Talk:Conspiracy theory

Older usage found!

Article presently credits Charles Astor Bristed in 1863 as the first to use "conspiracy theory." Here is an earlier usage in 1858, by an anonymous reporter in the Rochester (NY) Union and Advertiser. I doubt I have the editing privileges to make the change, hoping someone else does. Here it is:

https://archive.org/details/rochester-union-and-advertiser-1858-01-25-2 Librarian on a Bike (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Any proof this is genuine? Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

At the Archive.org link, click on the PDF link on the right to see the full, native Newspapers.com download. To replicate this finding, go to Newspapers.com. Your public or college library may have a subscription if you do not. If you live in NY State, you can get a free library card from the New York Public Library, which gives you free access to their subscription to it.

Search "conspiracy theory" with the quotation marks to find it as a phrase, then sort results by oldest first. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It's an early use of the legal term and is covered at Conspiracy theory (legal term) not at this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

If it has legal origins, then why does Charles Bristed get credit for using it in the wild, so to speak, and not this anonymous reporter? He is not an attorney arguing a case, he is talking about public opinion. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

They are two different uses of the term and so they have separate meanings. That's why we have two different articles, Conspiracy theory (legal term) and Conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This note from Conspiracy theory (legal term) seems relevant:

"b. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has been used in this sense in court cases since at least 1900."

This clipping is from 1858. If you're convinced that it conforms to the legal usage, then Note B at that page needs editing. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Then why did you want to say it's from 1863? Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Here is how I presented the date 1863. I described it as the first usage cited in the Conspiracy Theory article.

"Article presently credits Charles Astor Bristed in 1863 as the first to use "conspiracy theory." Here is an earlier usage in 1858, by an anonymous reporter in the Rochester (NY) Union and Advertiser." Librarian on a Bike (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Applogise, you are correct. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! [thumbs up emoji] Librarian on a Bike (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Does this count as WP:OR? Do we need a WP:RS saying this is the oldest usage? I don't know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The lawyer in this 1858 case argued the prosecution was proposing a conspiracy theory: that multiple parties conspired to commit a crime. Not relevant to this article. The distinction between the two separate uses of the term have been explained. It may be relevant at the legal article - but a WP:PRIMARY source (a single out of context news clipping) is OR and would need secondary sources discussing it as "the earliest use" of the term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the entire article. Is it Wikipedia policy that no newly available or previously unknown primary source counts as evidence?

https://ia800603.us.archive.org/34/items/rochester-union-and-advertiser-1858-01-25-2/Rochester%20Union%20Advertiser_1858_01_25_2.pdf Librarian on a Bike (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that to avoid WP:OR, we generally should base claims of coinage on secondary sources rather than digging up primary sources ourselves, which may or may not refer to what we think they refer to - as this thread demonstrates. MrOllie (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it is not WP:OR. The source is published, public domain, and fully cited to enable anyone else to find it. Here it is:

“The Robertson Case–Public Opinion at Home and Abroad.” Rochester Union and Advertiser, January 25, 1858, p. 2, courtesy of Newspapers.com.

Here is the full text of the article:

https://ia800603.us.archive.org/34/items/rochester-union-and-advertiser-1858-01-25-2/Rochester%20Union%20Advertiser_1858_01_25_2.pdf

If you do not have a Newspapers.com subscription, your local college or public library might. Plus, anyone may take out a free trial subscription and cancel before it dings your credit card. The third option is asking your local librarian to request a copy of the article via interlibrary loan. It will likely be filled by a librarian downloading this same article out of their Newspapers.com subscription.

On a tangential note, I understand that editors with enough edit counts qualify for free access to certain proprietary databases. If Newspapers.com is not one of them, it may be worth approaching them to negotiate adding it. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It absolutely requires WP:OR to draw the conclusion that the reporter there was referring to the same thing that the topic of this article is about. In 1823, Robert Woodhouse published A Treatise on Astronomy, Theoretical and Practical. In it, he used the term 'vector' to refer to a set of scalar distances used in the calculation of orbits. But Vector (mathematics and physics) is still considered to be coined by William Rowan Hamilton, which he used as part of his discovery of the algebra of quaternions in 1843. Sometimes people use the same words to refer to a different concept. MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I accept the decision that the usage in the 1858 article is not relevant to the main Conspiracy Theory article, and I appreciate that everyone heard me out in the process. I noticed, though, this quote from the No Original Research article:

"By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

The 1858 article does comply with these rules. It exist in the world as a published source, in three places: on microfilm in a few libraries, online at Newspapers.com, and uploaded to Archive.org.

A difference of interpretation or summation of the meaning of the quote is another matter, and, as I said, I accept the decision not to cite it. But I just wanted to say that the article does comply with this criteria. I see that Newspapers.com is available via the Wikipedia Library, which means that people can search it and find any number of things, including the earliest known usage of familiar terms and phrases. Which seems like a legit course of action when trying to fix a Citation Needed tag. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

We also have a rule that says. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. ". As that article does not discuss the same thing as our article, it would violate wp:undue. We need as RS saying this was the first use if them term (within context)Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. And apologies for going on about this. I guess what I was trying to conclude with is that the vast and marvelous collection at Newspapers.com is going to turn up novel and previously unknown events and usages far faster than linguists and scholars can verify them though the usual publication process. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Newspapers.com is going to turn up novel and previously unknown events and usages far faster than linguists and scholars can verify them though the usual publication process. Easier internet access to primary sourced data isn't new. But Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows what secondary RS say, even if it means waiting until such third party sources get around to commenting. Our OR policy bars editors from trawling through primary sources to discover and publish historical "firsts", etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I attempted to make the difference clear with this edit: --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I like it! Just one micro-quibble: My personal preference is to use hypothesis whenever referring to an unproven narrative (such as Pizzagate) and save theory for a proven explanation (such as evolution). But that's just me. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You are technically correct (which is always the best kind of correct to be), but alas, the phrase "conspiracy hypothesis" never quite caught on.--Guy Macon (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

True! Language is always changing, tough. Big fan of conspiracy myth or conspiracy fiction. We do not have to describe untrue things with language that implies that they are true. Librarian on a Bike (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

We do have to describe things in a similar way to how the cited sources do, though. We cannot invent our own terminology, that's just confusing to readers. MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

It hinders communication if we don't use the same words that our sources use. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2026 (UTC)