Talk:List of conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Midwifery?

This is seriously a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.12.185 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to 'LUCIFER TRUST'

Lucis Trust a publication company founded to produce new age esoteric books is not a conspiracy and it does in fact do business currently with the United Nations UNESCO Program. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust.

If someone wants to fix up the article that would be nice you can find more information about Lucis Trust if you search the official United Nations website. (or give them a call.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S Lucis trust was originally called 'lucifer' trust publishing company but the name was later changed. - http://www.lucistrust.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lavon Affair

Why is the Lavon Affair listed on this conspiracy 'theories' page? I mean yes, it was a conspiracy but the Lavon Affair was not a 'theory' it is something that did happen, is well documented and for the most part admitted to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)

So the Lavon Affair does NOT count as a "Conspiracy theory" since it is not a theory at all but a well documented part of a national history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.202.138 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

IF secret societies want to build a New World Order (conspiracy) by terrorism and force and illnesses

AND IF "5312" is a "secret number" of them (presumed for example by: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/33rd_Initiation.htm)

AND IF this could be translated in 12¦3¦2005 (read backwards)

AND IF secret societies want to be recognized by secret numbers

then March 12 possibly could be a day of terrorism again. Are the authorities aware of this date? What do you think about? If this speculation was right, what could we do (it's tomorrow)?

Maybe it's december 3rd. Or May, 2312. Or the 31st of februari, 2005. Or maybe it's just a random series of numbers you could make anything of.

I'm a little concerned at the removal of the multinational corporation section. While there are bad things that MNs are up to, there are also wild conspiracy theories about bad things that MNs are up to. Mark Richards 23:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe an example could be put there? I dunno, when I saw that, it just looked like someone was saying that critics of corporate globalization are whacko conspiracy theorists (it is common for people to claim that everyone on the radical left is a conspiracy theorist, which is unfounded and kind of insulting..). I've never heard

a "wild conspiracy theory" regarding them... --Tothebarricades.tk 00:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough - take it out unless there is an example. Mark Richards 17:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lucius Trust / "Lucifer trust"

I've heard some this "occult" group being included in various conspiracy theories connected with the UN. Unfortunately it's been a long time, I'm surprised though that they're no information on them in wikipedia.

Clearly, there is a conspiracy afoot! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.134.46 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Hahahah!

I like how first you have the international conspiracy section, then followed up by a short list of conspiracy theories peculiar to a certain country which includes among others, Vietnam and fails to include the US even though probably most of those pages and this page was written by Americans. Of course the US is special--everyone knows we have NO conspiracy theories...None goddam it!

It seems to me that the International ones = USA ones....you only THINK they are international! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.211.120 (talk) 09:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

javier solana

I vote to remove this section. There is no evidence that that conspiracy is believed by anyone other than the author (POV) who wrote it. The article they reference is VfD anyway. Goferwiki 23:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).

It was me who put it there actually, and I am definitely not a believer in this theory. It is also at antichrist and Mark of the Beast. i think when the article goes they should all be removed, --SqueakBox 23:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 20:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"alleged" is a little unclear

I think that "alleged" in the title is a little unclear, i.e. are these alleged to be conspiracy theories, or are they theories of alleged conspiracies? I think the later must be intended, but it isn't clear. Bubba73 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect grouping

A lot of theories and subjects under the 'global conspiracies' heading actually only apply to the United States, for instance the Council on Foreign Relations, Nick Berg, and arguably the Bush Family. I vote these be moved to the ones below.

I agree to the move, if you know which ones should be moved. A guy from Europe told me that we Americans have a virtual monopoly on many of the crackpot theories. Bubba73 (talk), 22:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Someone has suggested merging Conspiracy theories (a collection) here. That's a good idea. At the same time we should prune the ones which are so way-out that they have no significant coverage, leave only the cited ones and perhaps rename to Conspiracy theories (examples) or some such. Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support the merge. MrHen

huh?

why is this page titled so weirdly? the title of this page does not confirm or deny the existence of certain theories. or is it more, the theories are there but the conspiracies are alleged. yeah. probly that one. it's retarded. I know there's a merge idea out there but. someone please make this less retarded. WɔlkUnseen 05:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merges

There is now a repetition of some topics. This article needs cleaned up. --TJive 13:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal conspiracies should be part of a different article.--Afa86 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

I'm not sure that this is the kind of conspiracy being discussed here. Everything in the article plays it as a joke (which it has become). Just because the word conspiracy is in the title doesn't mean it fits in this list. =I suggest you read this before you judge.It had some pretty crazy conspiracy theory's alright. 8xh256 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this before you judge.It had some pretty crazy conspiracy theory's alright. 8xh256 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't

I agree, if you don't beleive it, it does not mean it's not true, and if someone else does believe it, it does not mean it is true. For the sake of all the people that do believe it or all the people that might just want to see some conspiracy theories - please don't delete this page. For this page is an excellent reference for conspiracy theorists. It is an article about THEORIES, therefore the have not been proved to be true, nor false.--Afa86 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FLQ and CDA

The section regarding Canadian 'Conspiracy theories' fails entirely to mention the supposed CIA connections to FLQ operations in the 70's. Oddly, there's a fair amount of evidence available to support this idea, so maybe it's more appropriate in the FLQ page (but i'm sure it would get flagged for citation). CIA operations to destabilize nations in South America were prevalent at this time, and there's no reason to think these operations were exclusive to those to the south of the US. The MKUltra experiments were well underway at that point, and what better way to create an environment of fear and mental susceptibility than the ongoing threat of terrorism. Perhaps a dry run in light of the current climate in the US.Bowloftoast 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can prove a number of people believe in it, then go ahead and add it in. Obviously this article is a work in progress, and anything that qualifies as a conspiracy theory is fair game. Just be sure to cite your sources. The Myotis 03:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

This article seriously lacks sourcing and citations. I am not saying that these theories don't exist... only that the article does not cite sources to demonstrate that they exist. The fact that entire sections go by without a single citation is unacceptable. Please review WP:ATT and add sources where needed. Blueboar 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But not all conspiracy theories, even wide spread ones, are written down. In fact it might be someone's theory that you are part of a conspiracy to get people to write their theories down so your masters can keep tabs on what people are thinking and easier control them. bwah-ha-haw. Admit it! That is why you also invented personal web pages and even stuff like myspace. So people become gleeful at creating personal psuedo-private bios. It is about control. Keep you in line psychologically so you don't stop buying crap which keeps them in power to keep you in line. User:VeriGGlater 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously this article is a bit different from most in that you do not have to provide evidence that something exists as much as somebody believes it exists. Ideally, there is some book or news article that either documents people who believe in such a theory or who believe in it themselves. "Citation needed" tags are needed thought much of the article, and while I am pretty sure that most of these theories do exist in some form, we should be able to find at least some source. The Myotis 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanations needed

Simply listing the names of conspiracies, then linking those names to pages that do not contain conspiracies, is not enough.

I could list the Beatles. Does that mean the band members were in themselves a conspiracy? Were they victims of a conspiracy? Was the creation of the band a conspiracy?

I move that all such entries be removed after a reasonable time to annotate, if neither the annotations nor the linked article gives anything relevant.

Appropriate annotations exist on: Bilderberg Group; Elders of Zion; ...

Suitable information is available on the linked articles forthe poorly annotated entries: New World Order; Korean Air Flight KAL-007; ...

Some entries that should be either annotated or deleted are: Council of foreign relations (the annotation tells nothing); Freemasons; "George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, and Kris Kristofferson." (is this one referring to David Icke's "Babylonian Brotherhood"?); ...etc. DewiMorgan 03:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Korean air flight KAL 007 wasn't a global conspiracy theory, the person who added it gave no reason why it might be. It was just an event during the cold war, if somebody has written a conspiracy theory based on the incident it should be cited, because without that its just not a theory, its an event. Colin 8 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree - there's almost 2,000 words in the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the Wikipedia page on Korean air flight KAL 007 - I really think that's sufficient grounds to have it mentioned here.

On the other paw, I'm less convinced about Elvis deserving a place, for instance.

