Jump to content

Talk:List of conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Sorry but...

Sorry but shouldn't it be called Jewish conspiracy theories? Instead of antisemitic conspiracy theories? Antsemities already have these theories so how could it be a conspiracy? Because anti-Semities believe this. Not Jews... See??? (120.149.121.133 (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC))

Jewish conspiracy theories would be conspiracy theories held or promulgated by Jews. These are theories that allege conspiracies; propagating them isn't a conspiracy. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So to put it in basic terms. You mean that Jews don't have any conspiracy theories (themselves). But anti-Semities or (anti-Jews) have conspiracy theories about the Jews that they control the world, control the media, rule the economy, and the entertainment industry, etc, etc. is that it? Is that what you mean? Sorry I ain't to bright and I admit it... But I'm NOT anti-Jewish! Capice? I consider myself Jewish but only because my Maternal Grand-father was Jewish. (136.186.254.152 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC))
Yes, that's basically it. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Columbine

The Columbine Massacre conspiracy page has been deleted. It does not appear to have been merged with with the parent article. I am removing the link from this list. J.Rly (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WiFi, Power Lines, Fluoride, The List is Endless

I would love to add a section covering the latest updates in the conspiracy beliefs genre focused on non-ionizing radiation, if nobody objects (or has a project pending to include them.) With the expansion of WiFi in public schools and libraries, with power lines still being believed to cause cancer and hemorrhoids and no end of bizarre conspiracy beliefs, maybe a section covering non-ionizing radiation kook beliefs would be appropriate to add. BiologistBabe (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

Discussion and proof of forewarning. http://dottal.org/japanese_may_strike_over_weekend.htm

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for attempts to prove or disprove various wingnut conspiracy theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Vice President Biden acknowledges Jewish Control of American Mass Media and Cultural Life

Vice President Biden says Wikipedia is wrong, as did President Nixon and Rev. Billy Graham forty years ago, as have countless other people. Last month VP Biden said the following:

"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact,"

“Think - behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those [social-political] changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense."

“I believe what affects the [social-political] movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” said Biden. “It wasn't anything we [politicians] legislatively did,” he went on. “It was [such television shows as] ‘Will and Grace,' it was the social media. Literally. That's what changed peoples' attitudes. That's why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace, and rapidly embrace” same-sex marriage."

Here is the whole article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/22/biden-jewish-leaders-helped-gay-marriage-succeed/

Upholding the lies is going to become more difficult for Wikipedia in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.245.161 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It has to be noted that Biden said this "at a Democratic National Committee reception for Jewish American Heritage Month". He was playing to THAT audience. It's how politicians work. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you're kidding, right? Politicians actually tailor what they say to their audience, maybe even exaggerate? Who knew? And of course it's just carelessness that led the IP to not mention that. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for attempts to prove or disprove various wingnut conspiracy theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

9/11

If the article start with "There are many unproven conspiracy theories of varying degrees of popularity", then 9/11 cannot be included in the list. The official explanation has been effectively and with proper scientific evidence been debunked, thus alternative explanations, that is backed by credible and verifiable data, have to be considered as alternative at worst, but not a conspiracy theory. Alternatively they must be termed "conspiracies", not "conspiracy theories". Lifeboy (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You, sir, are lying. "The official explanation ... has been debunked" is a lie, even if, as I often do, "debunked" is used to refer to credible criticism, rather than the usual implication of convincing criticism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for attempts to prove or disprove various wingnut conspiracy theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Truth!!

I suspect Wikipedia is part of the Cabal. Just so you know. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Highly unlikely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.236.165 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for attempts to prove or disprove various wingnut conspiracy theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

|}

Caldicott's claims notable for inclusion?

As a suggestion for the medicine section, if other editors think they're notable enough, the claims by Helen Caldicott (and others, but most closely associated with her) that the true medical effects of the Chernobyl disaster have been suppressed at the level of the United Nations, specifically the UNSCEAR and WHO. George Monbiot quotes HC in [1]: "This is the biggest medical conspiracy and cover-up in the history of medicine." -- Limulus (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, note [2] an NPR item about Pandora's Promise: "In one scene, Stone confronts Helen Caldicott, one of the leading anti-nuclear voices. She's at a rally in New York, where she's arguing that the United Nations is part of a huge conspiracy to cover up a million deaths from the Chernobyl accident. Stone asks Caldicott to explain how her conspiracy theory about the U.N. is different from the conspiracy theory that comes from climate skeptics, who say the U.N. has fabricated global warming." -- Limulus (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Serbian content

I have moved the following content here for at least two reasons: It needs to be written in proper English, as some of it is very confusing. It is also very controversial. Therefore, per WP:BRD, its fate needs to be worked out here before it is included:

Serbian conspiracy

See also: Anti-Serb sentiment, World War II persecution of Serbs, and Origin of the Serbs

Anti-Serb sentiment is in general a negative sentiment towards the Serbs as a group and historically has been at the basis of persecution of members of the group. The ostensibly synonymous and controversial term Serbophobia has more recently been defined as a historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs.

The best known historic instance of anti-Serb sentiment was exhibited by the 19th- and 20th-century Croatian Party of Rights, the most extreme elements of which became the Ustashe in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This fascist organization came to power during World War II and enstated racial laws that specifically targeted Serbs and other minorities, leading to the most severe campaign of World War II persecution of Serbs.

Political scientist David Bruce MacDonald also states that the concept of "Serbophobia" was popularised in the 1980s and 1990s during the re-analysis of Serbian history and became likened to anti-Semitism by Serb nationalists, creating a myth of Serbs as perennial victims which served to justify territorial expansion into neighbouring regions with its ethnic population, which could then be presented as self-defensive and humanitarian.[1]

The famous American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones once is said on the radio and shocked the public that the Russians and the Vikings Serbian origin. This statement is favored Serbian historians and conspiracy theorists who claim that is the Serbian history forged in 1878 on Berlin Congress as compensations for the recognition of the independence of Principality of Serbia. Serbian historians and conspiracy theorists argue that the Serbs are much older and many important people than to accept western science.

  1. ^ An essential precondition and follow-up to Serbian machinations in the Krajina and East Slavonia involved proving the existence of a historic nationalist project aimed against the Serbs. The myth of ‘Serbophobia’ (a historic fear, hatred, and jealousy of Serbs that Serb nationalists have likened to anti-Semitism) allowed nationalists to trace a continuous legacy of hatred and violence against the Serbs among the Croats. The actions of the JNA and Serbian irregular militias in Croatia could therefore be presented, both at home and to the outside world, as self-defensive and humanitarian – saving the Krajina Serbs from annihilation. Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim-centred Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia, By David Bruce MacDonald, Manchester University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-7190-6467-8, p. 82-83 (Google Books)

Brangifer (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed the multiple attempts to include the information and agree with Brangifer that it should be discussed here first. It would help to explicitly state the alleged conspiracy. Location (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Notability must be established as a condition for inclusion in this list. There is too much OR content here. At Wikipedia, notability is the requirement for the creation of an article, but not for article content, but notability is a requirement for inclusion in a list. That's the only way to prevent a list becoming populated with lots of OR. We usually require that notability be established by the creation of an article, before the article subject can be included in a list. Alternatively, the notability must be established with very good reliable sources, but we usually force editors to do the work of establishing notability by creating an article. That seals the deal, so to speak. If their article survives, then the subject is good enough for inclusion in a list. This list has lots of OR content. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-vax

Should anti-vax not be put on here as well? It's a very well known conspiracy and, especially in the US, has a surprising amount of support in spite of the reems and reems of scientific evidence in support of vacinations. The theories suggest that it is only there for Big Pharma, or that there is some kind of government-led mind-mind control etc. Of course, in that same light, one could also suggest Global Warming/Climate Change... 2014-11-20

Hmm, there does seem to be sufficient coverage (examples: [3][4][5][6]). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't there a few "allegeds" or "claimeds" missing here, re electric autos.?

