Talk:List of conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Trump Russia conspiracy

Hi team, this section needs expanding, and must include that although the evidence for Trump himself colluding with Russia is sparse and tenuous, there is a basis of fact that some of his election team did have meetings with Russians with Putin connections whom have repeatedly lied about the same and that hacking groups with similar ties did target HC as well as Trump to a lesser degree I.e. Plausible deniability, and further bots and the ilk, did the same, through social media channels. Indeed the topics inclusion here may be ok, however it needs to have links/redirects to the articles that detail the actual subterfuge and election meddling that did 100% take place. Note, anyone that uses the terminology "russiagate" to try to minimise this and deflect from the seriousness of this and the actions of Putin's team should not edit this (and any other related article's) as its highly likely a COI2404:4408:205A:4B00:8BD:C177:AACA:961A (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree it needs expanding, maybe in 50 years time when it is no longer news. I agree, however, we need to link to all the relevant articles about the related topics.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I second the move for this article's expansion, re: the original poster's explanation. This section, far more than any other, currently reads as minimizing allegations rather than neutrally discussing a conspiracy theory.2601:196:201:259F:8C13:8F61:9EBB:A876 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The arguments above are for why this does not belong here and why this entry should be removed. The main allegations of Russian interference have been verified. That is not a conspiracy theory, but allegations which proved to be true. Some unproven allegations in the dossier hardly qualify as conspiracy theories. They are as yet unproven, but still highly probable, allegations that explain events which did happen. They have not been disproven.

The real conspiracy theory is that told by skeptic Stephen F. Cohen, as well as Trump, Putin, and Russian intelligence. They claim there was no Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Russiagate is described by a skeptic as "...the Russiagate allegation of a Kremlin “attack” on the United States." (From book review of Cohen's book.) Cohen, Trump, and some others are skeptics of this allegation. To them, it is not a fact that Russia interfered in the election. They claim it's a false allegation made by American and many foreign intelligence agencies. They only believe Russian intelligence and Putin, IOW they believe the guilty parties. They are pushing a conspiracy theory, and that is what belongs here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Like calling the mainstream media fake news... —PaleoNeonate – 06:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. We would include the conspiracy theory that mainstream media was fake news, and fringe media the only true news. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What we need at Wikipedia, and then mention here, is an article from the skeptical POV, from those who claim that there was no interference, or that it was minimal. It's also what others consider a deceptive cover-up story. Granted, most of it is found in unreliable and even blacklisted sources, but it is also mentioned in mainstream RS. That's why we can document other conspiracy theories. If RS ever document that only the Russians were correct, then that article would be retitled and we would remove any mention here. That's how this works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Moon is a hologram theory

There are moon truthers, I think this should be added. [1] Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This theory is hard to get behind due to proof and how far fetched it could be. Of course, you could do more research and that's how I became in the position Iam. I'm not saying this is false, but I'm also not 100% on it being true but it is a cool and nicer theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ally Lovat (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Deaths and Disappearances: "Another is the conspiracy theory that widely circulated in Nigeria and alleges that Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari has died in 2017 and replaced by a lookalike Sudanese impostor." The present perfect ("has died") is incorrect here and needs to be replaced with the simple past ("died"). Also, "and replaced" should be changed to "and was replaced". 71.235.184.247 (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 14:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 24 July 2019

In the George Soros section, please change "such as Antifa, which the conspiracies allege to be a single far-left militant group" to "such as Antifa, which the conspiracy theorists claim is a single far-left militant group." 1) The conspiracies, if they exist at all, don't claim this; 2) better grammar. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:5419:D359:26B4:2EA7 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 14:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Russiagate conspiracy theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russiagate conspiracy theory. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — JFG ^talk 05:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Structure

Is it possible to improve the structure? There seems a lot of overlap between "Business and industry", "Economics and society", and "Government, politics, and conflict".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Russiagate conspiracy theories — new section

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article:

See also: Trump–Russia dossier

The Tax March in Washington, D.C., April 2017. The sign reads, "Impeach Putin's Puppet."

