation being presented. Nolatime (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Nolatime

Although I personally think that Lyndon Larouche, Dave Emory, and Mae Brussel are conspiracy theorists, I've never contributed to the list and I actually agree it should be removed from the article until each entry can be sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It’s pretty easy for anybody who’s willing to spare even a few minutes a day. A lot of these people have their own articles here. Just visit them and use any good sources they have. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be confused. We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you’re right – even if we have plenty of good sources saying that Person A believes in Concept B and that Concept B is a conspiracy theory, it’s only acceptable for us to list him as a conspiracy theorist if a good source explicitly says so. It sounds totally fucking ridiculous on the face of it, but I suppose BLP can be like that sometimes. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy

I removed the entry for Ken McCarthy from the list of 'Conspiracy Theorists' as it is inaccurate and misleading so to describe him. While a case can be made out that a small proportion of the video clip reprints on the brasschecktv.com site might qualify as conspiracy theories, much of the material comes from reputable mainstream news sources, comedy programs etc. In any case the site makes it clear that the views expressed in the contents are those of their respective originators and not necessarily endorsed by the site's proprietors. DaveApter (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even assuming that he no longer runs the site, he is still responsible for the selection, and is therefore a promoter of conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, whether hosting a site which contains - among much other material - reprints of clips that you judge to be 'conspiracy theories' justifies labelling the site owner a 'Conspiracy Theorist'. This is a term that should be used with discrimination in view of its pejorative implications (as the introduction to this article says: "The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe."

It is clearly entirely appropriate for this section to list individuals such as David Icke and Kent Hovind, and completely absurd to include people like Ken McCarthy alongside them. For this reason, I have removed him again.DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your position is absurd. I'll have to check whether you've completed the whitewash of McCarthy's article, removing the sourced information that he (at least used to) solicit conspiracies, but that is adequate, even if he didn't contribute or host. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Loremaster, and thanks for your ongoing attempts to bring some sanity to this article. However I'm confused by your endorsement of Arthur Rubin's position here as it seems completely at odds with what you say yourself in the section above:

"We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist."

Where are the works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist? DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to cite works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist. However, I was simply expressing my personal opinion that McCarthy is a conspiracy theorist even if we can't cite such works and articles. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, in order to comply with the BLP guideline you quote above, we should remove him from the list until such time as one of these reliable sources can be found and cited? DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entire list should moved here to the archives until it is completely sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I went ahead and did that. DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that Ken McCarthy, who has hundreds of Internet references and over one dozen book references as an Internet pioneer, entrepreneur and educator, has now been designated a "conspiracy journalist" in the External Links section of this article. This inspired a look at the dictionary.

The phrases "conspiracy journalist" and "conspiracy journalism" do not exist in any English dictionary I was able to find, online or offline. A Google search turns up three uses total - one in wikipedia, one in something called wapedia and one on a site that republishes wikipedia articles. The wikipedia article on "conspiracy journalism" has been entirely inactive since it was posted and contains only posts made by a single individual.

For these reasons, I'm removing this link. I have also proposed in the Discussion area for the "conspiracy journalism" article that the article "conspiracy journalism" be removed and would welcome the assistance of more experienced wikipedia users in making this proposal to the wikipedia community. Thanks.Nolatime (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

List of alleged conspiracy theorists

Here is the list from the article, so that adequate sources may be sought DaveApter (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists

The following people are known to have proposed conspiracy theories:

James Jesus Angleton (1917 - 1987)	American Cold War spymaster whose paranoid excesses as the CIA's counter-intelligence czar, arising from false information provided by his KGB defector friend Anatoliy Golitsyn, had adverse effects on the Agency.
Art Bell (born 1945)	American founder and longtime host of the paranormal-themed radio program Coast to Coast AM.
Peter Beter (1921 - 1987)	American lawyer and author who claimed that world events were being controlled by three factions, the Rockefeller family, the "Bolshevik-Zionist axis," and the Kremlin.
Mae Brussell (1922 - 1988)	American conspiracy theorist and radio personality, focusing on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
William Guy Carr (1895 - 1959)	Canadian naval officer and author responsible for creating the American Illuminati demonology.
Jack T. Chick (born 1924)	American publisher of comic book-style tracts, known as Chick Tracts, often depicting conspiracy theories featuring Satan, the Catholic Church, Communists, Muslims, rock musicians, scientists, and politicians, as well as other groups and subjects behind popular entertainment, role-playing games, and other perceived ills of modern culture.
Jerome Corsi (born 1946)	American author who theorizes about a potential North American Union, advances 9/11 conspiracy theories, believes in abiogenic petroleum origin and theorizes a conspiracy between oil companies and politicians to maintain pricing.
Francis E. Dec (1926 - 1996)	Disbarred American lawyer from Hempstead, New York who is today known for having in the 1970s and 80s mass-mailed various rambling flyers and rants to randomly selected addressees all across the US, in which he purported to warn the public of an omnipotent machine-entity he referred to as the "World-wide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God."
James Shelby Downard (1913 - 1998)	American author who perceived occult symbolism, twilight language and synchronicity behind historical events in the 20th century.
David Emory (born 1949)	American talk radio host who asserts that an obscure, sinister, organization called the "Underground Reich" maintains the interests of the German industry, banking and finance, which survived World War II as a major part of the global capital elite. Based in the San Francisco Bay area.
Myron C. Fagan (1887 - 1972)	American writer, producer and director for film and theatre, who wrote and produced plays and pamphlets claiming the United Nations was a Communist front for one world government.
Anatoliy Golitsyn (1926 - ?)	Soviet KGB defector who provided the CIA with false information and later wrote a book claiming that the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was a hoax.
Des Griffin	American author espousing a right-wing Christian view of global conspiracies and the New World Order.
G. Edward Griffin
Zaid Hamid
Patrick Haseldine (born 1942)	Former British diplomat, dismissed in 1989 by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988. His subsequent conspiracy theory seeking to incriminate apartheid South Africa over the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing alleged that the aircraft was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia.
Stanley Hilton	American lawyer who filed a subsequently dismissed $7-billion lawsuit against Bush Administration officials, accusing them of complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Richard Hoagland (born 1945)	American author whose books claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon and Mars, and NASA and the United States government are conspiring to keep this secret. Latest theories of this nature include the Jovian satellite Europa and what he claims killed the Columbia shuttle astronauts.
Michael A. Hoffman II (born 1954)	American historian who posits conspiracies about Jewish control of the United States and about the Holocaust.
Leonard G. Horowitz	American author, former dentist, who claimed in a book, Emerging Viruses, that HIV/AIDS was engineered by the U.S. as a biological warfare agent. Reportedly inspired Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to caution against vaccinating children; mentioned by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in support of Wright's similar claim.
Kent E. Hovind (born 1953)	Young-earth creationist speaking on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs.
David Icke (born 1952)	British writer and public speaker who claims that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Alex Jones (born 1974)	Syndicated radio host, film maker and web site publisher. Has been referred to as a "conspiracy theorist." Considers himself a libertarian and a patriot. Based in Austin, TX.
Timothy F. LaHaye (born 1926)	Joint author, with Jerry F. Jenkins, of the Left Behind novels.
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. (born 1922)	American activist and self-styled politician whose publications rail against what he calls "Synarchism" and who, in spite of having received a felony conviction for mail fraud, has repeatedly sought election—thus far, without success—to the office of President of the United States.
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
William S. Lind	Paleoconservative activist and director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, Lind claims "Political Correctness is cultural Marxism." and that scholars associated with the Institute for Social Research at University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the ) determined to overthrow Western Christian culture and have turned college campuses into "small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble." Lind's theory has been embraced by conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and by Michael Minnicino who is associated with Lyndon Larouche's Schiller Institute.
Jim Marrs (born 1943)	American author who has written such books as: Rule by Secrecy, Alien Agenda, Crossfire, and The Rise of the Fourth Reich.
Texe Marrs
Ken McCarthy (born 1959)	Owns and operates BrasscheckTV via his AMACORD consulting business. Massive provider of conspiracy content, videos and alternative news stories. Site named for Upton Sinclair's book The Brass Check, an early analysis of the significance and impact of ownership patterns of US news sources
Thierry Meyssan
Gary North
Roberto Pinotti
Jeff Rense	American radio show host and web site producer, mostly UFO and 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Lew Rockwell
Christopher W. Ruddy
Ben Stein (born 1944)	former Nixon speechwriter turned actor/game show host, whose movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alleges a vast conspiracy among modern scientists to squelch evidence for creationism in order to promote atheism.
Oliver Stone	Academy award-winning film director and screenwriter
John A. Stormer
Webster Tarpley