"The documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? alleged that electric car technology has been largely suppressed by big oil and gas firms. The first suppression of such occurred shortly after the turn of the 20th century (in 1899 the world's land speed record was set by an electric car at 65 mph); the second time was in 1913–1914 when the same interests sabotaged Henry Ford's and Thomas Edison's attempt to produce an 'inexpensive' electric car."

e.g. "the first suppression often alleged..." Anmccaff (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamisation of India

Why the section of Islamisation of India was deleted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN? It is said that better sources are needed. Which types of source should be used? Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.128.29 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

demonic conspiracies.

The paranormal conspiracy theories isn't at all complete and my attempt to add the much needed are of the idea of demonic conspiracies under paranormal have been removed. This isn't someones own personal work of art it is wikipedia and it needs to be complete, you cannot just put what you like on it an leave important areas out. One demonic conspiracy: the idea that many people have gained advantage by selling their souls to the Devil, and that Hell and Earth trade and co-operate together. "The Devil his deals and Hell by S Rob", http://www.amazon.com/Devil-his-deals-Hell-ebook/dp/B00PM1HZ78/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1418548408

There are however others too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.56.11 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For inclusion here, we would need reliable sources calling it a "conspiracy theory". (A self-published ebook is not at reliable source.)
For people allegedly selling their souls, you are unlikely to find such as source, as what you are describing is not a conspiracy theory. Take Robert Johnson as a case in point. There is certainly no shortage of sources reporting the tale at the crossroads. However, a conspiracy theory would involve people believing it is true and a concerted effort by a group of people to cover up that truth.
For Satanic ritual abuse, OTOH, there likely are reliable sources to be found calling it a "conspiracy theory". For assistance in finding such a source, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

More on Nazi stuff needed

There are a lot of Nazi conspiracy theories around there:

  • Hitler survived April 28 1945, and,
    • fled to South America,
    • fled to Antarctica, where the remaining Nazis are preparring comeback in WW3,
  • The Nazis developed UFO:s and erected a Moon base on the opposing side,
  • The Nazis were minions of (and cannon fodder for) Illuminati and developed UFO:s, that later have come to be secretly deployed by US (another instrument of Illuminati).

Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Term "conspiracy theorist" removal

An editor believes the term "conspiracy theory" should be removed from this article entirely. There has been no policy based reason proposed as yet. I'm not sure, it is certainly a bold edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do. I remove the negative term/label "conspiracy theorist" it was used extensively, not in any case covered by a source. "Conspiracy Theorists" say and alike. It makes no difference at all the term is missing now. Just recently we did speak about the use of such term at DRN.
To make it clear Im citing DRN Volunteer Bejnar: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)"
See also his talk page on that: "Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)"---Spearmind (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
You have been blocked for pursuing this against consensus at a number of pages. It has been discussed at a variety of notice boards and the universal consensus is that this is wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories be merged into List of conspiracy theories. I think that the content in the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories article can easily be explained in the context of the list, and it is of a reasonable size that the merging of the Jade Helm will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Additionally, Jade Helm 15 is not notable except due to the conspiracy theories surrounding it, so no article exists for Jade Helm 15 other than the discussion of the conspiracy theories. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 01:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a little premature, as the actual exercise just started and may gain more media coverage, then it'd be a better idea to create the Jade Helm 15 article and merge the conspiracy theories there. This list should probably mention the Jade Helm theories somewhere, but I'm not sure which section it would go in. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

conspiracy theory RS

conspiracy theories by nature are thought up by individuals and posted on the internet via blog, chat, social networks and every possible medium of content hosting. how does wikipedia's reliable source policy even apply to a list of them. this appears as an oxymoron and irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 08:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

If a conspiracy theory is discussed in reliable sources, then those sources may be used to discuss the conspiracy theory within Wikipedia. This is no different than any other topic. - Location (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Another religious conspiracy theory

One theory, which has been advanced by some Catholics (particularly those of a traditionalist bent), is that the East-West schism was actually engineered by the Muslim Turks in order to weaken Christendom by dividing it. Many of these authors argue that the real date of the schism wasn't 1054 but rather the 15th century, and that the Turks created the Orthodox Church following the fall of Constantinople. (Similar theories have also been advanced concerning Protestantism, although it isn't always the Turks who are fingered as the culprit). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the list but I think Kalergi Plan is missing. I heard about that, far-right wing parties and peoples talk about it but this theory (obviously conspiracy) is missing. I don't know if someone can create the article or tell me if the article exists in some language. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their respective articles, not for attempts to prove or disprove various wingnut conspiracy theories. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Encyclopedia

I've added a link to Conspiracy Encyclopedia, recently promoted to Good Article quality status rating.

Have a great day,

— Cirt (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a good addition, yep! Thanks for this. BiologistBabe (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation for Trump Plant Theory Comment

Do we need a citation for the Trump Plant Theory for BLP reasons? If not, then why not?--Adam in MO Talk 01:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Pope Paul VI imposter theory not listed

The Pope Paul VI imposter theory should be added; wasn't it here before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Clean up

Article is bloated and confusing; will be spending some time cleaning it up and checking refs Cpaaoi (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've done some cleaning up today - this is a work in progress which I'll be coming back to periodically; this article really is a mess. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am continuing to clean this article up - the ambition is to re-frame it properly as a list. It should eventually be reduced down to something more like an index in which any reader may look up any major conspiracy theory and see maybe two or three lines giving a general overview, with links to the relevant pages if they want to know more. The over-burdening of a list like this with masses of detail is unhelpful, and is also NPOV for the reason that it is much to the advantage specifically of conspiracy theorists to have words and ideas piled up in great tangled heaps (see 'Gish Gallop'). Much fairer and clearer to everyone involved if (in a list like this) each entry is kept brief, with sensible wikilinks. Cpaaoi (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Still carrying on - this remains a work in progress - the first job is to get everything down to a manageable form; afterwards it will be good to start going through the references to remove duds, and incorporate fresher and better refs. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously some sections currently present size and structural imbalances with other sections, especially the sections on Catholicism and on assassinations - this will eventually be ironed out as this article-rescue attempt continues! Cpaaoi (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Still continuing the clean-up. Clearly there are people who have been having a lot of fun with this article for some years!  :) Cpaaoi (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Still heavily removing irrelevancies, repetitions and assorted general refuse. Once it starts to read more like a useful index, it should be ready to start receiving new entries to try to solve both the recency bias and US-centricity of the article. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the persistent inclusion by 24.189.41.10 of points about Jew Watch, Radio Islam and Real Jew News - I think there could possibly be a case for inclusion, but we need to establish a] that it is sourced (which it has not been thus far) and b] that it is representative of the theme. The section takes account of 1000 or more years of history: the question is: are these websites and radio channels a central feature of this history? All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
My point of view is that it should not be included, for the reason that this article has long been overburdened with redundant and unsourced information. That is why I have been spending time condensing and clarifying this article. The inclusion of non-essential information hinders the reader's understanding of such a knotty and confusing subject as conspiracy theory, and by including reference to matters of lesser historical significance in fact harms the cause you appear to be promoting. Please see WP:SOAP Cpaaoi (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the article is starting to read a little more like an index, which I believe is what is required for a 'list'. I'm still continuing to check sources and find new references, and will be adding more entries as time goes on in order to give a more representative overview of the subject. But, even as it is, I am confident that the article is now of far more use than it was previously! Cpaaoi (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Have started incorporating some more non-US-centric entries, eg Malaysia Airlines and ANC. I think it would be easy to get carried away and let the list expand beyond reasonable length (as it had previously) but there is definitely room for certain other entries. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Still going! Don't plan on a great deal more work to this article - I believe it still requires a small section on the Illuminati due to the contemporary ubiquity of this theory, but I'll come back to this. I have also considered mentioning Madeleine McCann, but although some sources talk of con theories, they usually seem to mean nothing more than unsubstantiated sightings... Cpaaoi (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed 'Nazi escape plan' section (see below), as part of the continuing process of removing unsourced, tangential, tendentious, overlong, and confusing material. This, as pointed out above, is not otherwise NPOV, for the reason that conspiracy theories thrive on multitudinous information, and subtly mixing speculation in with points about legitimate research. It is not fair to the reader to have encyclopedia entries written in a form practiced by, and useful to, conspiracy theorists alone. Cpaaoi (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 'Nazi escape theories'

