Category talk:Conspiracy theories

RFD discussion: March–August 2021
Hardcore POV categorization. One could understand this category as containing all terms denoting a concept of a conspiracy, but he who devised this name is decided to insert encyclopedic stances with this category. Another frequent editor the category in a term denoting an alleged phenomenon where promotion or progression of a demographic is excluded in a way of a hidden barrier by another demographic, to promote the view that “gender discrimination is real”. What does it even mean that gender discrimination is real? Even if it is, and I will concede that much (probably considering it just; depends also on what discrimination even is), it does not mean that every use of this term refers to a real thing; this a priori clear from its character as a metaphor for sundry purposes, and sure feminists are unable to form conspiracy theories? Aren’t feminist theory and gender studies the foremost source to find crackpottery in it, centered around blaming patriarchy in various imaginations?

There is a difference of true and false, I am even a particular fan of it and not someone who tries to deconstruct it, but this cannot be the basis for categorization. Not only is it contentious, and surely we have no interest in discussing which is real, but the term is independent of that.

What we categorize by a category of a dictionary entry is the concept behind the term, what people thought when saying a word and not what really happened, not the noumenon behind the phenomenon, so here is the transgression, here lies the fallacy in ascribing the additional value of truth to these concepts, or assuming of a dictionary editor that he does so by his categorizations.

So you may suppose I deem the real. Yet I have no reservation to speak of a conspiracy theory here. Obviously conspiracies can be true and are commonly accepted as true; if what is called conspiracy theory then is not, or even “implied” not to be, if the term is used and interpreted in partisan modes in disregard of its signification, to prove with its imagined but uncertain idiomatic meaning one’s weltanschauung, why should we use this term? It is too Janus-faced. If the editors, the more so the foremost ones, cannot apply this term in a waterproof way, and readers fail to reap the benefits from it due to not finding it in a reasonable compass and inclining towards argument in consequence of equivocal wording, it should be cast out of the categories – whether somehow replaced or not. Fay Freak (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you please downgrade your "en-4: This user has near native speaker knowledge of English"? You are near-incomprehensible. Equinox ◑ 07:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Fay, your English is objectively speaking not native level. You say a lot of weird stuff that clearly gives away that, in addition to your strange affectations, you are not a native speaker. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the person who distinguished "real and fake", and who continues to do so despite efforts to mix the two. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Related: Category:en:Pseudoscience. I have sometimes wondered about this one because it feels like doing a public duty to indicate that something like reiki is just feel-good nonsense, but I suppose there is a real question around how far we categorise without making "value judgements". Equinox ◑ 08:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the intention of this category was; if it's just to laundry-list conspiracy theories, we're better served with List_of_conspiracy_theories. If it's used to describe subtle language changes employed by promoters of such theories it might be more interesting. Regardless, we'll end up with time-wasting WT:POINTy discussions like this one. – Jberkel 09:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: We shouldn't be afraid to make epistemic judgements while categorising. WT:NPOV exists, but it lacks real teeth outside of a few topics (language definition, usage notes, headwords, and regional spelling/lexical differences). Instead, our present system of categorisation makes epistemological demarcations that go far above and beyond "some people think that it ought to be in there", even if only by implicit consensus. For instance, many creationists would love to have in Category:en:Geology and  in Category:en:Taxonomy. That's just as well; even creationists would be loath to let the imbecile who thinks that an owl is a kind of fish or that Rwanda is a city steer the course of categorisation.