Richard Belzer is a self professed Conspiracy Theorist. I would have left this out as being more along the lines of a hobby rather than his lifes work, but the same would also apply to Ben Stein and Oliver Stone. 70.179.142.114 (talk)

Any non english speaking authors on the list? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

o.k. few have been added... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfair use of sources

The text says:

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.

and these books are cited:

• A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America
• Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change

which are two essays by two sociologists and as such they explains the respectable point of view of the authors on this matter, yet they are used to justify factual statements. This is unfair: we must specify that we are citing the authors and not stating a fact.

Also what we are expressing seems not really plasible:

1. since we defined "conspiracy theories" as "fringe theories" obviusly (by definition of fringe theories) they are not accepted by the mainstream scholars, yet it is not necessarily true that they are not accepted by any scholar (again according to our definition) as we are instead saying with the phrase "Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars"
2. it seems that we are suggesting that institutional analysis denies the possibility of any single conspiracy, it's hard to believe that any serious theory would assume such a position.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you said. I'll explain why when I have time. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Centric Tag

One of the most annoying things about this site is the tendency of editors to just run around putting tags in articles but then saying nothing, not even in the edit summary, about why they feel the tag should be there. I'm going to remove the tag on this article in one week if the editor responsible for placing it doesn't give his/her reasoning for for doing so. Primium mobile (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• If I were you, I would send a talk page message to let the editor know "Hey! There is a problem with the tag! Hey hey!" WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Zakaria, Fareed. "Why do we embrace conspiracy theories?" CNN. May 6, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite 1 - Verify Source?

The current introductory reads as follows...

"Conspiracy theory" was originally a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy.<ref name="Barkun 2003">{{cite book| author = Barkun, Michael | title = [[A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America]] | publisher = [[University of California Press]]; 1 edition | year = 2003 | isbn = 0520238052}}</ref> It is frequently used to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.<ref name="Barkun 2003"/>

While a complete presentation of the cited source is not, to my knowledge, available online, the Preface, Chapter 1, in its entirety, and a part of Chapter 2 are available online within a Google Books preview. Unless the currently incorporated text is drawn from elsewhere in the book (which I tend to doubt as the text in question is introductory-esque in nature), a search of the online text fails to return major elements of the currently incorporated text (eg. "originally a neutral descriptor" and "conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning".)

Unless I've overlooked something in my search of the online text, I believe this introductory can be (and should be) re-composed utilizing elements from the original source that adhere much more closely to the text of the original source and are, consequently, much more easily supported under WP:V. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon further consideration (I've not been down this WP road before), I've changed the pertinent tags to {{verify source}} to better represent the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The introductory sentence was partly based on a published interview of Michael Barkun, a scholar who has studied and written extensively about conspiracy theories, in New Internationalist magazine:

New Internationalist: How can someone tell the difference between conspiracism and rational criticism of the status quo?

Barkun: The issue of conspiracism versus rational criticism is a tough one, and some people (Jodi Dean, for example) argue that the former is simply a variety of the latter. I don't accept this, although I certainly acknowledge that there have been conspiracies. They simply don't have the attributes of almost superhuman power and cunning that conspiracists attribute to them. A sure sign that we have gone past the boundaries of rational criticism is the conspiracy theory that's nonfalsifiable. Such a theory is a closed system of ideas which "explains" contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that...but doesn't that beg the question of WP:V I initially raised? The current cite attributes the text to a different Barkun source entirely...and I'm beginning to wonder about the WP:V of the other numerous Barkun cites incorporated in this article.

I'm also not confident that the current language, in what should be a defining introductory, isn't overly deferential to the lexicon of a single, apparently highly academic viewpoint. It just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic at all. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, JakeInJoisey, Barkun and his book are vastly more reliable than the (defunct) webpage you were using. In his book, he lists a number of characteristics of conspiracy theories. In addition, Loremaster has brought the required "almost superhuman power and cunning" quote. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Barkun and his book are vastly more reliable than the (defunct) webpage you were using.