This section has been removed for a number of reasons: a) It is too long for a list. b) It does not balance with the length and scope of other entries. c) It is largely unsourced. d) Much of it does not concern conspiracy theory. e) The language and expression is not encyclopedic. f) The matter is already covered in the 'Deaths and disappearances' section.

More than happy to discuss the possibility of having this section reinstated, and am eager to hear responses to each of the above issues! All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes let's talk about this. Please can you advise me how you think it would best be CHANGED rather than all deleted. It is dispiriting.

a) How long should it be? b) I accept I had added more content than other list entries, I will reduce it. c) So are most of the other entries, give me time to improve it. d) What do you mean? The article on Martin Bormann says any suggestion he did not die in 1945 is a conspiracy theory - Wikipedia cannot have it both ways? e) I will revise the wording and compare with others. f) The matter is not in that section - why not have some more detail about it, it is of interest.Aetheling1125 (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply! In answer to these points, I would say:
  • a) I can't say how long an entry in a list ought to be, only that this entry is too long. It is longer than many separate articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps it deserves its own page, and a link could be provided from this list? Indeed, lo! There is already an article! - Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death#Alleged escape to Argentina. Maybe the information about Bormann could be placed in here? But, hark - a relevant page already exists! Martin Bormann#Discovery of remains.
  • b) Reduction is most welcome: it remains, however, far longer than other entries on what is already a long article.
  • c) It may well be that sources are wanting elsewhere in the article. That is not a justification for including more unsourced content. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  • d) There is clearly lots of information in the entry which is not directly pertinent to conspiracy theory: appointments in Peron's government; the capture of Eichmann; the availability of FBI documents on the FBI website(!). It is fine to mention a little background detail from legitimate history; for example, observe the MKUltra section where we learn that the US government was carrying out experiments, but do not get wrapped up in details of where the experiments were taking place or which scientists were running them or who their subjects were. The pertinent information for this article is that conspiracy theorists have latched onto MKUltra and use it to make unsubstantiated allegations. Your proposed section on Nazi escape plans contains lots of legitimate historical fact, and so belongs on those relevant pages: the only salient point is that lots of wacky things are said about Hitler having escaped, which is already adequately summed up in the section 'Deaths and disappearances', giving the reader a fair idea of what such theories consist of.
  • e)That is a good thing; it is worth noting that your reinstated edit still contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors. As for encyclopedic tone, although I would like to assume good faith, the suggested edit gives the strong impression of advocacy of the theory, with some weasel phrases that appear to be present for the purposes of presenting a certain semblance of legitimate enquiry.
  • f)The matter is precisely in that section. It is indeed of interest; that is why it is mentioned in that section. The reason why not to have some more detail on it is because this is a list, and the long discursion you propose belongs in a monographical article on that specific subject. (Which already exists.)

I'll revert the edit once again, since I am confident that it does not belong in this article in its current state. However, I am always perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I may be wrong, so I am more than happy to hand the matter over to the Wikipedia community for a third opinion if my points here are not satisfactory. In the meantime, I'll add some relevant wikilinks to the piece about Hitler conspiracy theories which already exists in the article. All the best! Cpaaoi (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC).

I did not know about the article that existed. I am happy now.Aetheling1125 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Permission to add Trump-Russia Collusion Theory

I believe the theory that the Russian government colluded with President Donald Trump and meddled in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election should be included in this list.

You can see exact text and sources if you look in the edit history, as I have already attempted to add this. This is a very important theory to include in this article, due to its massive popularity and influence in modern times. Agree with it or not, I do feel that this should be properly inserted into the article, being bipartisan. --TheFancyFedoraWielder (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • It ought not to be included in this list.
  • Popularity and influence are not deciding factors for inclusion of a subject, if that subject is not relevant to the article.
  • The suggestion that Trump-Russia is a conspiracy theory is, in fact, the very definition of partisanship.
  • The Trump-Russia connection is indeed a theory about a conspiracy, but that does not make it a conspiracy theory.
  • 'Conspiracy theory' is a unique term deployed to describe a proposition which 1) applies a double-standard to evidence and/or 2) denies consensus. As yet, 1) evidence is still emerging, and 2) there is yet no consensus since the formal legal investigations remain ongoing.
  • Trump-Russia may yet become a conspiracy theory if no wrongdoing is ascertained and certain persons refuse to accept that. However, it remains as yet firmly the subject of legitimate investigation by journalists and by the authorities.
  • I hope that you will recognize that these are satisfactory answers to your points, and please let me remind you that there are hundreds of thousands of other pages on Wikipedia awaiting your contributions. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

In your list the conspiracy theory, that in the years 2002/2003 Iraq hat no "Weapons of mass destruction", but was mere the rationale for the entry into war of US troops into Iraq 2003" is missing. It was an espionage conspiracy theory that there were a group of government/ or espionage people who "made the weapons of mass destruction" up. This theory became a proven fact in the year 2003/2004. Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kerstin_Lueck/publication/263248967_Evidencing_international_threat_Examining_Iraq_Survey_Group%27s_post-invasion_verification_of_Iraq%27s_WMD_threat/links/569e13f208ae00e5c990d200/Evidencing-international-threat-Examining-Iraq-Survey-Groups-post-invasion-verification-of-Iraqs-WMD-threat.pdf Mindmapp1 (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Third party reliable sources cannot be links to other Wikis. -- Dane talk 17:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