The edits made to add explanations are really cool, though. DewiMorgan 07:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AIC

Denizz, I am stopping this edit war now. Wikipedia policy states that edit conflicts must be discussed on the talk page, and since you have refused, I have taken the initiative. First of all, none of the sections in this article are named after their main proponent, so there is no reason why this should be the exception. Second, advertisements are not allowed on Wikipedia and providing a place where the book can be bought is clearly an infringement on that policy, as well as being completely irrelevant. Third, you gave no valid reason as to why you put the general section description at the bottom, rather than the top. All this does is making the article look sloppy and hard to understand. I am hoping you are willing to discuss this, but if you continue to ignore discussion I will seek moderation. The Myotis 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Myotis, I was waiting for an explanation for your reverts, I think you have broken 3RR now, only after that you are giving an explanation. The previous version included a lot of false claims and I got rid of them. Certainly we can change the title (get rid of Samuel Weems), or we can change Amazon.com references and say popular websites selling books, I think those will be good improvements. Please revert your own revert and make those changes. deniz^T_C 06:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you will see that my two of my three recent edits to the section were not reverts, I simply moved around some information and eliminated some irrelevant information, acceptable neutralifying. Second, there is no real reason to say that the book is available anywhere. You can get virtually any book ever written at Amazon.com, everything from the Halo novels to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you believe that its sale at this website legitimizes it, you are mistaken. And I did not see any false claims on the original; only one statement even seemed debatable. Now, I would like to hear your explanation(s). The Myotis 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They are reverts of my edit. Part of my edit was moving information around, and eliminating irrelevant information, you reverted them, there might have been some edits in between but they did not do anything to this part. You broke the 3RR rule, I just want you revert on your own. If you say that whether the book is available somewhere is irrelevant, we can maybe reach a consensus there. Anyway please revert yourself, since you have broken 3RR and then I will make my edits. deniz^T_C 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First Denizz, if you would mind look at my last edit, you will see the only thing I did was remove the Amazon.com reference and shift a part of the new title. I did not even move the paragraph back, nor did I eliminate reference to Weems in the title. If you are trying to gain legal superiority over me using the three-revert rule, you have a poor case, particularly considering how you ignored my pleas for discussion initially. But the point of the talk page, and the reason I asked you to use it in the first place, was not to get into ad hominem arguments, a technique reserved for those whose claims lack backing, but to find a policy-acceptable consensus. Now, can we agree (to ensure conformity in the article) that though Weems may be a major contributor to the theory, his name does not need to be in the title? As almost every book ever written in English is available at Amazon.com, can we agree that it is not a significant piece of data and should be left out? What I would like you to explain to me is why you believe the section introduction should be at the bottom of section, rather than at the top. Also, to prevent future edit wars, I would like a complete summary of whatever edits you are planning on contributing before you add them to the article.The Myotis 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The first three are definitely reverts, and the fourth one might be considered a revert as well, in my opinion. Also, you were asking me to discuss on the talk page, without you discussing first, and without you telling the reasons for your reverts/edits first. Like I said before, I was waiting for you to discuss here. If we are not supposed to give any reasons for our edits, the we shall not give any, as usually the reason is basically just to improve the article. But if you insist on seeing reasons, that might mean there are possibly other reasons. I would rather have you first state those (your?) reasons, so I waited. Like I said I was going to edit my version as well, but since I thought you breached a rule, I was waiting for you to undo that by reverting yourself. Note that, I made changes as well while "reverting" and called it a revert, as I think that still counts as a revert. My edit will be similar to your last version, except that I would add one line (being sold in popular (online) bookstores). So you have three reverts + 1 edit (or revert). deniz^T_C 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The first of three edits of which you (assumedly) refer to happen on different days, not all on the same, and the first edit was reverting a edit that had been added several days earlier. And when a person ask you to discuss your edits, but does not specify a thread to discuss it in, it does not mean you should you keep editing without the requested discussion. Again, where the book is available is irrelevant. I don't know of a single other article that tells you where to buy the described book, but if you can find one, please show me. Also, I would like to (again) ask the point of moving the introduction to the bottom.The Myotis 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it is last 24 hours, not in a calendar day. I think, where the book is available is relevant. I think it is better to keep the Azerbaijan part down there, it is not an introduction. We might need rewording. We might also need to try to match the wording here and on the main article for the book. Please check my edit. deniz^T_C 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to tone down Azerbaijan, after all, I have reason to believe that such theories are most prevalent (and most intense) there, though I don't think that Azerbaijan was in the original introduction (I think parts of the introduction were merged with another paragraph). Also, for article conformity, I am going to remove Weems' name from the title. I still think where the book is available is irrelevant, as is the modern day all books are available online. But, since it seems very important to you, I will ignore it.The Myotis 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

....seriously, after the first accusation, you should have called in a third party to examine the case. Wasting so many paragraphs arguing over who broke 3RR first accomplishes nothing but looking silly.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Common flaws

I have found three common (but not universal) flaws in conspiracy theories. Firstly, people are often claimed to be motivated by things that would not actually motivate them. People are said to be motivated by ideas they really don't embrace, truly unbribable persons are said to be motivated by money. The only reason the adherents have for the motives are the supposition that they are the norm for the group the claimed conspirators belong to. Consequently, the claimed motives says more about the prejudices of the conspiracy theorists than the people accused for conspiracy.

Secondly, it is common for conspiracy theorists to assume a superhuman success rate. Appearantly, they fail to realize that experts and those in power are exactly as clumsy and “unforesighted” as themselves, their families and friends. (With “unforesighted” I mean the opposite of foresighted.) Experts may have rare knowledge and skills but they are as failable as anyone else within their area of work. The fact that someone have the power to affect the lives of many people does not mean that person is superior in any intrinsic sense. It only means that person has the ability to get where he or she is. There is only two exceptions to the rule. One is when someone has inherited his or her power. The other is when persons in charge has been appointed by political leaders for reasons irrelevant for their performance. In such cases you can't expect any special competence at all.

Third, conspiracy theorists tend to vastly overestimate the possibility to keep something secret. As more people know something as harder it gets to keep secret. Many conspiracy theories would have required hundreds or even thousands of people to keep quite. The adherents usually argue that they where bribed or treated to silence. However, bribes would have been visible as lots of unexpected money. Furthermore, life treats does not work on people which knows that they are dying. Similarly, evidence might be found in property left by the supposed conspirators. Worse, there might be enemies with the ability to find out the truth by themselves. The Soviet Union would easily had known if there was a “Moon Hoax”. Some argue that the Soviet government was bribed with shipments of grain. But I wonder if it had even been possible considering how little the superpowers trusted each other. Also, it would had made the conspiracy even larger since the public did not know about any such shipments. I bet many conspiracy theorists never thought about people giving themselves away by mistake. If I am right it probably has something to do with their tendency to see hidden agendas where no agendas exists.

2008-08-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

A conspiracy theory (as opposed to a real conspiracy) matches what I call the DeAngelis-Novella postulates. Conspiracy theories have three features

1) An evil side with incredible access to technology and power. They can command hundreds of thousands of people, whole governments, make the most obscure records simply vanish, but they also make very primary fundamental errors allowing others to discover their conspiracy.

2) The sheeple. The dupes. The people being led to the slaughter. They don't know they're being taken advantage of. Sometimes they're made aware but they prefer their ignorance.

3) The Army of light. These are the people who have noticed the primary, fundamental errors by the evil conspiracy and work tirelessly to expose it.

Real conspiracies tend to lack one or more of these features.

Mindme (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple. The “primary fundamental errors” you mention as discovered by conspiracy theorists are often not errors at all. The conspiracy theorists just think they are errors because they have the wrong ideas of how things work. Thus their arguments are based on misconceptions. Anyway, the differences between conspiracy theories and real conspiracies can be quite enlightening.

2009-01-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Armenian International Conspiracy

The "Armenian International Conspiracy" was obviously written by a biased Turk or Azeri. If your going to include that nonsense then you might as well also include Anti-Armenian and Anti-Hellenic conspiracies similar to the Anti-Serbian conspiracy.--Waterfall999 08:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see how it is any different than the Jewish conspiracy article directly below it. It is not meant to represent 'the truth', of course, just represent what many Azeris and Turks beleive.The Myotis 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sam Weems should not be mentioned on this page, because he is not a scholar. He does not hold any history degrees. A huge Genocide denialist, he was quoted as saying, "Isn't it past time for all you to just go to Armenia and stay there? Just go home!"

Weems is a disbarred lawyer from Arkansas, not a historian or scholar, so his work regarding Armenians cannot be treated as significant. On this basis I am deleting the section on Armenian International Conspiracy. Crazyarmo1 (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of conspiracy theories. You do not need to be 'taken seriously' to be a conspiracy theorist, in fact, that is one of the defining features of a conspiracy theory (otherwise, it would be considered an valid historical theory). I understand that Mr. Weems was a biased and inaccurate individual, but I see why that. As far as I know, Jewish World Domination theories, Reptilians,and goverment black helicopter theories were also were created by people without any real credentials, in fact, some don't even have authors. By your standards, would have to remove all theories without a since academic source, which would probably blank the page. Otherwise, your removal of the text is baseless and will be reverted. The Myotis (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair. I do think it is relevant to give information about where and how commonly the conspiracy is believed.Crazyarmo1 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to list americas Theories!

I would just like to state america has some Conspiracy theories your article does not state. trcole123 15:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Spain

11March conspiracy theory is not this way. Only few people, all from the opposition talks about conspiracy. The Judgements have come to an end days ago: there is no evidence (nor testification, nor artifacts) which supplies the theory (I repeat: ANYTHING). In any moment these few pople accused the gouvernament to be guilty; they only said "it was ETA, not other; perhaps, in partner with Al-Quaeda". The only accusation to the gov. is about not to colaborate with the "investigation"; they also (not only "a soft version". I said ALSO) said the police, and the intelligence boureau, covered up the "real autorithy of the crime", using his knoledge in order to win the elecction 3 days after. This way they try to say spanish people is barely-intelligent because they vote thinking "¿who is the best (!!!)fortune-teller in this monstruos game?"

--

I know the facts cause I was here... about the judgements, the official investigations, the acusation, and the people's words and (in part) feelings.