Perhaps so, perhaps not...but that's another subject entirely about which I'll defer comment in this discussion (at least for the moment).

In his book, he lists a number of characteristics of conspiracy theories.

I will assume, then, they are cited somewhere in this article and perhaps might be referenced in any recomposition of this article introductory. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not "Perhaps so, perhaps not..." he's a published academic expert on exactly this topic. Conspiracy theories are actual things; it's not just a pejorative term for "an explanation I don't agree with, and which, by the way, is true". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note the title of this dispute section. Barkun's relative expertise is not the issue here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Jake, you're missing the point of WP:V. It doesn't say that the full text of sources must be made available to you upon demand. It says that you must be given sufficient information to locate the reliable source that asserts something. It's called a "citation." If you suspect the validity of something that's cited to University of California Press, you should walk to your nearest public library, put in an ILL request for the source, read it, and then use facts to make your argument, not innuendo.

Besides, anyone who looks at your edit history can see that you're bootstrapping an argument that there's some BLP issue with Jerome Corsi. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I replaced your {{check}}s with a {{qn}} and consolidated the pointy references. WORD. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added new sources (Merriam-Webster and New Internationalist) and quotations for first sentence of the lead. I did an appropriate synthesis and paraphrasing of the definitions found in the current three sources. I've therefore removed quotation-request tag. --Loremaster (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe your edit to be a considerable improvement of the introductory and resolves my two concerns as previously tagged. Nicely done. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false"

I've moved the following material from the lede to here for discussion:

Accordingly, the term “conspiracy theory” is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank.

The sentence has no page number in the source, so it can't be verified, and the statement itself seems both dubious and lacking context. Many words are used to "characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank" - "superstition" and "pseudo-science" spring to mind. "Conspiracy theory" is a term used to describe, first of all, beliefs about conspiracies, not just any "outlandish" belief. Since we cannot verify what the source actually says, I don't think it can remain in the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your claim that the statement itself is both dubious and lacking context.

1. The context for this statement is the entire second paragraph of the lead section which explains that conspiracy theories 1) are viewed with skepticism by many, 2) are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence, 3) contrast with institutional analysis, 4) go beyond the boundaries of rational criticism when they become nonfalsifiable, and 5) are closed systems of ideas which explain away contradictory evidence by claiming that the conspirators themselves planted it.
2. It is well-known fact that the term "conspiracy theory" is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank. This is the reason why most conspiracy theorists hate being described as "conspiracy theorists" and hate their conspiracy theories being described as "conspiracy theories".
3. The fact that there many other words besides "conspiracy theory" to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank doesn't change the reality that the term "conspiracy theory" is still used to do just that.
4. The article already explains that "conspiracy theory" is a term used to describe, first of all, beliefs about conspiracies. However, it also explains that the term is often used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false. The article never argues that the term "conspiracy theory" is only used to characterize a belief as outlandishly false.

That being said, in his 1999 book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Mark Fenster discusses how the "conspiracy" tag is often used to delegitimize others' opinions and dismiss them as paranoid kooks. I no longer have a copy of the book but I will try to track it down to get a citation. --Loremaster (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

While the term may be used to dismiss those promoting conspiracy theories, it's not a term used for generally dismissing cranks, outlandish beliefs, or even non-standard theories. One would not, for example, describe pyramidology or heliocentrism or homeopathy as "conspiracy theories" even if one's intent were dismiss them as "outlandishly false beliefs held by persons judged to be cranks". The wording stated, or at least strongly implied, otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You're the only person who has ever misintepreted this sentence (which has been in the lead since 25 March 2009) in such an absurd way. However, you bring up a good point that dummies often need things to be dumbed down to avoid such confusion so I guess we should add “in a conspiracy” next to the word “belief” in the sentence (i.e. “Accordingly, the term “conspiracy theory” is often used to characterize any belief in a conspiracy as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a paranoid crank.”). Therefore, once we find a citation, the sentence now improved (or a diffirent version of it) will be restored to the article and the dispute will be resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of judgmental statements

Its tone is definitely not neutral. The quotes from reputed leftist authorities such as Bakunin serve well to invalidate the subject matter. Links to articles such as "furtive fallacy" and "pseudohistory" make a connection based on guilt by association instead of objectively presenting facts. Tsnuemuozobh (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)