is there any interest in cleaning this article up or should I just template it? It looks to be full of WP:OR and not actually in "List" form - pretty bad .... Seraphim System (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I have had great interest in cleaning up this article. Please go back to previous edits to see what this page looked like at the start of 2017; it was previously a gigantic playground for certifiable wing-nuttery. The page is a work in progress and I am certain that further improvements may be made. If you have anything specific in mind, I'd be glad to hear it. And I'm not certain why it is thought not to be in list form - numerous lists on Wikipedia are presented in exactly the same layout. What makes this page unique from the others that it may not be similarly described as a list? And I don't agree that the page is "pretty bad". This page is viewed on average 4,000 times a day and I have seen minimal negativity towards it, except from conspiracy theorists. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me to be in prose form. This is what I would expect for a "list" List_of_Egyptian_castles,_forts,_fortifications_and_city_walls or List of South Park episodes - I think the quasiprose format works here for example because it is an alphabetical list of names List of minor biblical figures, A–K, but it is not really working here (And the topical sections are not even alphabetical.) IMO, one of the purposes of a list is organization of a lot of data and navigation and I dont think that's been accomplished with the current layout. These should also be discussed as conspiracy theories in the cited sources, not as WP:OR conspiracy theories. Like for example "War Against Islam" - is this called a conspiracy theory in the OUP source that is cited? Seraphim System (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree about the removal of non-conspiracy content; I hold no burning candles for any of the tall tales told here. Indeed, there remains much residue from the *older* version of the page which was liberally scattered with urban legends, popular rumors, ufology, ghost stories, etc, etc. I am not sure about the War on Islam - I don't know who put it there and I can't vouch for the citation - but looking at the main War against Islam page there seems to be a fair amount of commentary about conspiracy theory. Not a justification, of course; but it doesn't seem immediately obvious that it is not a conspiracy theory. But then I'm no expert. I would fully support alphabetization if it is determined that that is the best method of organization. The specific order of the material on the page had not interested me nearly as much as has reducing and clarifying all the bizarro brain-dribble which this page previously comprised. I am not certain that I would support reducing entries down to a quasi-prose format, however. It would be to the detriment of understanding if the ambition is to make this page conform to a style manifestly suited to lists of kings and hockey scores for the sake only of making it conform strictly to the definition of a 'list', and not to a format best suited for providing for each entry an uncontroversial and simple description of these confusing-and-difficult-to-source-but-hugely-popular-and-culturally-significant public talking points. Cpaaoi (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Someone reverted my edits several times on this page. I am not telling the reverts were totally unreasonable. However, here is the problem. Something can be indeed described as a "conspiracy theory" in one or several sources (this is usually Daily Telegraph on this page), however this is not necessarily a conspiracy theory according to majority of sources on the subject. Speaking about "conspiracy theory", I mean it as defined on this page, i.e. Conspiracy theories usually deny consensus or cannot be proven using the historical or scientific method, and are not to be confused with research concerning verified conspiracies such as Germany's pretense for invading Poland in World War II. So, if anyone will object my next edits, please explain your position here. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I object to your ground rules. Before removing content that cites WP:RS, please explain your reasoning on this Talk Page and allow time for editorial consensus to form—either pro or con. You don't get to unilaterally decide which WP:RS are mistaken in reporting conspiracy theories or anything else. KalHolmann (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Speaking about your last edit [7], yes, that claim was described as a "conspiracy theory" in a number of sources, however many such sources (and a lot of other sources) tell that the claim was actually true, meaning it can not be regarded as a bullshit theory, but rather express a majority view on the subject. As written on the top of the page, Conspiracy theories usually deny consensus or cannot be proven using the historical or scientific method, and are not to be confused with research concerning verified conspiracies. This is not the case here. Of course there could be different opinions how strongly something has been verified, but only subjects that deny consensus or cannot be proven using the historical or scientific method suppose to be included on this page. This is not one of them because according to a number of published books on the subject (here is just one of them), the claim was true. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, you are of course welcome to add new WP:RS that refute whatever existing WP:RS you disagree with. But please don't peremptorily remove the latter in the process. KalHolmann (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I am telling that certain objects/subjects do not belong to the list because they do not satisfy criteria for inclusion on the top of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes: No, you are taking it upon yourself to solely decide what is or is not a conspiracy theory. That is not the role of Wikipedia editors. We must leave that to WP:RS. KalHolmann (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No, this is absolutely the role of WP editors to decide what belongs to a list or to a category. Yes, we do it based on published WP:RS. Here is relevant guideline. It tells: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. However in this case, the classification of the subject as a "conspiracy theory" is not supported by majority of RS on the subject (and especially if we talk about books), but only by some RS (Daily Telegraph). This is not an "unambiguous" and "objective" classification. Hence no inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I'll bow out now, but ask again that you allow editorial consensus to form—pro or con—on your position, which I believe undermines WP:NPOV. KalHolmann (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not my position if we are talking about the inclusion in general. This is an official guideline. What exactly undermines WP:NPOV? Do you think that if something was defined as a conspiracy theory in a single source, it should be included here? Yes, sure, unless there are 10 other sources that tell otherwise. If that happens, one must consider all sources, and that is exactly what WP:NPOV requires. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Now, consider Harold Wilson. Is it really a good example of "conspiracy theory" if we know that KGB in fact tried to recruit him, and he appears in KGB papers under code name of OLDING? Perhaps they did not succeed, but this is hardly a good example of a clear-cut conspiracy theory. Consider something like Love Jihad. This is a complex controversy, but hardly a a good example of a conspiracy theory that suppose to be obviously wrong. Not every controversy is a conspiracy theory. As our page correctly tells, "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy". Make a List of controversies if you wish and include it there. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Your latest contribution, My very best wishes, has been reverted. I will open an RfC about your edits if the following points cannot be satisfactorily addressed here.
Answer.
  1. Yes, there is no official evidence. Is that a conspiracy theory? No, hardly.
  2. This is a book by Christopher Andrew (historian); this is all well known
  3. No, I consider it an RS.
Finally, I removed three segments. If you disagree, let's discuss them one by one, and may be we will agree on something. No need in RfC on this point.My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 1) No official evidence = conspiracy theory. Yes, lots.
  • 2) On Andrew's book, according to The Guardian review (6 August 2009): "However, a footnote in the 1,000-page history says that claims Wilson was a Soviet agent derive from conspiracy theories perpetuated by a KGB defector, Anatoli Golitsyn. Andrew adds: "Sadly, a minority of British and American intelligence officers … were seduced by Golitsyn's fantasies." (Richard Norton-Taylor)
  • 3) Good: then points made by the Telegraph (and The Guardian, and The Times, and points made by C. Andrew) may stay. Thank you for your interest. Judging by the standard of your arguments thus far, I will say that any further contributions made on these particular subjects will be passed straight over to RfC. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Look, if you want to post an RfC, that's fine. But what is the question under discussion? I do not care that much about any of these specific inclusions. My point is general: if you want to include subject X to the list, that subject X must be explicitly described as a "conspiracy theory" in majority of RS on the subject, rather than in a couple of sources someone selected. If you want to ask about this general question on the RfC, then go ahead. But we already know the answer from WP:NPOV and the guideline cited above. Let's just follow the policies. If you agree with me here, then OK, we have some common ground. Which of three specific subjects you think was described as a "conspiracy theory" in majority of RS on the subject? Yes, I can see Daily Telegraph as a source. Then, can I please give you a couple of books where subject X was not treated as wrong conspiracy theory as defined at the top of the list, but described as something else (a "controversy" or whatever)?
  1. OK, since we have Harold Wilson conspiracy theories, I agree, this is probably sufficient for inclusion, even though we know that KGB in fact tried to recruit him, and he appears in KGB papers under code name of OLDING, as described in the book by Andrews. What about two other examples? My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  2. Love Jihad (simply as a general example). After reading the page, it is abundantly clear that it was indeed described as a conspiracy theory in a few RS, however it is generally regarded by most sources as a "controversy", an "activity" or something else. Hence it should not be included in this list. Same should apply to any other examples.My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep checking this page, and the main page. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is bottom line. By including something in this list we claim ("in WP voice") that the "theory" is unquestionably wrong (the "theory" goes against consensus or cannot be proven using the historical or scientific method). To claim it, we need a support from vast majority of RS on the subject. Yes, I think we have such support for almost all "theories" included on this page, except a few examples. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Noted. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
All right. I made my points. If you are not convinced, there is little I can do. It would be more productive just to go edit something else. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Noted. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So, this is not really a big issue, but I would like to know what did you finally decide. Would your agree that we should only include "theories" that are unquestionably wrong, as defined on the top of the page? And if so, what do you think about "theories" #2 (Love Jihad) and #3 (the bombings) I suggested to exclude? My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please re-read the comment at 17:11, 8 November 2017. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand. Would you agree with removing paragraph that begins from "Conspiracy theories may likewise attach to deaths and disappearances of non-celebrities" in this section? And if you disagree, then why? Do you think this theory was proven to be wrong per majority of RS, just as all other garbage theories included on this page? My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It is easy to understand. All further attempts to make changes comparable to the changes you have already tried will prompt the opening of an RfC. I will say no more in this particular discussion section (unless other editors become involved), but I will keep checking this page and the mainpage. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel that you are simply not familiar with these subjects. Speaking about the last one, I can give you a ref to review by Amy Knight (see here) who has a lot more authority on this subject than a journalist or whoever else wrote the article in Daily Telegraph [8] (I do not even see a name). Now, you are telling about an RfC as about something dramatic. I can open it myself, no problem, the only question what exactly it should be about. I do not understand what we disagree about based on the discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I have added conclusions by Amy Knight to address concerns raised in your preceding comment. KalHolmann (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Quoting her greatly improves the text. However, my question remains: do you agree that this page should only include wrong/unprovable "theories", as written at the top of the list? If you agree, then this "theory" does not belong to the list. If you disagree (which is not unreasonable because the meaning of "conspiracy theory" is actually wider), then we need to change the text at the top and include more theories on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, please cite to WP:RS reporting that Putin/FSB's responsibility for the Russian apartment bombings is a proven fact, rather than a disputed theory. As I read it, Amy Knight's book review is opinion, not fact. As such, given her reputation, it deserves mention here. But it's a long way from demonstrable proof. KalHolmann (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No one tells this is proven fact. But this is not an unquestionably wrong theory, like others. Can you please answer my question above? My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes:
Q. do you agree that this page should only include wrong/unprovable "theories"?
A. I believe this list should include speculation of general interest identified as "conspiracy theories" by WP:RS. I believe editors who impose their own judgment as to whether or not these theories are true violate WP:NPOV. KalHolmann (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This is not about imposing judgment if a theory was true, but about deciding if something was described as a "conspiracy theory" in majority of RS as a criterion for inclusion into this list. My very best wishes (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I've reviewed the WP:RS guideline but find no criterion that something must be described in a majority of RS to be included in a list. If I missed it, please quote the relevant passage verbatim. KalHolmann (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, I've reviewed the selection criteria for lists you provided, but find no criterion that something must be described in a majority of RS to be included in a list. If I missed it, please quote the relevant passage verbatim. KalHolmann (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It tells Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. If most of the sources does not call something a "conspiracy theory", that something does not belong to the list. And how about simply using Category:Conspiracy theories? My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, the sentence you italicized appears in the selection criteria for lists. However, the sentence thereafter, beginning "If most of the sources does not call something…" is your own take, and does not follow logically from the stated criterion. I've tried to be patient, but you now seem to be making stuff up just to prolong a fruitless debate, of which I want no part. I am done responding to you. KalHolmann (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for helpful discussion! Now I know what an RfC should be about (if I care about this at all). My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Spanish