--

La teoría de la conspiración del 11 de marzo no es como la pintan en este artículo. Únicamente unas pocas personas la apoyan, desde los sectores más radicales de la oposición. Los juicios han llegado a su fin hace muy poco, y no hay pruebas, ni testigos, ni objetos físicos que hayan apoyado la acusación (con esto quiero decir NI UNO). En ningún momento, como se dice en el artículo, la oposición ha acusado al gobierno de ser autor material de los crímenes; solo decían que era ETA, y nadie más, a no ser que fuese como colaborador. La única acusación al gobierno fue de no colaborar en esta investigación y también decían (pero ni mucho menos se trata de una versión suave, sino que es LA única versión que daban) que tanto la policía como los servicios de inteligencia habían ocultado pruebas y habían malinformado a los medios del partido (por aquel entonces PP) para asegurarse la victoria al "haber acertado, casualmente, cuando luego se vio la evidencia" 3 días después. De este modo, el pueblo español debe ser todo imbecil, por votar en base a "qué candidato es capaz de ganar tan grotesca quiniela"...

---

About Charles II "the bewitched" (always ill because of Satan, thought the Spaniards) He was not retarded. It's true that he never was educated, because they thougt "his majesty could die tomorrow" (he were not health). He do not died young (39 years old). -- Sobre Carlos II "el hechizado" (llamado así por el pueblo que veía en la brujería su continuo malestar), no era retrasado, sí de poca educación dada la poca fe que tuvieron en que sobreviviera, y ni mucho menos murió joven, pues vivió hasta los 39, que por aquella época no estaba tan mal, aunque fuese un Rey.

---

I would correct it by myself by I think is better let it to an English expert. Thank you very much.

Lo corregiría yo mismo pero prefiero dejarlo a un experto en el idioma. Gracias.--80.34.208.44 14:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why only conspiracies not accepted by the mainstream?

If this is an NPOV list of conspiracy theories, where are the theories that are accepted by the mainstream and why are the theories listed here only examples of fringe theories? Historically accepted conspiracy theories -- such as Watergate, the Catilinarian conspiracy, the Pisonian conspiracy, the Amboise conspiracy, or the Ohio Gang conspiracy. If this is a list of fringe conspiracy theories then call it what it is. If it is a neutral list of conspiracy theories, fringe and mainstream, then list examples of both. Oneismany 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist

could somebody please write an article on the documentary Zeitgeist released in 2007. I do not have the knowledge to create a page, or one of the calibre this movie/documentary deserves. This is an amazing film, which is free to watch at zeitgeistmovie.com, and is a mind blowing presentation of how governments use fear and panic to manipulate the populace. I believe it is essential viewing for any free thinking cultured human being and needs a page to further knowledge about it as well as create a base for discussion. I am using this area because i believe i may be able to contact like minded people who believe that truth should be taken as the authority, not authority taken as the truth Gerald121 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Xiutwel has created one here, but it was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. A brief follow-up discussion on this AfD is here. Corleonebrother 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

...really? Are we talking about the movie that implies that those during the Renaissance who introduced paper money foresaw the creation of the Internet? Or the incredibly discredited Horus/Jesus myth? Or that somehow the much-hated Bush administration managed to convince all of their political enemies to keep a secret that would ensure instant win for these same enemies if released?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Protocols of Elders of Zion is "Factual"?

No source is ever given for the claim that "independent investigations have found the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be a factual document" and in fact, numerous researchers have found it to be a plagairized forgery.

In lieu of any documentation of the statement as it stands, I've edited the sentence.

Kamandi 09/03/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.30 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact, not conspiracy

"During the 20th century the United States has also often been accused of plotting foreign coups d'état for commercial interest"

This is fact, the page gives the impression that this is not truth. It is common knowledge that America has had a hand in manipulating middle eastern governments for financial gain. Just look at the Shah and the history of Dr. Mossadegh in Iran. This should be rephrased.

--ArminHammer 03:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean fact, not theory. All the 'there are no more conspiracies to be discovered' propaganda has really got to you eh? --Stax68 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is correct. The coup in 1953 was carried out by the CIA and MI6; the United States actually made its first official recognition and apology for overthrowing Iranian democracy in 2000. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

jew dominated wikipedia suppresses world domination by jews!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! etc.

the section on world domination by jews is pretty slender, focusing as it does on the protocols. there's so much rich material out there.... not even a mention of the freemasons, let alone the rotary club? i'll fatten it up if nobody else does before i get around to it. Gzuckier (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bush/Iraq War - Fact, not theory?

The line reads; "Iraq War - There persist theories that US President George W. Bush purposefully lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq to initiate a war and seize Iraqs oil assets for either his or his associates' personal gain. (although some consider this fact and not theory)"

Isn't this is any conspiracy theory? There are people who beleive what they believe is fact and theory. Is there a point of this being included? Just a though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.215.236 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that there really two types of conspiracies. These are legitimate conspiracies comprised of two or more people who act within concert with each other. Watergate is an obvious example. But there's also a second type of conspiracy theory that is more of a narrative fictional genre (similar to urban legend) which engages in non-scientific (if not fanciful) explanations of commonly held events. 9/11 as "an inside job", bigfoot and alien shape shifting reptilians fall under this second category. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I once thought 9/11 was a simple case of, caveman flies plane into building and building falls down. From looking at it closely and realising that the only 3 steel framed buildings in history to fall from fire fell on that day and only 2 were hit by planes and they fell like a house of cards perfectly back into the pack, I think it is rather naive to put the 9/11 theory in the big foot basket. There are numerous credible people that don't buy it and all they have to gain is a 'nutjob' label. Paul Craig Roberts don't buy it, 6 out of 10 of the 9/11 comissioners are on record saying somethin is fishy about the whole thing, over 1000 architechts and engineers are seeking answers as their expertise tells them that buildings don't fall like that unless they are purposely demolished and there are plenty more that won't get air time in the lovely unbiased free press you guys have in the U.S.. Your patriotism clouds you're judgement. Be honest with yourself and actually seek out some research done by true independants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.57.17 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Total aside, but I have to say I find it hilarious that on pages like this, inevitably there is someone who comes on and posts that while they 'agree with the list of theories, the one conspiracy THEY believe is not a theory at all but absolute fact so should not be included'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.152.95.1 (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The immediately previous, caustic and useless remark ("Total aside, ...")comes from this IP address, 152.152.95.1, is registered to NATO Headquarters and may be shared by multiple users.

The entire list-entry should be deleted or, if it must be kept, it should, strictly, only list the name of the "theory" with a link. There are no commonly agreed upon and universal guidelines for inclusion/exclusion - it's very arbitrary - and perhaps even punitive. Just the existence of the list has connotations for anything on the list. Some of the entries go into excessive detail which should be limited to that entries own page. Waterflaws (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite

This article at the moment is very messy - it can't decide whether its a list or prose, categorized by type or region. There is duplicate information and WP:WEIGHT issues because of the poor structure. I saw this and thought it had great potential if someone was willing to make a major rewrite, and so I have done just that. To summarize my changes:

• I have unified the whole article, splitting by type of conspiracy, not region.
• I have converted meaningless lists into descriptive prose.
• I have added numerous links to subarticles where they exist, and references (or tags) for where there is no subarticle.
• I have added other conspiracy theories that I came across on wikipedia while doing the above.
• I have expanded some sections and reduced others to address WEIGHT issues, and removed duplicate occurrences of the same theory.
• I have removed a few theories that were particularly non-notable and uncited.
• I have re-written the intro to better explain what the article is about.

There is still much to be done but I think it is a start. If you have any questions about this re-write, please ask. Thanks, Corleonebrother (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What qualifies?

If a conspiracy theory has been verified, such as the Dreyfus Affair, or ULTRA, does that disqualify it from this article? If verified conspiracies are to be included, they should be very obviously separated from those that have not been accepted by mainstream media.Dscotese (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, verified ones should be allowed, but in a separate section --Sauronjim (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of coverups, like the Branch Davidians/Waco Texas incindent

Do these not also fall under the banner of "conspiracy theories?" There was a documentary on Waco put out by some anti-government group alleging a coverup of intentionally murdering the Branch Davidians. swain (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy Grail/Da vinci Code

I'm surprised the whole Holy Blood, Holy Grail thing hasn't been included in the list. Thanks to the popularity of The Da Vinci Code, it would have to be one of the best known conspiracy theories of the past 10 years, fitting into New World Order or Secret Society categories, or anyone of several, really. Sure, there's serious, possibly conclusive evidence its based on a hoax, but it is popular. Ka-ru (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A good decision

I am sure it is a good decision to keep this article alive. All we have to do is just tidy it up. After all, consipiracy theories do exist, and beliving it or not is an individual choice. However, we have to keep a check that no wierd imaginations of people are included in this page. NocturnalA6 2.7 (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Pre Twentieth Century Conspiracies?

Why is there nothing from before the 20th century. What about the illuminati? What about the French Revolution conspiracies with Freemasons? What about the Jewish conspiracies before the Protocols? Weren't they accused of everything from trying to enslave Christians to starting the plague? What about the Jesuits and Monita Secreta?--TheGreatArchitectOfTheUniverse (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets delete the Jesus hoax section

This section lacks any sources, reliable or otherwise. All we are told is that 'popular teaching' among Muslims is that Jesus didn't die on the cross. While I accept that Islam does teach Allah would not let one of his holy prophets die in such a cruel way, I don't believe it belongs in a list of conspiracies.

