Talk:List of theoretical conspiracies

In the section under Ethnic conspiracy theories, why is 'Antisemitic' spelled like that while 'Anti-Catholic' has a dash in it. As far as I am aware, 'Antisemitic' should also have a dash in it, unless someone was deliberately trying to ensure that that entry came up first in alphabetic order. --Crew (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt there's any deeper meaning to this other than that some people have started spelling "Antisemitic" without the dash, and the convention wasn't common enough to affect the other anti's. Which one gets used depends on who writes the article.

This doesn't affect sort-order at all. That's entirely dependent on who writes the article. Anti-Catholicism isn't as common as it used to be.

You're right that this needs to be changed. That brings up another problem: Anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are written as antis, but the others (Armenian, etc.) are not. I think the antis should be removed from the headings.

-- Thunder (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a category error(s). Semitic is an ethnicity or group of races. It includes a variety of non-Jewish tribes, while Jewish as a race(s) includes a number of non-Semitic tribes. None of that relates to Catholicism, which is a religion. Either put anti-Jewish (religion) in with Catholicism or put anti-Jewish (ethnicities) in the Race/ethnicity category. I suggest breaking this into at least two categories, one for Race/ethnicity and another for Religion. I also nominate this article on other grounds for the Worst of Wiki Awards. Rectified (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldn't let paranoia get the better of me. It may well have been simply different editors using different approaches. We should create a standard approach. The material on 'The Protocol of the Elders of Zion' with its specifically Russian and possibly Polish context probably should be labelled anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic since in the context of the time it was produced it was Ashkenazi Jews that were subject of that material. --Crew (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Title

This entire article is false because its title cannot be proven. One partial fix would be to change the title to something like "List of claimed (or alleged?) conspiracy theories". Each entry should (ideally) have at least one reference to exactly who is making that claim of 'conspiracy theory', as well as who is supporting the theory. An additional sentence or two should be added to explain the history and use of the term "conspiracy theory". Afaik, the term was used a couple times in the late 19 C. but didn't come into general use until the CIA/press promoted it after JFK's death and yes those assertions can be referenced and cited at length. Rectified (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see your point but don't like either claimed or alleged. "Alleged" has legal connotations, or at least a legal veneer. It makes them sound more reliable than most of them are. At least "conspiracy theory" itself suggests a falsehood.

I'll also add that this was the original title on Wiki. We're not wedded to it, of course, but it would be good to keep titles as they are for as long as practical so as to let the differences shine. -- Thunder (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't like "alleged" or "claimed" either, for the same reasons as yourself. "So-called conspiracy theory" is one possibility but that has an insolent connotation. "Conspiracy theory" itself was designed and relentlessly deployed as a linguistic, NLP psycho-weapon. It is right up there with "racist" (and pre-dates it). Count the number of times it is used in this article. Repetition is absolutely key to programming. The term is designed to stop thought, to signal to the herd that here there be tygers. How about "List of racist theories"? I just put that into the search bar and guess what came up as #2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories Rectified (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we want to go down the path of alleged, claimed, etc. Also, while the term 'conspiracy theory' has gotten a bad name the list serves a useful purpose and could be improved by a short introduction that points out some of these things. Not all claimed conspiracy theories are made up rubbish, but by the same token not all conspiracy theories are mislabelled truth. Didn't it turn out that the Zinoviev letter was fake but everyone is falling over themselves to claim that it didn't matter anyway? --Crew (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Let's take it step-by-step using the Moon landing hoax as an example:

• It's a theory believed by a small minority.
• The theory alleges that a conspiracy exists surrounding the event.

So, why not "List of theories alleging conspiracies" where allege is used as a verb and not as an adjective? Any similar wording will do where Infogalactic doesn't editorialize with an adjective Whitebeard (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I could live with that.

1. Agreed on the article name, much better. I like how it breaks the slur into two pieces. Another couple ideas that walk around the problem- "List of censured theories", "List of alternative theories". 2. The 'minority' criterion, not so much; it moves toward a bid for consensus reality. "Fringe theory" is another example of that. The fake Apollo Moon landing isn't a good example: the majority doesn't believe men walked on the Moon, and the minority- Apollo believers- also believe various 'conspiracies' exist surrounding the event. These kinds of problems come up because the term is an engineered propaganda meme, like "Climate Change" and "Climate Denier". It does not mean what it appears to mean. Rectified (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)