change ((Spanish)) and ((British)) to ((Spain|Spanish)) and ((United Kingdom|British)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4304:e6b0:218:8bff:fe74:fe4f (talk) 10:53, November 29, 2017‎

Not done: The entire section was poorly-translated from a single non-reliable source and written in a very confusing manner. What the actual conspiracy theory that is supposed to be suggested is unclear. The entire section was therefore removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Propose removal of edits on HAARP and Andrew Jackson (29.11.17)

These edits do not meet the criteria outlined at WP:NOENG. The sources are questionable, and the translations are basically gibberish. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You had to ask for quote and translation not edit war or removing the content. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The burden is on the contributor to provide good material. And you have not done so. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@IranianNationalist:, Cpaaoi is correct. The material you are adding is incomprehensible and you are now in violation of the policy on edit wars. Please do not re-add this section without discussion here as to:
  1. What the supposed conspiracy theory actually is,
  2. How it should best be presented in grammatical English
  3. Whether the given source is actually a reliable source
  4. Whether the given claim is actually a conspiracy theory as that term is used here.
Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: I repeat what I said in my talk page to you :
the user is reminding WP:NOENG but the rule is "ask for " the source : "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page.[11] (See Template:Request quotation.)" I said in the summary the translation is acceptable but the user tries to WP:PA and claims the translation is machine translation. Did you check the other users' complains in the talk page of the user?
Also the user is in the edit war. I added translations. When you have different edits it is not edit war. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
As others have said, it is down to the editor who wants to include material to make the case. As to this edit, as others have said it is incomprehensible, nor does it seem to be a conspiracy theory so much as historical revisionism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: you should try to avoid Wikipedia:Harassment do you know that? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
You are not being harassed. You are choosing to return to this page, and to continue to revert against consensus and guidelines (as we see you have now done once again). Cpaaoi (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I presume we are deleting the HAARP bit as well, given that it fails the same tests as the deleted Jackson piece? Cpaaoi (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The HAARP-earthquake link is an actual theory out "in the wild", as it were but the current paragraph here is almost as bad as the Andrew Jackson piece. I'll look for other sources and try to re-word it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done Reduced and re-cited to NBCNews and some woo-woo sites that make the claims. Just to be clear: These cites are not presented as WP:RS for the proposition that HAARP has any connection whatsoever to earthquakes but for the proposition that there are enough people claiming such a link exists to qualify it as a conspiracy theory as defined on this project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The Andrew Jackson stuff is nutty gibberish, it would be a disservice to actual fringe conspiracy theories to label it as even that. You can't apply modern concepts of genocide or crimes against humanity to actions of the early 19th century. TheValeyard (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Deep State vs Deep State