Firstly, as already mentioned on the discussion page, this article seems to ignore all substantiated and accepted conspiracy theories. The accepted view of millions of people around the world does not fall easily within this category.

Secondly, a conspiracy alleges some sinister act of wrong doing by a group of individuals. The benevolent rescue of an innocent man hardly falls into this category. Similarly omnipotent divine beings are not really possible perpetrators of conspiracies in the legal sense (not being human and subject to the laws of man).

Thirdly, why stop at Islam? One could argue all religions are based on conspiracies? Jesus was a patsy put to death for a crime he did not commit, betrayed by a cabal which included one of his most important followers and members of the clergy all bent on manipulating the Roman authorities to killing him for them to further their own purpose! Similarly every brand of Protestantism could be interpreted as a reaction against the conspiracy that took Christianity away from the true path by the powers that be. These points could be argued. These things may be true. However, this point would qualify as original research and there are other forums on the internet for innovate thought besides Wikipedia.

Fourthly, the whole article is a mess but, in my opinion, this section is the biggest culprit.

Along a similar lines though there is a short BBC documentary called Did Jesus Die on the Cross? [1] Some authors suggest that Jesus didn't die but went on to minister in Kashmir where he continued the work he did in the Holy Land. If the primary sources were researched this would make a much more interesting and valid addition to the list. Similarly, the conspiracy movie The Power of the Ring [2] references other works which throw a more conventional conspiratorial view on the origins of religion.

I can see absolutely no point to keeping this section of the article as it currently stands so unless anyone can convince me otherwise I will delete it in a week time.--TheGreatArchitectOfTheUniverse (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inteligent design/creationism

ID/Creationism should be on here somewhere. They believe there is a massive cover-up in academic world, which they call "big science". They believe anyone who disagrees with evolution is being systematically thrown out of universities. See the wiki pages on Expelled (the movie), intelligent design, and the evolution / creation controversy for more info. Xep (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a good topic and many sources are readily available if this has not already been addressed.

Madrid bombings

The article says the alleged conspiracy involves "socialist government officials (in the opposition since 13th March)". In fact, the government until 13th March was the right-wing People's Party (Spain), who were replaced on Mar 13 by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Was it socialist officials (in opposition until 13th March) or right-wing officials (in opposition since 13th March)? There are no references to external sources for this section of the article, so it's hard to tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

False Flag attacks.

The tone and wording of the heading paragraph of this section implies that the listed events are "believed" to be examples of false-flag events, when a few of the events are KNOWN to be examples of false flag activities. These are: 1. The Reichstag fire. This is generally accepted by historians as the prime example. 2. The provocation of and lack of adequate response to the Pearl Harbor attack. Supported by History Channel documentaries.

96.227.104.116 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the Reichstag Fire was a false flag attack or committed by a Dutch communist is still debated by historians. The fact is that no one really knows for sure. So, it's definately not a KNOWN example.

Pearl Harbor wasn't in any way, shape or form a false flag attack. I think you might have misunderstood the term 'false flag'. False flag would mean that American troops dressed up in Japanese uniforms, flew Japanese planes from Japanese air craft carriers and attacked the Pearl Harbor. The provocation of and lack of adequate response, even if true, has nothing to do with false flag attacks. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theories about Hitler

What about the idea to add a section about the conspiracy theory of Hitler´s escape ?: Some months ago, an article Theory of Hitler´s escape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theory_of_Hitler%C2%B4s_escape) was deleted, bacause it was a conpiracy theory. Wouldn´t here be the right place? As far as I understood it, the article was an original research and some newspaper articles were given as sources. Indeed, after World War II, some American newspapers wrote some articles about this topic (American Press, American Independant, I s´ppose January or February of 1947). If you go to google and search for "Hitler+conpiracy theory", or Hitler, in relation to Operation Highjump, you find many matches. The myth that he had escaped to Antarctica exists. The webpage www.hitlersescape.com deals with that topic, as well. So, this theory exists.......wouldn´t be here the right place to add this conpiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.185.234.93 (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer virus theory

There's also a theory that computer viruses are created by the anti-virus companies themselves in order to rip off the consumer and make money. Shouldn't that be in the article? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, yes.--THobern 08:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

There's also a conspiracy (or 10,000) about the suppression of perpetual motion machines.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

False Flag Operations

From the article: "False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities." I removed a number of items that were clearly not false flag operations (Pearl Harbor, USS Liberty, etc.). Please, understand what the term 'false flag' means before adding them to the false flag section otherwise they will be removed again. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss-understand the intent of the list. It's point is to simply bring these theories together not advocate for their historicity. The article title is Conspiracy Theories not Conspiracy Facts. If someone believes that Pearl Harbor was a false flag incident and it can be sourced than it should be on the list. --Adam in MO Talk 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding what the term 'false flag' means. For example, with Pearl Harbor, false flag would mean that American troops dressed up in Japanese uniforms, flew Japanese planes from Japanese air craft carriers and attacked the Pearl Harbor. The provocation of and lack of adequate response, even if true, has nothing to do with false flag attacks. The attack on USS Liberty, even if intentional, would still not be a false flag attack, unless say it was Soviets dressing up in Israeli uniforms. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the one who is confused. The best sources indicate that the attack on the USS Liberty was a collaboration between Lyndon Johnson and some of his subordinates with some people in positions of power in Israel. The purpose of the attack was to sink the ship and to blame the attack on Egypt as a pretext for a U.S. attack on Egypt to counter Soviet influence in the region. One Israeli pilot recognized the American flag on the ship, refused orders to attack it, returned to Israel and was immediately arrested. The plot was interrupted by inaccurate American radio transmissions which scared the Israelis off, along with the appearance of a Soviet warship which would have witnessed further mischief. Wowest (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if true, that's still not a false flag operation. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It was precisely a false flag operation. The Israelis used unmarked war planes, in violation of international law, with the clear intention of pretending that the ship was sunk by Egypt. The American flag was clearly visible, and reported on the radio by some of the Israeli pilots who were told to attack anyway. See this:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/516.html Wowest (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israelis used unmarked war planes.

Even if true, that's still not a false flag operation. In fact, if that was true, it would prove that it was NOT a false flag operation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, unless you have some reliable sources that explicitly states that, it doesn't belong in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

List of conspiracy theories #Water fluoridation discussed at length one particular conspiracy theory (the Fluoride Deception theory), using language making it appear that Wikipedia endorsed the theory. Instead, the section should briefly mention all the water fluoridation conspiracies out there, with due weight, and without appearing to endorse any of them. The section should use reliable sources about fluoridation conspiracy theories, instead of directly citing works made by the proponents of the theories. I made this change to try to do that. Eubulides (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Political corruption vs. conspiracy theory

I can't pinpoint what the difference is between alleged political corruption and an alleged "conspiracy". Is there a difference at all, apart from that "conspiracy theories" seems to be synonymous to "alleged false claims of political corruption"? If not, Polical corruption and Conspiracy theory could be merged, thus removing the entire basis for this page. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

People need to read WP:EL - no forums, myspace type sites, etc. A number of the links were broken. Some seemed there only to promote the website. One you had to log into first. Links should be "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article". Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

'real' conspiracies

should there be a section with 'real' conspiracies, previously thought to be only 'theories'?

for example, most likely among numerous assassinations, there may be few resulted from real conspiracies. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this page deals with conspiracy theories, not actual plots. To include ‘real’ conspiracies would cloud the issue as to what is an accusation and what is a proven fact. More importantly (given some recent edits) should a conspiracy be excluded because the group involved denies the claim?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Real bad page - unfortunately

I consider this page to be a candidate for deletion (yes, I read the above). While the idea is good, and having a listing of "current" (or some other definition more useable than just 'conspiracy') would be useful, the present structure of the page is functionally useless due to incompleteness.

With very little trouble, every controversial event, or death of controversial figure (no matter how old or drug burnt) can create an arguable conspiracy (try Silkwood for a classic example of a drugged out whack job who MUST have been murdered because she had found mistakes in some paperwork).

Conspiracy theories are the classic, "You cannot prove a negative". No matter how hard you look, the rejoinder is always, "you haven't looked in the right place yet".