 * By refusing to lay down boundaries dealing with what's real and what just ain't, we are seen by our users as believing that judgements are superfluous and that anyone's half-formed conceits are a fine substitute for the truth. We may recognise that that isn't what we're doing, but the average user won't; no matter what we do, we can't but judge. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be hesitant to veer into idiosyncrasy when a category has a definition "understanded of the people", or that we should stir up needless controversy with little relation to building a dictionary. We just mustn't let the fear of Scylla drive us into the waiting maw of Charybdis. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As for the definition of, most people understand the term to exclude conspiracies which are widely accepted to exist. Our definition only alludes to this indirectly, by beginning with 'A hypothesis... (rather than, say, A theory...); it should probably be clearer. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: The category includes both Area 51 and QAnon, and yet the current definition of the former reads almost like a description of the meme, not some belief in classified contact between alien-carrying UFOs and the US government.
 * There seems to me to be no consistently followed application of the word conspiracy here, but rather a collection of names for various accusations of "secrecy" or "concealment" (like Area 51), and in particular "secretly planned harm" (like red mercury and plandemic), or, alternatively, hostility toward Jews in general (like blood libel). The latter type, if applied to other religions or ethnicities, would turn the category into a list of racist branding and allegations, at least insofar as these allegations involve an element of "scheming to cause large-scale damage".
 * I personally recommend splitting the items that are currently in this category. Blood libel, for example, could be moved to a category for antisemitism instead of one for a "conspiracy theory", while Area 51 and QAnon could be moved to categories somehow related to aliens and Satanism respectively.
 * Also, the definition of "Area 51" probably needs to be changed. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and split. The current category appears to be a mishmash of classic urban legends (man in black, Illuminatus), 21st century U.S. politics (birther, deather, QAnon), pseudoscience (coronasceptic, flat-earthism), and widely believed and probably real phenomena which cannot be scientifically proven to the critics' satisfaction (bamboo ceiling, deep state); in other words, the current category is useless. I would suggest moving the current entries to Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Politics, Category:Racism, Category:Antisemitism etc., and maybe introduce Category:Urban legends for the remainder. Tetromino (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To clarify my suggestion, I'll try to exemplify it using the five entries I have mentioned that are currently in this category. In addition to what Tetromino has said, the Italicized words in my definitions below are, to me, a useful guide that may help categorize the entries so that, on their model, all the entries that are currently labeled what roughly signifies "a scheme done by a number of people to cause damage, usually on a large scale" may instead be moved to more meaningful categories (that is, ones that may be adequately linked to each of them).
 * Area 51: a US facility in Nevada whose name has become associated with classified undertakings with extraterrestrials. It is a "theory" (that is, a view, perhaps held assertively) about surreptitious operations related to aliens, in particular UFOs.
 * Suggestion: adding it to a category about "extraterrestrials", "aliens", "UFOs", "the United States of America", and/or "Nevada"
 * QAnon: the "theory" (that is, the idea, the attitude) that a Satanistic, cannibalistic, and/or pedophilic cabal is in control of the US government and possibly other governments too and that Donald Trump has been working to expose this and to thwart the cabal's efforts. The name of this "theory" derives from an anonymous poster on 4chan who later moved to 8chan.
 * Suggestion: adding it to a category about "Satanism", "cannibalism", "pedophilia", "cabals", "the United States of America", "Donald Trump", "4chan", and/or "8chan"
 * red mercury: the name of a red-colored chemical substances that purportedly plays a central role in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons
 * Suggestion: adding it to a category about "nuclear weapons"
 * plandemic: the "theory" (that is, the idea, the attitude) that some pandemic is humanly made (that is, manufactured), planned, or orchestrated
 * Suggestion: adding it to a category about "pandemics" and/or "diseases" (through extraction from the italicized word "pandemic" above)
 * blood libel: the accusation that Jews may abduct the children of non-Jews to murder them in their secretive religious rituals
 * Suggestion: adding it to a category about "Judaism", "antisemitism" (through extraction from the italicized words "abduct", "children", and "murder" above), and/or "cabals" (through extraction from the italicized phrase "secretive religious rituals").
 * As for the other entries, some terms may warrant having their own categories (for example, Illuminati), while others may be added to the entry conspiracy theory itself in the "See also" section (for example, truther), and yet a number of terms currently in the category (such as flat-earthism) do not even include an element of "scheming to cause damage" at all (unlike, for example, blood libel or even Pizzagate). Roger.M.Williams (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I conclude from this that you have some misunderstandings about how our categorisation system works. The idea is that if someone is interested in a topic, they should be presented with a list of terms directly relating to that topic. Let's just take QAnon as an example. It is a theory about the US government, but it does not directly relate to the US as a nation. If we put anything that tenuously related to the US in Category:en:United States, it would be a useless category. Similarly, the theory claims that paedophilia is going on, but its claims are false and aren't central to its political narrative; if someone goes to Category:en:Pedophilia, they are looking for terms relating to actual paedophiles, not conspiracy theories that incorporate the idea of pedophilia. But what if someone is interested in conspiracy theories? In that case, QAnon is exactly the sort of entry they're looking for. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant my suggestions about the five terms above as possibilities. Tetromino, for example, suggested moving it to Category:en:Politics. But either way, I feel that both are more "meaningful", at least since they somehow relate to how one would define it in a way that one can coherently group it with other entries (whether they are about politics, the US, or US politics). I think the only suggestion I actually personally favor is Category:Antisemitism. "Antipathy toward Jews" is much more differentiable, and I imagine that Jews and maybe even antisemites would eagerly verify whether a term warrants inclusion.
 * Regardless, focusing on discreditedness or the falsity of its claims does not seem to pertain to the compound "conspiracy theory", which I have tried to define above as clandestinity with harmful intentions, a label that is so broad that following whatever seems to "fit" it would result in adding so many disparate and contrasting terms: QAnon may have been falsified, but what about red mercury or even Area 51? That Area 51 is classified renders any "theory" about it virtually unfalsifiable. Would a Cartesian evil genius or even solipsism be "conspiracy theories"? Colin seems to lean toward describing application only, but I personally doubt that they would not be called so when explained to non-philosophers, and they would most likely be called so if you somehow add "the government" or even "aliens" to the mix. But these are just my own speculations. Application of the compound would probably vary a lot regardless, and perceived credibility or falsity seems to play a very little role, if any.