The conspiratorial "Deep State" should be made distinct from the common-usage of the "Deep State," at least in the US. The latter is usually synonymous with the Administrative/Regulatory State. E.g., "the regulatory deep state." http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/10/trump-administration-blocks-an-obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you got any better sources than a poorly-argued and partisan blog post? Cpaaoi (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the ad hominem attacks against the given source, arguendo, that an opinionated source uses the word in everyday language is not unusable simply because of the source's opinions. A political source, especially a mainstream one, cannot be dismissed out of hand because of political disagreements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Cpaaoi, for a valid objection, please state how the post is "poorly-argued" and "partisan," and how either condition would invalidate the source under the present context. A non-falsifiable claim is purely obstructionist, and must be corrected to facilitate progress. - 75.72.74.25 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
You were asked to provide a better source. If your goal had been the improvement of this page, you would have spent your time looking for one. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry; I've done your work for you. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You weren't asking for a better source, as you have never explained your thinking as to your objections, so there was no way to know what a "better" one looks like to you. No one can read unspoken thoughts. And you're assuming bad faith and being snarky about it; this isn't your personal article. I know you're new, but be a bit more respectful and conscientious. Anyways, here is The Atlantic using Deep State as synonymous with the Administrative State. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/giving-the-deep-state-more·-leeway-to-kill-with-drones/540777/. Should clarify in article that this is a definition for it. 75.72.74.25 (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A the link seems broken
B We need a source saying X, not you inferring it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There have been no unjustified inferences. I do not know why The Atlantic's link as posted is broken, but the slightly different URL https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/giving-the-deep-state-more-leeway-to-kill-with-drones/540777/ is currently a functional link. Another source, the WSJ, the nation's second largest paper by circulation, referred to the deep state as a "so-called deep state of bureaucrats undermining the president's agenda, but four of the agency's commissioners were nominated by Mr. Trump" in an article dated 10 Jan. 2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-gets-a-reality-check-on-deregulation-1515525695. Here is an article on Politico showing an example, US Rep. Rooney, where he complains of the "deep state" of entrenched liberal bureaucrats, as he defines it. https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2017/12/26/rooney-calls-for-purge-of-deep-state-workers-at-doj-fbi-161479. It is clear that the term "deep state," in terms of usage in the United States, refers to unappointed, career bureaucrats and/or the administrative/regulatory state, which cannot be directed or removed by the executive branch. - 75.72.74.25 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this request is trying to accomplish. The first sentence in the Deep State section says: Occasionally used as a neutral term to denote a nation's bureaucracy... How does that not separate the conspiratorial sense from the political-science sense of the term sufficiently? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories - JFK

Due to the recent release of the JFK files by President Trump showing that there was definitely more than 1 shooter involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, does someone fancy updating the Wikipedia information to show this? I'm a new user and don't know how to go about making edits yet but it's an important part of history that need rewriting Liarco2001 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Liarco2001, this is a list and does not delve deeply into particular conspiracy theories. Please see instead John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and its associated talk page. KalHolmann (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed; the level of detail on JFK is already WP:DUE. There are hundreds of other assassination theories around people who are not even mentioned in this section. The fact that JFK is first in line is enough to show that he is central to assassination theory in general, and sufficiently directs anyone with a strong enough interest in the details to follow the links. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, the J. F. K. files were released by the U. S. government, not by president Donald Trump. Trump simply chose not to prevent or try to prevent the release of the files (at least as I have understood). Secondly, had evidence come up that would change the current mainstream scientific understanding of the assassination and "rewrite history", Wikipedia would already be edited to reflect this. It sounds like it might make a relevant addition to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torr3 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Renaming article and creation of a separate page/portal

I would just like to bring to light the fact that majority of the conspiracy theories listed here deal with events happening in the American region, while there exist numerous such conspiracy theories worldwide. I suggest this article deal with only American conspiracy theories (which would mean removal of other international conspiracy theories from this article), and separate pages for conspiracy theories for each geopolitical region be made. Conspiraacy theories in themselves are an interesting subject matter and provide a good source of knowledge about sociopolitical and psychological trends around the world. The suggested move, thus, would only add constructive information to Wikipedia. Those articles can be clubbed under a portal.

If my observation might be wrong, and such a system already exists, feel free to notify. DM224b (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The preponderance of US/Europe focused conspiracy theories merely reflects the composition of editor demographics. In other words, most editors to the English Wikipedia are from the United States and Europe. Any conspiracy theory that has an article already and qualifies as notable by our established standards is eligible for inclusion on this list. There are already a number of non-US/Europe theories listed, such as the "Ust akil" theory in Turkey, "Israeli animal spying" theory in Egypt, the Anti-Baha'ism theories in Iran, etc. Even more to point, however, separating these by nationality is impossible because many are multi-national and they would start looking the same. For example, the Black helicopter conspiracy theory clearly originated in the US, so it would clearly go on a US list, right? Well, there are people reporting these from Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Middle East, and other places so do we add it to each one of those lists? (Never mind the fact that many helicopters operated by various agencies and companies are actually dark-colored so each spotting of one becomes a "black helicopter sighting" in another country we'd have to add.) If the list seems over-balanced to one region, then it is preferable to include more well-documented conspiracy theories instead of breaking this up. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If we can get editors from different regions to collaborate on this, it can be possible, right? And my concern with fitting all such theories in one place is that the article would become unnecessarily long by itself (if we manage to collect substantial number of items for the list). Plus, I would like to bring to light the fact that there already are similar articles for Turkey and the Middle East in existence. We could separate items based on if they are indigenous to a aspecific region or have believers internationally. Or the list could be segregated based on some other parameter too.
I bring this matter up as there are a lot of conspiracy theories which have their own articles but are not represented here. So, if this list aims to be a definitive one, it should be reflected so in the content.DM224b (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I also do not think this is really any more then an editor location issue. No we do not need a rename.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
But the list definitely needs an update. It doesn't even link to other actual lists of conspiracy theories, including the one concerning music. This list, though inexhaustive, still is incomplete. The title is misleading. A "List of conspiracy theories" would let a reader assume by default it is a definitive one, when it is not. And it does not give information about other lists too. At least the article should be marked incomplete.DM224b (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump Russia collusion conspiracy

This one is taking on the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory:

Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Strongly oppose addition It is hardly a "conspiracy theory" and adding it here would be clearly a violation of WP:NPOV, since there is plenty of reliable evidence indicating that collusion is at least a possibility. Besides, of the sources cited here, only the LA Times and The Hill are reliable by Wikipedia's standards and both of the articles from those sources have problems if you are trying to use them as evidence that the possibility of collusion is nothing more than a "conspiracy theory". The LA Times article cited here is clearly an opinion article (an OpEd) written by someone essentially arguing that he personally thinks Trump is too stupid to figure out how to collude with Russia. The article from The Hill is likewise an opinion article; furthermore, it does not in any way argue that the possibility of collusion is a "conspiracy theory". On the contrary, in fact, it states:

"Does that mean that no collusion-based case can be made against Trump or his campaign? Of course not. Mueller is still looking for evidence and perhaps former Trump presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort, who has a long, sleazy history with Russians, could flip and reveal an extensive conspiracy with the Trump campaign. Anything is possible, as critics love to say."

--Katolophyromai (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think you're debating Trump's guilt rather than whether or not the investigation is thought to be a conspiracy theory. I just posted the first bunch of links that turned up in a search. The question at hand is not Trump's guilt but rather, whether this is perceived to be a conspiracy theory. Based on a quick search, I think that perception, right or wrong, exists and is significant. Rklawton (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no proof that the Rebels or Russian Military shut down the MH17

Theoretically the Ukrainian Military could be also responsible for it. Off course its absurd to blame Israel for it but Ukraine is a suspect in this case because Ukraine is a primary participant in the Civil War in Donbass and the Military of Ukraine has Buk missiles. By the way the Russian soldiers in Ukraine may don't even have missiles. If the Rebels are responsible for it they might used an old Soviet missile or a modern Ukrainian one, I mean in Donbass there are sure stocks of Military Bases with modern Ukrainian weapons.--Janos Hajnal (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Janos Hajnal:, please read Identifying Reliable Sources before further attempting to contribute to this page. This is not a social media site and arguments without citations mean nothing. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

9/11

Most engineering societies, controlled demolition experts, and fire chiefs of big cities agree that a simple "fire", caused by even a jumbo jet, would not bring down the Twin Towers, not Alone. Also a fact one of the Arabs passengers was on a No Fly list. [1]174.18.14.245 (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the article, and has an article of its own: 9/11 conspiracy theories. Did you have a suggestion for improving this article? General Ization Talk 04:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o
Most engineering societies only a minority. More reliable sources are found at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth movement and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Pyramids

This is not a very complete list of conspiracy theories if it does not include all the allegations about the Egyptian pyramids!62.239.159.69 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Popular culture legends, pseudoscience, or conspiracy theories? If you have reliable sources to suggest that describe those conspiracy theories (or an existing article about it), they are indeed worthy of mention. There's of course the one from the "all seeing eye", but it's already there. —PaleoNeonate – 22:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Source 219 is missing

It's a link to a supposed article on Independent, but the article is either missing or deleted. I don't know the process to fix this. Haven't edited in a long while. Thanks for stepping in, if you can.