I wonder how many "conspiracy" theories we could get out of 4,000 years of Chinese history?Aaaronsmith (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, if improvements needed either tag or edit. Kasaalan (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit neutral, part of me thinks that this is a rather silly page full of rather silly paranoia but part of me thinks that this gives a useful overview of what a lot of people believe to be true. Moreover to say a page should be deleted because of incompleteness seems to me a weak argument, the point of a wiki article is that we can all improve it by adding material and sources. As such I agree in that respect with the last poster, if the page has faults improve it, don’t delete it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nerve Gas used on Palestinians

This claim doesn't just come from the Palestinians but from western observers simultaneously observing and filming in Gaza and the West Bank Interview with James Longley, Transcripts of selected interviews with witnesses, Map of the filming locations of "Gaza Strip", Weekly Report on Israeli Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, MediaMonitors, the Israeli poison gas attacks, Response to criticism of "Gaza Strip", FSTV Interviews James Longley, Dr. Helen Bruzau of Medecins Sans Frontieres. Vale of Tears Jonathan Cook reports on gas attacks in the West Bank, Traces of poison Israel's Dark History revealed, Israels Anti-Civilian Weapons, 1998 interview with The London Sunday Times, a former IIBR biologist, Human Rights Watch The Israeli Militarys Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing. 86.159.242.30 (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, the anonymous poster of the above has made exactly one posting - this one.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is proper under conspiracy theory since it sounds more serious than that, yet especially some links are can't be ignored RS sources

• http://www.littleredbutton.com/gaza/framework.gif
• http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/528/re3.htm
• http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/W_report/English/15-02-2001.htm
• http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/iopt0605text.pdf
• http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1056

It may even be as a standalone article (tough with proper title like "Nerve Gas on Palestinians Controversy"). I didn't read the content. You may request an article from Project Palestine, Project Israel or Project Palestine-Israel Collaboration. Kasaalan (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this rather nicely puts into focus the issue of what should be included on this page. None of the sources say there is a conspiracy; just that Israel has used (but denied using) chemical agents.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/iopt0605text.pdf makes no mention no nerve gas as far as I can find.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I read a couple of the above. No mention of nerve gas.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=1056 metioned nerve gas.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. "Alleged" nerve gas, "New York Times" AND hydrogen sulfide - even if used - ain't nerve gas and you can smell/identify it a mile away and days afterward.Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But there is a mention that it has been alleged they did use it, thank you for agreeing that it is present. However we are not here to discuse if the occupation forces used nerve gas to kill schoolgorls (or any one else) but if tehre is a conspiracy involved. Which tere does not appear to be.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New World Order

Under the heading "Official Conspiracy Theories" I think it would be worth noting that presidents since GHW Bush to Obama, as well as British officials, have used the phrase 'New World Order' many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.44.120 (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[Jewish] world domination

I've edited the punctuation of this "title" in the List because "world domination" is never qualified - though it's used only against the Jews. other (legitimate) usages are covered by imperialism. Also, I've linked the title to world domination. But the latter may be deleted - as it should be - since it involves substantial original research. Nevertheless, I think world domination should probably be re-directed to this list, after the article is deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis conspiracy theories?

I was surprised that this article didn't mention the many conspiracy theories relating to Atlantis (unless some of the articles it links to are the Atlantis conspiracy theories). I don't know a lot about those theories, but I thought they deserved a mention. Bookworm66 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What conspiracy theory? Who is conspiring to hide Atlantis? Auntie E. 16:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The conspiracy general involves the pure existance/denial of existance of Atlantis, which is supposedly a superculture. This evidence ignores the fact that it has the most generic name ever, as fitting something made up to represent an ideal society by an ancient greek philosopher. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that people sometimes confuse conspiracy theory with fringe theory or pseudoscience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming Hoax

There is a conspiracy theory, or even a whole bunch of theories concerning climate change. Many think that some world leaders intend to get a control other world economy by promoting legislative measures for reducing emission of greenhouse gases.

On the other hand, many climate activists say that oil and gas corporations spend a lot of money to prevent such measures (though this seems to be true).

So we definetely should write a new section.

A man without a country (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bilderberg Group

I think the conspiracy theories regarding the Bilderberg Group should be mentioned on the article. Any objections? John Hyams (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Already has a mention in the NWO section and a see also as a secret society. I hope this isn't an attempt to get Jesse Ventura's stuff mentioned if you can't get it into the Bilderberg article. If you will look at this article, most entries just have one line, and Bilderberg has two mentions. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Biological warfare

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (= mad-cow disease), Anthrax, Swine influenza, Avian influenza (= bird flu), AIDS, SARS, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and Ebola. Böri (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Health care conspiracies

Can an experienced editor add the conspiracies that spread about death panels(Theory originating from Betsy Mccauhey) in the health care debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.210.80 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about intelligent design?

This page is seriously lacking. There is a conspiracy that the government and state sponsored schools actively work to censor people who believe in creationism/ID. but it is not mentioned here. Along with anti-vax movement and chemtrails on airplanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.210.80 (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bali Bombing conspiracy needs to be added under false flag ops.

here's the 10 part series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SYSwfApjM8&feature=PlayList&p=E468DAFB6187B9AA&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.137.192.66 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Project Bluebeam

This theory is out there, it may be worth inclusion in this article. John Hyams (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Revolution Islam Conspiracy Theory

Apparently after Revolution Islam was exposed by CNN a lot of Muslims concocted the conspiracy theory that Abdulla Younus is actually a covert Jew in the Anti Defamation League which apparently has secret Nazi connections and the whole media is being controlled by Jews who are out to make Islam look bad. I know it sounds ridiculous but there are Propaganda Videos alleging it on Youtube and it's appeared on a variety of websites, CNN even interviewed a woman who bought into it. Has anyone run across any good sources, I know Youtube videos and Forum Comments don't qualify but I figure it has to be on a Muslim website somewhere, I just can't seem to come across one. If anyone knows of one I'd appreciate it. --216.228.91.174 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Gladio / Wrong classification

As duly mentioned in the English version of the Gladio article, as well as in the French version, Gladio is not a conspiracy theory but an intelligence stay behind operation that actually existed in several European countries.

Hence it should be taken out of the "conspiracy theory" section of the chart and put in the verified conspiracies list. I just don't know how to do that... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Hudson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Crucifixion of Christ

I added the Crucifixion of Jesus in Religion section. The story does contain conspiracy theory, not very different from many theories of political murders etc. Before hasty deletion I'd like to have a reason (or even good excuse) why it needs to be deleted. I do believe it belong here, because it's in no way proven, yet it deals with very similar issues as most conspiracy theories. It does lack sources, but the theory itself is in the Bible, and I really can't possibly give any sources to it not being proven (that would be silly). I'd add reference to specific verses, but I wasn't sure if typical Bible reference style fits to Wikipedia, or should I link to them. --84.248.54.59 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Now, I don't want to jump in and add this to an obviously somewhat controversial article, but shouldn't we include the conspiracy theories that sprang up in the aftermath of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash? --Divebomb (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Floods 2010 blamed on US/India - relevant?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9110766.stm http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?8681-A-New-Conspiracy-Theory-about-Flood-in-Pakistan http://themoderatevoice.com/83936/no-doubt-india-and-u-s-are-behind-pakistan-flood-disaster-pak-tribune-pakistan/ http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/08/06/pakistan-flood-photos-haarp-fingerprints-found-allover/ http://asiancorrespondent.com/fiverupees/zaid-hamid-blames-floods-on-india-and-afghanistan-%28not-a-joke-promise%29 http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/80032/48324 My question is - how much of this stuff is relevant and accepted in mainstream Pakistani or Indian media (I have yet to research Indian conspiracy theories related to Pakistan, but that should be included as well) or "big enough" to include in the wiki article? I'll take an initial small stab at it. Pär Larsson (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

US Presidency

I've moved the "Clinton Body Count" out of the "Assassination" section. It doesn't belong there because no actual assassinations are involved, only claims that certain deaths were really assassinations secretly carried out on behalf of Clinton.

Another cluster of Presidential conspiracy theories has attached itself to President Obama, so I've added that alongside the Clinton stuff to a new section, "US Presidency". --TS 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The order of conspiracy theories

Why was the list ordered this way? Should be ordered alphabetically or based on date.173.180.214.13 (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I've reverted the following edit.[3] All articles should be properly sourced, including this one. Referring editors to other articles for verification is not how we're supposed to do things. If these other articles have sources, the solution is to copy them to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that's the ideal way to do it, but sometimes we add a note. This has been done on numerous articles. Whatever. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Suggestion

How about the Flat Earth conspiracy? A brief source, more can be found on the forums:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Conspiracy 76.19.4.2 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a secondary reliable source to establish if it's important enough to include in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7540427.stm . 76.19.4.2 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Maralinga nuclear testing

This passage "Contention lingers over the continuing after-effects of secret British nuclear testing at Maralinga, South Australia during the 1950s.[citation needed]"

This was no longer a conspiricy even before wikipedia existed. I think it should be removed. Pierricbross (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Watch this space (Animal Deaths)

The clean-up from the gulf oil spill. Both the oil and the chemical used is a possible reason for all the animal deaths.

The animal deaths themselves could turn out to be a conspircy theory the oil spill one of the theories.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=201817256339889828327.0004991bca25af104a22b (animal death map) http://www.morningliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/EVACUATION_MAP.jpg (map of area of evacution due to chemicals in the air)

But the oil evaporation into the sky and more importantly the chemical Corexit 9500 (used in the clean-up - http://www.lmrk.org/corexit_9500_uscueg.539287.pdf ) are suspected.

You can see on the facebook page "boycott BP" ( http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-BP/11910119810772 ) the growing speculation. BP is doing many of the animal death investigations which will not help (again; unsourced but more will come out on the web as per usual by conspiricy theorists as the story develops)

So this is a watch this space at the moment since there isn't anything more concrete than specualation involved.

Pierricbross (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pink Swastika and the Gay Agenda

I'm pretty sure these fit the criteria for this article, especially now since one of them is such a hotbed issue. 98.225.205.138 (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Die Glocke

If anyone wants to have a semi-plausible theory, the people who edit this article should add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.141.120 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Indian-Polish Conspiracy Theory

Someone should add that. It's a conspiracy theory, according to which Wikipedia is run by a secret society of Indians and Poles.