 * In short, many of the so-called "conspiracy theories" are unverifiable and/or unfalsifiable, thus taking away even further from the value of a category about defamatory accusations. That is, there is no "truth" to defend in these cases since the whole thing is an accusation and roughly amounts to libel or slandering or is comparable to it (unlike, for example, Category:en:Pseudoscience, which is to me more distinguishable because it pertains to science). And so, at least to me, it appears to me to be more convenient to split the charges, allegations, and propaganda into seemingly relevant "types" (for instance, blaming Jews for this, charging the US government with that, accusing NASA of such and such) instead of lumping them all together because they "may" be named "conspiracy theories" or because they are concern a concealed or distorted operation or "plot". And as for falsity, this can be marked in the definition instead of the category. But of course, however you do any of this is another matter. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a crude way of thinking that terms could be “directly related to a topic”. Why wouldn’t your favourite genocide (forgive the term!) be directly related to the topic? It depends on your subjective definition of your topic again. But a definition which also includes commonly accepted conspiracies is not unlikely for other subjects that browse the dictionary, for why would it only be the most unlikely ones? And why wouldn’t be related to the topic of conspiracy theories? It’s strongly related to it, for for bare people in the South of Germany and in the United States the only thing they know is that it  (unlike in the apparently smarter Iran where man at least knows ). How often have I read from people on the internet: “You are from Bielefeld? Sure you are trying to impose upon me!” “Bielefeld doesn’t exist!” (Same people also contended that I can’t be native German but “more like from Minnesota”, “an American larping as German” because I speak too artificial and dialect-free German; apparently I am a native speaker of nothing, ; it appears that languages are also conspiracies to which I am not privy, and for every country the other half of the country is perceived as a conspiracy. ) Fay Freak (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appeal here to Wikipedia's concept of "verifiability, not truth". Or, since we're on Wiktionary, it might be more apt to call it "descriptivism, not truth". So, for example, it's not our place to analyse the studies and statistics that have been published around the compensation and promotion of women in the workplace to determine whether the glass ceiling is real or false (and therefore a conspiracy theory). Rather, it's a conspiracy theory if people commonly describe it as such. ("commonly" is important here. It's not sufficient that there's a small fringe that uses the label.) All of the terms currently in Category:en:Conspiracy theories seem to satisfy this criterion (or are terms that are commonly used in relation to conspiracy theories, e.g. tinfoil hatter). Colin M (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sounds like work and would introduce . I wouldn’t be that sure either that one couldn’t verify by publications from the environs of Vrij Historisch Onderzoek that is called a conspiracy theory. Then one would start classifying and excluding sources based on reputability etc. what we so far wanted to avoid on Wiktionary, as this is all remote from dictionary interest. Fay Freak (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's as difficult as you're making it sound. If I take something like "Area 51", and look up articles about it in mainstream sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, The New York Times, Fox News, whatever) they more-often-than-not use the term 'conspiracy theory' in relation to it. If I repeat this exercise for "glass ceiling" or "shoah", none of them use that term. I see no ambiguity in these cases. For cases where there is any ambiguity, they should not go in the category. death panel is such an example - many sources describe it as false or discredited (even a "myth"), but few describe it as a "conspiracy theory". It should go to Category:en:US politics (deep state probably should as well). I was going to suggest a subcat for contentious US political terms, but looking at the US politics cat, maybe that's almost redundant... Colin M (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO we should distinguish in our category system between
 * terms for conspiracy narratives
 * terms that describe (aspects of) conspiracy narratives
 * terms that have specific meanings, or are exclusively used, in the context of specific conspiracy narratives
 * Lumping all this together in one category isn't helpful and blurs the lines between the description of lunatic thinking and lunatic thinking itself. --Akletos (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an unreasonable idea, but it's swimming against the current of how categorization is currently done on Wiktionary. Basically all of our topic categories suffer from this kind of conflation. For example, Category:en:Prison includes 1) terms for prisons 2) terms that describe aspects/features of prisons and imprisonment, and 3) terms used within prisons. A little while back I did some work to try to migrate most of the terms in the third group to Category:English prison slang. You could try to do something similar for "Conspiracy theorist slang", but I'm not sure it would be useful, especially since the conspiracy theory category is currently not very big. I would say Wiktionary focuses more on categorizing by 'metadata' (part of speech, register, region, countability, transitivity...) rather than meaning, and I think that's a good thing. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, maintaining the category is going to involve a regrettable degree of political judgement, but it is in principle a useful dictinction to make. That said, there is merit to Akletos' proposal for splitting. The question is whether there will be agreement on appropriate and practical category names and whether there should be a single overarching category. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The general issue of our categorization system not always distinguishing different, erm, categories of things—terms about X vs terms for X, etc—is probably due for another discussion in the BP; I will start one shortly. One proposal in the past was to use names like "Category:en:Topic:Prison" for terms relating to the topic of prison vs "Category:en:Set:Prison" for a set of names of prisons like Alcatraz and Rikers Island and Sing Sing (and then something like Colin's "Category:English prison slang" for terms used chiefly in prisons). As for this specific category, I guess it's a reasonable category, even if it's a bit fuzzy as to when something is a conspiracy theory vs (e.g.) just an urban legend or "just" an antisemitic lie. If Nazis try to add the Holocaust or other real phenomena to it, we can just block them. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that attempts to use categories to group together terms that have similar referents will probably end up having significant overlap with WT:Thesaurus. Colin M (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No consensus to delete. I see three explicit votes to keep, three explicit votes to delete (including the OP), and several comments, most of which seem to vaguely support the existence of the category. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)