Muskanty (talk) 07:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

electronic harassment and targeted individual phenomenon

I am interested in improving this page by adding information about WP:electronic harassment. Any thoughts/objections?PaulGosar (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)PaulGosar

Incorrect quote in Deep State section, questionable having Donald Trumps example when that is confirmed.

Article states - "Deep state" in the latter sense refers to an unidentified secret "elite" who act in co-ordinated manipulation of a nation's politics and government. - It does not, this is personal view and link provided on end from yahoo article also refers to is deeply entrenched bureaucracy - a term widely used to describe long-time officials within the government who seemingly possess a political agenda meant to undermine an administration-. It is questionable at best why is this not in actual conspiracies after New York Times Op-ed where those claims have been confirmed. - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.255 (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

For some reason link appears broken, headlin of article is - I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - NYT, September 5 2018. Description - I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.-
1st problem this is an anonymous op-ed, and thus of questionable use as a source. 2nd problem it does not mention conspiracy theories, thus it is ORE to say this is a conspiracy theories (as opposed to say a real conspiracy). 3rd problem (well to be fair part of the seconds, OR and lack of verfiability (how you read it may not be how I read it).Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Well is NYT not reputable source for Wikipedia ? And yeah i agree that this is a real conspiracy, political conspiracy and maybe should be moved to that section. Entire deep state accusation (whether its true or not is a accusation of political conspiracy, not a theory) I think entire Deep State section should be moved to political conspiracy, even opening says that it has basis in truth. If its not moved quotes need to be fixed, it always refers to entrenched bureaucracy, never to - unidentified secret "elite" as article states, even yahoo article provided as source on end calls it that way, secret elite is POV and has no source given.
Ahh I see, you want to use this to prove the conspiracy is real, and thus should not be here. As I said it is an anonymous op-ed piece (and it does not admit to a Deep State, rather to some workers in the White House, parts of Trump own administration), thus we cannot know who wrote it, or why.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Quotes need to be fixed whether you agree or not, it never refers to secret elite, why are you consistent in ignoring half of my posts? Source for secret elite is not given , it always refers to deeply entrenched bureaucracy and secret elite is POV. Deep state always refers to bureaucracy, they are not gonna call themselves deep state cause of obvious negative connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.255 (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Because I now have no idea what the hell you are talking about. As far as I can tell the NYT article is not being used as a source for secret "elite", so the fact it does not say it is irrelevant. Are you saying that none of the sources we use say it and thus the claim it is a secret elite in unsourced?Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is not mentioned in source given, yahoo article, I wrote it 3 times already, including in headline.You saw Trump and just jumped on it ignoring all previously said, your leftwing bias is concerning to say the least — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.19.108.255 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Well at least one of the sources before it mentions "the elite" or "power elite", but its a valid point I shall rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced content with wrong definition still not removed, while at least 2 given sources confirm that deep state indeed exists.(entrenched bureaucracy) Also Erdogan from Turkey is mentioned as is failed military coup against him, he also did fire thousands of bureaucrats (education, military, etc).Only source that even remotely claims it is power elite makes it clear that is only point of view and if you see it as entrenched bureaucracy existence is not even for debate (consensus is clear even among given sources). That source is Rolling Stone and quote is "Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is" ref. 198 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.31.234 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Which two sources? The only source given here does not confirm it exits, it says nothing about it. What it says is that members of Donies own team are working against him.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Economist - American pundits have often used “deep state” interchangeably with the bureaucracies of the military and spy agencies, especially those bits that leak against the government.

The Nation - So at least as long as there has been private property, there has been private plotting, and talk of a “deep state” has been a vernacular way of describing what political scientists like to call “civil society,” that is, any venue in which powerful individuals, either alone or collectively, might try to use the state to fulfill their private ambitions, to get richer and obtain more power- Yahoo - The purpose of the global spy network would be to circumvent the “Deep State,” a term widely used to describe long-time officials within the government who seemingly possess a political agenda meant to undermine an administration... “Pompeo can’t trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official with “firsthand knowledge” of the proposal told The Intercept. And given this hostility, some kickback against the White House from bureaucrats is to be expected, argued Uscinski. This hostility could fuel White House suspicions that there is a deep state conspiracy at work. “Does that mean they are setting up FEMA death camps and are mounting some sort of coup against him? No. but it is reasonable to suggest he is going to have resistance.What conspiracy theorists do is take that reasonable idea and run with it,” Rollingstone - Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is.- As is clear in pretty much all given sources, it always refer to entrenched bureaucracy, who either act alone or in organized manner and there is consensus. I am afraid I question your competence Steven, and your biased thinking. You obviously have animosity towards Donald Trump and it is clouding your thoughts and judgement. Can we get someone competent without emotional investment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we avoid PA's?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and i dont know what PA is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

My and Stevens discussion on hes talk page, since it is on topic thought it would be good idea to copy it here- Please dont be incompetent and require from users to spell out sources that are already given, and read them yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