The supposed evidence: Most of featured articles and pictures, as well as "did you know?", are about either India or Poland.

Edit: Hey, look, another article about India! Coincidence? Duh, duh.

Diana

While discussing Diana's death one of the motivations is listed as ebing due to her desire to convert to Islam and divorce the Prince of Wales. Not sure about the latter, but no-one could possibly count the latter as a motive becassue whe'd already been divorced from him for some time!

Another theory surrounding Diana's death is that she was offed because she came out against land mines. Those that profit did indeed have a motive: to off a charismatic spokesperson that could influence many people. I'm not saying I believe it is true, just that the theory does exist out there.

Paranoia Conspiracies

I found it interesting that there was not a conspiracy theory, or a group of conspiracy theories, that dictated the general effects of true paranoia. I've heard of some wherein we forget all important pieces of information when we sleep and therefore can't know the truth of certain things (this is with out mind control). Another states that every person but one is just a drone, the one knows he is not a drone, and another knows that he is not a drone, but neither can prove that the other is a 'real' thinking person or a 'fake' drone. I have no knowledge of these theories having a name, but if somebody does have a name for these I will put it on the list.

I also believe that just because some people don't believe in a conspiracy doesn't mean that it should be deleted. If one person states one, then it does exist and there is a possibility that somebody believes it.

Cohen quote

"Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important." From a transcript. This quote is taken out of context; in the paragraph in question, the defense secretary is speaking of examples of false threats created to "scare" an agency or other entity. He is not necessarily talking about real threats.

An article cleanup needed?

I think that the article needs a cleanup in terms of particular conspiracy theories (where they're mentioned in it). For example, if for some of them it's "acceptable" (i.e. logical) that they're mentioned in more than one place (e.g. New World Order conspiracy theory mentioned numerous times throughout the article and HAARP related conspiracy theory mentioned under "Suppression of technologies" and "Development of weapons technology" sections), I think that for others (such as Chemtrails related conspiracy theory which has its own sub-section under "Medicine" section and it's also separately mentioned as Chemtrails theory under "Development of weapons technology" section) this is not appropriate.

Uppercase name theory

There is something similar that fringe theorists sometimes claim that isn’t listed here – that there is a special significance to writing a personal name in all uppercase. This is deemed to refer to an entity created by some sinister grouping to mean something like a corporation that controls the person’s affairs, a parallel person created as a legal fiction or a “straw man”, and the theorists will attempt to refuse to deal with such documents, no matter how legally significant they are. The fact that legal texts concerning identities say no such thing is just taken as evidence of how secret the system is. Are there reliable sources discussing this (those that advocate the theory have no real status and could even be wind-ups) that could be used as citations? Billwilson5060 (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is Dominionism listed as a conpiracy?

I'm not very familiar with the subject but it appears like Dominionism is more of a religious-political movement than a conspiracy or a conspiracy theory.68.111.62.64 (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The NBA, it's Referee's, and the Lakers conspiracy in 2002

I believe that the NBA, conspired with the Referees, most notable Tim Donaghy and his alleged co-conspirators James Battista, also known as "Baba" and "Sheep," and Thomas Martino to help the Lakers beat the Sacramento Kings in the 2002 playoffs ensuring a wider television audience and more revenue generated by an extra game 7. Any help adding information and links would be greatly appreciated. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogansheroes5 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Serious work is needed on sourcing

It is inappropriate to list obviously absurd conspiracy theories with those that have a factual basis. This list needs some serious work in regards to sources. The vast majority of these theories are not sourced at all. If nothing else, we should cite each theory to some "loony fringe" website to show that the theory actually exists. Blueboar 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is very little sourcing, but almost all of the conspiracies mentioned here have their own articles (or sections within bigger articles), so the sources for them should be all there. (Looking at the Secret Societies section you have just deleted, you have the Masonic conspiracy theories and Skull and Bones articles, which are partially sourced.) We could bring some of those sources over to here, or just accept that this page is sourced via the respective main pages. I don't know if there are any guidelines for list sort of thing. Corleonebrother 18:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've actually heard people endorsing the allegations within the false flag operations chapter. If I have to find ome lunatic fringe websites a source I just might use them. ----DanTD (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 right-wing conspiracy theories

Top 10 Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories By Alexander Zaitchik, Southern Poverty Law Center Posted on August 15, 2010, Printed on August 23, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/147851/

1.Chemtrails
2.Martial Law
3.FEMA Concentration Camps
4.Foreign troops on US soil
5.Door-to-door gun confiscations
6.9/11 as government plan
7.Population control
8.HAARP
9.Federal Reserve
10.North American Union

We do have: Concentration Camps
Population control
Gun confiscations
Foreign troops on US soil

Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait. I'm confused. How are those "right-wing conspiracy theories?" Are they about the right-wing or propagated by the right-wing? I've never seen these conspiracy theories talked about on conservative forums and websites (other than in mocking them), but I have seen them (and still see them) on left-wing websites like DailyKos, Democratic Underground, etc. 71.49.82.44 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

HAARP, martial law, and the Fed are the only ones on that list I've ever seen brought up by people on the left (and never on any mainstream place like DKos). The rest are exclusively held by extreme libertarians/conservatives/whatever you want to call them. 9/11 "theories" also exist on the left but they're qualitatively different from those on the right, invariably dealing with the government having forewarning of the attacks and choosing not to act or covering up its incompetence, as opposed to wiring the towers with explosives with the help of Mossad, hiding the planes and murdering the passengers separately, and blowing up the towers with disguised cruise missiles (the rightist conspiracy theory). KarlM (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

visit infowars.com to refute this entire page99.232.154.46 (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great American streetcar scandal

Was there an actual conspiracy by General Motors involved or is this just a theory? I noticed that "Reform Judaism" magazine claimed this theory to be true, or something like that. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Source: [4] 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's a popular myth. ----DanTD (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there was such a conspiracy, and it was decided in an American court of law in the affirmative, although no monetary damages were awarded to the plaintiffs. [Internal Combustion: How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives, by Edwin Black, St. Martin's Press, 2006. ISBN: 03-312-35907-1.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.209.62 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

international communist conspiracy

It is inappropriate to list obviously absurd conspiracy theories with those that have a factual basis. Perhaps this could be listed as well. I am somewhat hesitant to change an actual page, other than add on discussion pages, because I am not a registered user and cannot currently register...so. The international communist conspiracy was a phrase used in the US by some people. This phrase was thrown out to cover just about anything and everything the user of said phrase disliked and thus claimed was a communist plot out to conquer the world and destroy the United States ("America" they would have said). This theory also held that the Soviet Union was out to conqueror the world and place all of humanity under one global communist dictatorship headed in Moscow. It is remarkable the number of people who make fun of conspiracy theories but who accepted without question the existence of an International Communist Conspiracy. writes author and former US State Department employee William Blum. http://killinghope.org/aer43.htm (updated date) User:VeriGGlater 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since the publicly stated goal of the Soviet Union was a 'World revolution' in which the entire earth would become a single economically equal socialist state, believing in USSR’s goal of world domination cannot be considered a theory in the strictest sense. If someone truly believed that a specific group within the United States was covertly bringing about cultural change in order to encourage a communist takeover, and published such ideas, then it could be mentioned. But you must cite and source specific examples.The Myotis 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Many historic events attributed at the time to having been run out of Moscow simply were not. User:VeriGGlater 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Specific examples? The Myotis 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Take for example the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This was initiated by the United States. Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted in 1998 that the US was in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet Union. It was the plans of the US to draw them into "the Afghan trap". The Korean civil war. Advisors to NKorea were minimal, according to Korean expert Bruce Cumings. The civil war was not the result of the Soviet Union trying to take over the Korean penninsula or specifically do to communist ideology. Nicaragua in the 1980s, as with most of Latin America was merely sick of being ruled by corrupt oligarchs. The Sandanistas only turned to the Soviet Union for help as the United State's terrorist war commenced. User:VeriGGlater 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong on all three nations. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was in response to the people of Afghanistan's frustration over losing their nation to a Soviet-puppet dictatorship. North Korea was created by the USSR at the end of World War II during the demilitarization of the Axis, and like Germany and Austria, the Soviets used the demilitarization to expand their own power. And the Sandinistas were communists from the moment they were established in 1961. In fact they were inspired by Fidel Castro, and vowed to aid other communist thugs in Central America, such as those in El Salvador, Honduars, Guatemala and such. Where the ide of an international communist conspiracy is truly wrong, is the notion that all communist dictatorships were on the same side 24/7. Yuguoslavia was actually an ally of the Soviets until 1948. The so-called "People's Republic" of China was an ally until 1960, but they still worked together occasionally afterwards even during the "Cultural Revolution." ----DanTD (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

VeriGGlater, are you trying to create a new conspiracy theory, as well as document already existing ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.197.104 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the use of the word "communist thugs" in relation to Latin America. This is not very NPOV. Read up on your Monroe Doctrine, people. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A minor expansion

You guys do realize that every single "fixed": sports event, parking ticket, criminal conviction, civil loss, bribe offered/accepted, etc. qualifies as a conspiracy? And therefor, if there is anyone who thinks this is actually going on, but can't prove it in court, it is "a conspiracy theory".

