Talk:Conspiracy theories (a collection)

This story was bulk exported from Conspiracy theory to rescue that article from unintelligibility. However, there is now clearly an overlap between this article and the already existing List_of_conspiracy_theories. It would be nice to amalgamate the two, if anyone has the patience. Adhib 09:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Yes indeed, it was meant to be a temporary measure. Needs to be done.--Cberlet 15:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 20:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the commentary on conspiracy theories in this article is bias/ negative; it needs to be revised so that the tone of the article isn't like, "Ok, here is all the nutcase conspiracy theories and how ridiculous they are."

Question regarding the definition of "conspiracy theory"

To be a conspiracy theory, is it sufficient that the evidence offered be tenuous and unconvincing? Because if that were the case, the explanation offered by the U.S. goverment, that the September 11 attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda, would seem to qualify as such a theory. Or does the fact that the theory is being promoted by a powerful, "mainstream" institution exempt it from being deemed a conspiracy theory? --HK 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]