copied from talk page
Saying "some one may think there is something" is not the same as saying "there is something". And I have asked you to stop making PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There are given examples, you would know that if you actually read the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 09:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Given examples of what? Of the fact that some members of Donnies own staff are working against him, that is not the deep state. The fact that Uscinski has claimed there is (possibly) some kickback against the White House from bureaucrats is not proof of a deep state, read wp:or. A suspicion that there is a deep state held by Donnie or his supporters is not proof there is a deep state. You have to have a source that say "there is a deep state".Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We cant have discussion when you did not read. Erdogan coup and subsequent firings of thousands of military, education,etc personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Again read wp:or, it does not matter what some leader does, what matters is what RS say. Just because Hitler, Stalin or Teresa May arrest, sack or kill a lot of people does not prove there is a deep state.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Right so coup may or may have not happened? Lmao, like there are not countless headlines about that coup. Sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
No it means that you do not have a source saying is. It means that not all Coups are Deep state operations (and no all accusations of Claims of Coups are real). It means you need an RS actually saying "there was a deep state conspiracy".Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha dear god, then what was military coup ? All sources define it as entrenched bureaucracy, most commonly in military and intelligence community.
A military coup may not always be from an entrenched bureaucracy, the Qaddafi and Greek ones were not. And also there has been no coup in the USA, so talking about coups tells us nothing about the USA. Please read wp:Synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We are talking about specific coup, not Greek or Qaddafi. Also term deep state is not from USA and does not only apply to them, nor do they get to define it since it was well known and used before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStefanWolf (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I though we were talking about Donnie and the USA, that is what was being talked about on the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
? We obviously cant talk about such important and relevant term through lenses of single country at single point in time, for which there is hardly consensus even within the country.MrStefanWolf (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
When we are talking about a situation in one country we cannot use what happened in another as proof of the situation in the first country. Not all Coups are the same, and what happens in a coup is not evidence of what happens when there is not one.Slatersteven (talk)
Point is we cant use loose definition(for which there is no consensus as shown in sources, sources notably point to definition I am using)of single country for entire term. Term Deep State cant and wont only refer to USA situation, especially since it does not even originate from that country. If you want to argue that Donald Trump is peddling conspiracies thats on you, but you cant use term that is well known and defined beforehand.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We are not we are saying he has.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohh and by the way, read wp:CIR and then justify your accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You are firmly left wing Labour supporter with obvious disdain of Donald Trump and are willing to hijack term Deep State so you can attack him.I thought that was clear already. MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That is not what a COI is on Wikipedia, And I did not hijack the term, I neither added it to the article, not am I any of the RS that use in in the context we are disusing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Note I pointed to the wrong policy, it should be wp:COI.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok its not your direct fault but still. RS use definiton I use and you ask me to provide sources(they are already given). That i think falls into competency issue, being able to read with understanding.MrStefanWolf (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I asked you to provide a source that directly said it, you did not. None of the sources you provided say that the definition of deep state we say is in use is wrong. What they do (at best) is provide an alternative definition (anbd some do not even do that, they actually talk about Donnies belief in a deep state). You need sources that explicitly (not implicitly) say that the definition we list is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Rolling Stone - "Is there actually a deep state? If you mean entrenched bureaucracy, then of course there is" - Also definition you give at best only refers to current meaning of term in USA in limited circles of conservatives (not consensus among all conservatives, let alone USA), not in the world and not through history. No where it states that in article but sources are clear, its just blanked used in article and can be assumed that it applies to entire world.Again reading carefully and with understanding is critical.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That does not say the other definitions are wrong, it says that in on e context it is valid. In fact this does not even say this is a deep state, only that if you mean it in this context it is real (if you mean it in this way).Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Article needs to make it clear that it only applies to limited conservative circles without consensus among USA conservatives, let alone entire USA. It also needs clearly to differentiate it from actual deep states that are proven, like military coup in Turkey 2016 cause sources given do. Meaning in that way is consensus Steven even in sources, then they go on to give it different meaning used by some. Clear differentiation needs to be made.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A dictator claiming a coup was part of some deep state conspiracy is not proof there was in fact a deep state conspiracy. You need RS saying that there was (in fact) a deep state conspiracy (note saying it was one, not saying it has been called one).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine dont put Erdogan, everything else still stands.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You have provide no sources that say there are actual deep states that are proven, what you have a sources that say that if you take deep state to mean something other then a "a government-wide conspiracy" then there may indeed be such things. The Conmsproicy article is talking about "government wide conspiracies".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope, it only says coordinated effort, does not mention a single thing of how narrow or wide. It could be 2 bureaucrats as far as I know according to article.MrStefanWolf (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Would like to here opinions from other editorsMrStefanWolf (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think its fairly obvious that User:MrStefanWolf is a new editor that doesn't understand WP, so lets be careful not to WP:BITE him even though I think it is very obvious that he doesn't understand a variety of policies. Specifically I would recommend that you read WP:No personal attacks, on this page we need to focus on the content and arguments, not the other editors here. Additionally you should read WP:V which deals with what kind of verification is needed to be included
Now as to the actual content, the definition given on this page of "deep state" is an unidentified "power elite" who act in co-ordinated manipulation of a nation's politics and government. If that is the definition of this "conspiracy" then it isn't a "theory" at all. This person was referred to by the NYTs as "a senior official in the Trump administration" and goes on to describe him as in the upper echelon of an administration which would seem to qualify as a "power elite" if anything does. Additionally this individual says that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and steer the administration. That would seem to be manipulation of the government policies in opposition to the elected President of the United States. And of the polls I have seen, they define the term like this military, intelligence and government officials who try to secretly manipulate government from the ABC Poll mentioned in the mainspace. If that isn't the definition, then we shouldn't be referring to such polls here. If that is the definition, how is that a theory? Many of the sources used to demonstrate this is a conspiracy theory were published before Sept. 5, 2018 when the NYT's oped was published, obviously claims of a conspiracy prior to any proof are a conspiracy theory, but that stops being the case once proof is published.
Oh and as to the fact that this is an anonymous OPed, the description of the individual is from the NYT's and therefore is reliable as to who this person is. And their own words can be a potentially valid WP:ABOUTSELF, although there is some question as to if this is an exceptional claim or about third parties. Surely it is valid as to their own motivations. Additionally there are a lot of other secondary sources that comment on this article that would seem to support this idea that would be WP:V, such as [9], [[10], etc. Even Vox (about as far from a pro-Trump source as you can get) says Apparently President Donald Trump is right: There really is a “deep state” of top government officials conspiring to thwart his will. And now, one of them is taking to the pages of the New York Times to brag about it. [11]. Even one of the articles linked to on this page (footnote 194) in mainspace already says But the concept resonates, especially since the modern state is not just an instrument to execute elite ambition but a site of popular demands and class struggle. The private, organized backlash to those demands and struggles is often understood as a “deep state” conspiracy, and that understanding is more often than not correct. -Obsidi (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It appears some editors-who shall remain nameless do not care about presented facts cause they have an axe to grind and agenda to push. Thats what this is all about.MrStefanWolf (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Really, 90% of what the DNC says about Trump is at least conspiracy theory, if not outright mental illness. Speaking as someone who didn't vote for Trump.Mzmadmike (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an RS supproting this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories

Please fit Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories in somewhere. Thanks!!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please fix link to Human papillomavirus infection in the Artificial diseases section, it is currently incorrect. Thanks!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:102E:17:1704:C4F9:BB20:EE7E:7419 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

something's missing

[section Chemtrails]

"As climate change becomes more imminent and geoengineering more salient, web sites promoting a conspiracy theory about geoengineering, incorporating chemtrails have become more widespread. e.g.[11]."

What's "e.g.[11]." at the end? If the link is supposed to contain the example, then there must be a sentence, not just a footnote

For now, take it out.

184.101.64.90 (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done — Newslinger talk 12:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


[section Aviation]

This section should include the 1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash that resulted in the deaths of Dag Hammerskjold and 15 others, as it has been theorised that the plane was shot down to benefit the political interests of oligarchs operating in the Congo region. One person who supports this claim is Swedish private investigator Göran Björkdahl who starred in the 2019 documentary "Cold Case Hammarskjöld", which investigates this theory.

The Theory that Ukraine shut down MH17 is rational

The Ukrainian Military, the Army and the Air Force, were theoretically able to do it! There is one Report of a German Jorunalist named Billy Six about it. He was nearly one year in Ukraine and interviewed local People in Donbas who said that they saw and/or heard a Military Jet and he talked to retired Pilots in Germany who doubt that it was a BUK missile that was used to commit this Crime. A Dutch Politologist (Kees van der Pijl) wrote a book about the topic and he takes the lines that it was the Ukrainian Military, the Army or the Air Force. And there is also a young man from Ukraine who fleed to Russia who claims that the perperator was Vladislav Voloshinan an Ukrainian Air Force Pilot who later committed suicide.--Bernard Gunnar (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Its not a question of rationality.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Rejection of an official Narrative is not a Conspiracy Theory.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not automatically no, but they can be.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_conspiracy_theories/Archive_2&oldid=1136935939"