Real BAD article. Let's just put the thing up for AFD.Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I imagine there would be some dispute over that action, and a large argument about notability. I doubt that the argument would result in this article being zapped, as generally speaking a large enough sub-culture (such as conspiracy-theorists) tends to be considered notable. As such, an article about wide-spread beliefs among conspiracy theorists would also be notable, even if those outside the sub-culture believe all of it lacks credibility. I do think that the article has a thematic coherence, in that it focuses not on instances of simple corruption, but theories about conspiracies that result in death, cover-ups, and/or oppression on a large scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.178.40.169 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 civil war in Libya

Hi! I added the below subsection the other day. It was then removed and all changes reverted. I still believe it's a worthwhile section, mirroring a lot of talks in major and other media during the last couple of months. It's no meant to be WP:OR, and if the wording makes it so, I beg you pardon. Here the section is below, to let you point out what should be changed to make it fit in this article. Many thanks in advance.--Paracel63 (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

——————Proposed subsection to the "War" section——————

2011 civil war in Libya

During the 2011 civil war in Libya, numerous websites and blogs have purported that much is not what it seems to be. Websites such as Above Top Secret and others have brought forward "evidence" that military successes by the Libyan opposition have been mere lies or being conducted by ground troops from NATO countries, Qatar or the UAE. During the August invasion of Tripoli, reports have been spreading that western TV reports have been fabricated en masse in Qatari studio set-ups, citing suspect visual details in these reports by western mainstream media. The western mainstream media is generally discredited and thought to be bought by their "oil hungry" governments (see New World Order and The Grand Chessboard) or being threatened to present lies by secret agents from NATO countries. The Guardian reported in 9 april of the rumours abounding, about the west wanting a divided Libya in order to control its oil

Several of the conspiracy reports have been orchestrated by blogs and websites presenting left-wing policies and/or Russian connections. The Russian Federation has been a fervent criticiser of the NATO operations during the civil war, and multilingual news channel Russia Today has lent their credibility to some of the conspiracy reports. It has been using independent correspondents and known political activists in their reporting from Libya and interviewed controversial figures such as Susan Lindauer.

During the summer of 2011, the spread of these reports has almost gone viral, including using websites such as YouTube for the distribution of these alternative views of current events.

References

——————End of proposed subsection to the "War" section——————

Which of these sources do you consider to meet the requirements of WP:RS and refer to these statements as a "consiracy theory" (see WP:NOR)? None, as far as I can tell, but perhaps you could explicitly list the ones you believe qualify. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

References: so many quotes for no.30, 31 & 32? :-o

Do we really need so many comments/quotes in the references section on one particluar conspiracy theory? All those references to Holocaust denial? I'm referring to references 30, 31 and 32 I'd like to delete them. It feel its an unbalancing of the topic of the article. Anyone else agree or strongly disagree? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be an accepted alternative for quotes in the main text. Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.WP:LONGQUOTE Don't think most readers check the reference section much anyway. DS Belgium (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The quotes are kept in the footnotes for the purposes of verification. There is no rationale for removing them; they cannot "unbalance" the article, as they are footnotes, not in the article itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

After looking more closely, I think there are several objections one could make. At first glance there seem to be few if any WP:INDY sources. One of them, quite ironic in this context, has been called "the preeminent scholar-spokesman of the Revisionist Movement in Zionism" Efraim_Karsh. Some statements about his articles and his book "Fabricating Israeli History", like "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies" and "malevolent" seem to suggest that the title of his book could be taken in more than one way...

So WP:INDY would seem the main objection one could raise. The objectivity of the Lede singling out Holocaust denial could also be challenged btw DS Belgium (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Who said this about Karsh, and how would this be relevant to his statements regarding Holocaust denial? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See Efraim_Karsh, and relevance in view of WP:INDY seems obvious. As it is in the case of Stephen Roth Institute, ADL and JPR. Whether WP:INDY reflects official wikipedia policy is another matter. DS Belgium (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to spell it out, because it doesn't seem to have any relationship to Holocaust denial. Also, non-profit organizations or university institutes that monitor antisemitism would seem to be the most reliable sources one could get on topics like Holocaust denial; would you ban using Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International from being used as a citation on Human Rights issues? In any event, WP:INDY is an essay, so it has no policy implications whatsoever. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective.. leave it in if you like, note that I didnt suggest changing the article (apart from the lede) but rather lose most of the references. And if you think that 60% of the reference section referring to 3% of the article does not suggest bias (or references taking up 10 times the space of the section they refer to), by all means, leave it like that. (numbers estimated by the number of page scrolls) DS Belgium (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Proven Conspiracies

Is there space in this article or on wikipedia for a list of proven conspiracies? I know that they're not technically conspiracy theories if they're considered to be proven but it would be pretty informative to see a list and perhaps even be able to compare them. Perhaps an explanation of the difference would also be helpful to the article. If you're unsure about what type of event I'm thinking about then here is some reading for you; Hitler's attempted pretense for invading Poland and The USA's pretense for expanding it's presence in the Indo China conflicts.--Senor Freebie (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have trouble w that. That would mean we include every single military/political/industrial secret in history. I mean, when the US decided to use nuclears on Japan instead of losing about 12 million Japanese and Americans, was it a conspiracy? Most people would call it a (very) tightly held military strategic decision.Aaaronsmith (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that such a list would include every secret. Before it was publicly known that the Allies had nuclear weapons (most outsiders didn't even know nuclear weapons were theoretically possible), there were no outsiders theorizing that they exist. I think (it would be helpful to find a third-party definition to this effect) that to be a conspiracy theory, there have to be outsiders theorizing it). I haven't heard that e.g. any outsiders were theorizing in 1944 that the U.S. were planning to use nuclear weapons against Japan.

In contrast, outsiders (Woodward and Bernstein) pieced together evidence and anonymous sources to theorize that Nixon was involved in the Watergate break-in, and this conspiracy theory was eventually proven. So I think we can distinguish, and include notable proven conspiracy theories in this list. Superm401 - Talk 06:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominionism

Considering there is actually an existing Dominionist movement with the stated intention of incorporating religion with government and establishing a theonomy, I do not think that Dominionism should be listed as a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfrequed (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

911 was in inside Job - Refer to AE911 (Arquitect & Engineers for 911 Truth) & hundreds of movements in the Web.

911 was in inside Job - Refer to AE911 (Arquitect & Engineers for 911 Truth) & hundreds of movements in the Web. Someone has to investigate & add the "911 Conspiracy Theories" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.176.43 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 is already in the list, under "false flag operations." Sophie means wisdom (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rockefeller Quote

I've seen "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." attributed to David Rockefeller's speech at the U.N. Business Council on September 14, 1994, or some variation on this, all over the Internet. I watched his speech (It can be found at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/60201-1) and he never says anything like this, and yet I have not seen much questioning whether Rockefeller actually said this. It is a little curious as this quotation appears to be a near-direct admission that a New World Order is about to be thrust onto the masses. Perhaps, he made the statement at some other related event or I missed him saying it in the video, but I would be curious if anyone has a verifiable source for this quotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.96.50 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I've listened to it also. He actually says ""This present window of opportunity which during a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built will not be open for too long.Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts" although other sources (eg another web page at the site used for the quote[5] say "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long. We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” (Berit Kjos, “The U.N. Plan for Global Migration,” News with Views, 2006)" I've deleted it, we shouldn't be perpetuating a hoax! Well spotted, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Canard vs myth vs conspiracy

I have been watching the recent content dispute over "canard" vs "myth" vs "conspiracy" for the line in the Antisemitic conspiracy theories section. I reverted Harizotoh9's latest revert of Dougweller, because the two references cited do actually use the term myth, and at any rate, they certainly do not suggest that there is an actual, valid conspiracy. I read the WP:DRN#List of conspiracy theories before deciding to enter into this dispute, and I think it's rather clear that myth is acceptable here. At the least, conspiracy theory would have to be used in place of conspiracy. John Shandy` • talk 05:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I question the legitimacy of the concept "conspiracy theory"

In common usage it is a smear term, not a term used in serious intellectual debate of any theory that outsiders may label a "conspiracy theory".

It's plenty easy enough to dismiss wacky theories on both their merits and their refusal to debate by ordinary rules. A special smear category is hardly needed.

And then, of course, there's wacky theories like "the CIA is behind all the LSD." In the fifties, it was pretty much completely true, but would have been labeled an insane conspiracy theory if voiced at the time. In the sixties, it was less true (i.e. they had serious competition), but it was then a a RECOGNIZED conspiracy theory, although holding it put one far outside the mainstream.

It's just historical fact now. They were then, and later they tapered off and got into other drugs. So when did it QUIT being a conspiracy theory? 24.17.178.36 (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article, and not the subject of the article itself. Many reliable sources describe conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia reflects those sources. If you want to discuss changes to the article along the lines of your viewpoint it would be beneficial to find sources which discuss said viewpoint and suggest changes that incorporate what they say into the article.AerobicFox (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what the first person in this section was doing, discussing the article and the legitimacy of it seeing that everything the masses find out to be factual at a later date, like the CIA's involvement with LSD and then the drug trade were considered conspiracy theories. It was considered a conspiracy theory to speak of the documented involvement of two former US Presidents involved with the CIA running drugs before their tenures in the office. Now it is documented fact that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were running cocaine for the CIA into Arkansas. The same is true with George W. Bush running it into Florida as part of the CIA drug network as well.

Look at Watergate and Climate Gate. It was supposedly a conspiracy theory that Nixon and his White House including Kissinger and Ben Stein were involved in the break in of the Watergate Hotel to gain access to information and documents of the Democratic National Committee which was headquartered there. It was a conspiracy theory that man made global warming is not real but Wikileaks proved otherwise releasing classified internal documents leading to Climate Gate. These documents proved people like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and Barrack Obama were involved in a real conspiracy that was committed to legitimize global warming and the Chicago Carbon Exchange.

It was also considered a conspiracy theory to believe or present the facts of the White House under Obama, the CIA, and DEA were intentionally supplying Mexican drug cartels with arms, explosives, and ammunition in order to try to destroy the Second Amendment. It is now a proven fact they were, and under the law it is considered a conspiracy that all involved should be prosecuted for.

Then look at Pearl Harbor. It was a conspiracy theory to claim that FDR knew about the attack and let it happen when facts that were coming out legitimized this more and more. Now that a lot of them are out close to 7 decades later, it is a historical fact that US military intelligence had cracked both the diplomatic and military ciphers of the Japanese government prior to the attack, FDR let Pearl Harbor happen due to the American people being overwhelmingly against getting involved in WWII, and he made sure only older naval assets were anchored at Pearl. That is why every aircraft carrier and sub stationed at Pearl were all conveniently on maneuvers seeing they were then and are today key components to a modern navy. The only assets anchored at Pearl Harbor during the attack were for the most part pre World War I frigates, destroyers, and battleships that all technologically were in dire need of refits. Even today when presenting all the facts, there are those, especially in the US Government, who try to brand you a conspiracy theorist. I could go on too where supposed conspiracy theories have been proven actual conspiracies on the facts.

I would like to know what "reliable" sources AerobicFox are claiming there are describing or defining conspiracy theories, which Wikipedia is the last example one should be using to strengthen their argument considering most information here is not cited and posted by people who have little clue to what they are speaking about. What he/she is claiming the first person is doing in this section, and is not, is exactly what they are doing instead.

I tried to address this in Talk:Conspiracy_theory#The_lead and my efforts were labeled "rehabilitation". In answer to the question 24.128.21.141 posed:

"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government." (Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"Conspiracy theories as a general category are not necessarily wrong. In fact as the cases of Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair illustrate, small groups of powerful individuals do occasionally seek to effect the course of history, and with some non-trivial degree of success. Moreover, the available, competing explanations--both official and otherwise--occasionally represent dueling conspiracy theories, as we will see in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing." (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" The Journal of Philosophy Columbia University, Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126.)

"A conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)

"There is no a priori method for distinguishing warranted conspiracy theories (say, those explaining Watergate) from those which are unwarranted (say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)" (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" The Journal of Philosophy 'Columbia University, Vol. 96, No. 3. (Mar., 1999), pp. 109-126. (abstract))

"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term."(Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)

Despite these and many other reliable sources the Conspiracy theory article is still POVed towards the lunatic fringe It is ironic that the rationalwiki version of Conspiracy theory is more NPOV then the version here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't this be fixed by sharpening the definition a bit? Most (and maybe all) of the theories here are not merely 'unproven' or 'cannot be proven using the historical method', but live on despite being extensively debunked - i.m.o. the hallmark of 'conspiracy theories'. That, precisely, is where they differ from Watergate or the Dreyfus affair. So, i propose to insert after the word 'consensus' the words 'based on a wide body of factual evidence'. By the way: I agree that 'conspiracy theory' is derogatory. So what: shouldn't we call a hoax a hoax or a lie a lie? Mabelis (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't distinguish well between conspiracy theories that dispute fact (ie "the moon landing was staged") and those that are a matter of perspective (ie "every war is a conspiracy of sorts"). Fix that and you fix the article. --72.205.54.90 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Influenza Vaccine

I see no mention of the flu shot theories, though I believe they are the most widespread vaccination conspiracy theories. Here's a start: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705335679/Dont-fear-the-flu-shot.html SheepEffect (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Phar Lap?

On 19 June 2008, the Melbourne Museum released the findings of the forensic investigation conducted by Dr. Ivan Kempson, University of South Australia, and Dermot Henry, Natural Science Collections at Museum Victoria. Dr. Kempson took six hairs from Phar Lap’s mane and analyzed them at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago. These high resolution x-rays detect arsenic in hair samples, showing the specific difference "between arsenic, which had entered the hair cells via the blood and arsenic, which had infused the hair cells by the taxidermy process when he was stuffed and mounted at the museum".

Kempson and Henry discovered that in the 30 to 40 hours before Phar Lap’s death, the horse ingested a massive dose of arsenic. "We can't speculate where the arsenic came from, but it was easily accessible at the time," Henry said.

livestock including cattle, horses and sheep were dipped, sometimes in arsenic as a pesticide in many areas as a possible explinationJohnvr4 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Obamba Citizenship

"Dual citizenship" description does not cover Hawaii being a sovereign Nation or findings of Justice Dept. United nations, US Law.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.php In 1988, a study by the United States Justice Department concluded that Congress did not have the authority to annex Hawaii by joint resolution. The ersatz annexation was a cover for the military occupation of the Hawaiian islands for purposes related to the Spanish American war. On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. United States Public Law 103-150, despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian people. In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. Johnvr4 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitic conspiracy theories

An IP editor has been edit warring (see [6], [7], [8]) in the Antisemitic conspiracy theories section. Rather than edit warring, the editor is invited to discuss here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Textbooks

There are lots of theories around what is published in textbooks is used to promote Eurocentrism. Textbooks purposely contain untruths in order to promote progression of a Western society. Negative characteristics of American or European "heroes" are never taught in school whereas positive characteristics are promoted to the point that they are too good to be true. War crimes and all negative characteristics about wars are left out of textbooks.

Here is a book on the subject: http://ww2.ramapo.edu/libfiles/CRW/Lies%20My%20Teacher%20Told%20Me.pdf?n=5904 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talgris (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook

This one is very disturbing, but there are conspiracies about Sandy Hook shooting. They say that it never happened. I don't know if this is suitable for Wikipedia, however, as all of these listed theories are obviously fake. BoredomJS (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the so-called Sandy Hook Conspiracies have their own page and the AfD failed due to lack of consensus? (Although I still argue that page should be deleted and pared-down content should be added to this one) --jss 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like BordedomJS didn't know about that article, but that you're interested in a merge. Further discussion at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories#List of conspiracy theories. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It was actually me who asked about a reduced merge on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories#List of conspiracy theories. I have added a link to that article in the See Also section here so at least a reference exists should anyone be as inquisitive as BoredomJS. --jss 20:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(In case it isn't clear, the link was added from List of conspiracy theories#See also to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories). -jss (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

33 missing theories.

I'm wondering why none of the conspiracy theories that turned out to be true are here.

Do a search on "33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true", and you will see what I mean.

Seems to be verifiable referenceable facts to me. Mostly common knowledge...

In light of the omission. I propose another possible conspiracy is added to the list. Regarding Wikipedia's omission of critical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.247 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The lede states that this is "a collection of the most popular unproven theories". If it is proven, then it is no longer a theory. Location (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the title of the article should be changed to reflect that the list is of unproven theories. Theories can exist with or without a commonly accepted proof. Einsteins theory of relativity is an example of a commonly accepted "proved" theory. (edited to add more clarity) --TheHamburger (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In this context, a conspiracy theory does not have a commonly accepted proof. To entitle the article "List of unproven conspiracy theories" would be redundant. Location (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The nature of a theory is that it can't be proved but can only be disproved as there can always be more evidence. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The nature of a theory is also that it is possible to disprove it (i.e. falsifiable). Given that, this article should really be titled "List of unfalsifiable conspiracy hypotheses" or even a less snooty "List of undisprovable conspiracy psuedo-theories".-jss (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory is never falsified -- it's just expanded to include whoever faked the "research" seemingly "proving" it to be "nonsense." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Good science is establishing hypotheses with clearly defined falsifiable parameters followed by painstaking and tireless work to prove oneself wrong. Success is achieved upon complete and abject failure to accomplish this latter goal."-jss (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom's right of course. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

GMO foods

As for the GMO foods conspiracy, I looked into the citations and found nonthing specifying "the overwhelming benefits" of GMO foods. The section's conspiratory nature is valid, as little has been done to prove their harm, but I'm concerned it might be a bit biased. If there are benefits, a citation is needed. 24.60.164.41 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Christian creationism conspiracy theories

The belief that the scientific consensus consists of a grandiose satanic political deception, that scientists are influenced by demons, that any actual evidence of common descent was planted by Satan, after a bet in heaven for sovereignty? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.224.159 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Haitian earthquake conspiracy

The Haitian earthquake conspiracy , the American government instituted a nuclear bomb in haiti for the purpose of expanding the power of the US. ~~ A fellow wikipedia-er149.70.10.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the article and cited with this source. The specific allegation of a "nuclear bomb" would need to be mentioned in a reliable source. Location (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)