There are conspiracy theories concerning the alleged collusion between Donald Trump's campaign team or administration and the Russian government. American conservative author Jonah Goldberg wrote: "The British former journalist and politician Louise Mensch is an extreme version. Among her claims: Vladimir Putin had my late friend Andrew Breitbart murdered so that former Trump consigliere Steve Bannon could take over Breitbart’s eponymous website; Russian intelligence planted Hillary Clinton’s emails on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop; pretty much the whole of the GOP leadership is in cahoots with the Kremlin."

References

We report what reliable sources say per WP:RELIABLE. The Washington Post, The Guardian, USA Today, Slate, Bloomberg, The Intercept, Al-Jazeera, or The Nation are considered valid and reliable sources. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That is truly terrible wording. It implies that the documented fact of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as set out in Part 1 of the Mueller report, is a conspiracy theory. Your inclusion of the WaPo source is blatant WP:SYN. Subsequent events have shown Maddow to be justified in being suspicious of Trump's concealment of his taxes. Bloomberg posits that the idea of Trump as a Russian asset is implausible (true: he's a narcissist and in this purely for himself) but the manipulation of Trump by Russia and other hostile foreign actors is a matter of record. So: No, what you have written is WP:SYN and fails WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is related to the actual conspiracy theory that it was Clinton, and not Trump, who colluded with the Russians, and the Steele Dossier is seen as an element in this alleged Clinton-Russia conspiracy. This theory ignores some well-established facts:

1. The actions of the parties speaks for itself. The Trump campaign welcomed Russia's offers of help, whereas those more aligned with the Clinton campaign were immediately alarmed and reported it to the FBI:

Steven L. Hall, former CIA chief of Russia operations, has contrasted Steele's methods with those of Donald Trump Jr., who sought information from a Russian attorney at a meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016: "The distinction: Steele spied against Russia to get info Russia did not want released; Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."

Jane Mayer referred to the same meeting and contrasted the difference in reactions to Russian attempts to support Trump: When Trump Jr. was offered "dirt" on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump," instead of "going to the F.B.I., as Steele had" done when he learned that Russia was helping Trump, Trump's son accepted the support by responding: "If it's what you say, I love it..." Source: Trump–Russia dossier

2. The Russians clearly interfered in the election by helping Trump and hurting Clinton, as alleged in the dossier and proven by lots of other evidence. Denial of that is the real Russiagate conspiracy theory:

President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. Source: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

3. It ignores the background that led up to the Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation). -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, I found Goldberg's article interesting. He makes some good points. As has often been stated, Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. The results are the same. The evidence for him being a witting asset is weak, but the evidence that he's an unwitting asset is abundant and strong, and Putin masterfully manipulates him. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tobby72: #Spygate discussion above also. X1\ (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tobby72: Why are none of your references after Robert Mueller's July 24 testimony? X1\ (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JzG, BR and X1. Speaking about the collusion, there were numerous Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Do they mean collusion? I am not sure about legalistic terms, but obviously, there was a productive and successful collaboration, or more precisely, collaborationism.My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

OMG! I learned a new word...collaborationism. That describes it perfectly, except for the "in wartime" part, and even then, we were under attack by Russian military, so the attack was indeed aided by the Trump campaign and still defended by Trump by his denials. What was not proven was the legal term "conspiracy", but there was lots of collusion/collaborationism. It comes pretty close to what we call treason, since giving aid, comfort, and cooperation to a foreign military attack by the GRU on one's country is defined as treason. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, GRU is a top agency of Russian Armed Forces. Their actions are an act of war. Also in UK. This is obvious, is not it? But the leaders of US and UK are doing business as usual. Their "sanctions" are laughable. History repeats itself. That is what historians like Felshtinskiy say [2] My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So the rest of the world is probably under "attack" from the United States.[3],[4],[5],[6]. But back to the topic, Louise Mensch has promoted conspiracy theories about the Trump administration and its ties to Russia. I think that Mensch's Russiagate conspiracy theories should be mentioned in the article. I just don't like it is not an argument. -- Tobby72 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

And I don't, because Mensch is a crackpot. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

So we agree, it seems, that Mensch's Russiagate conspiracy theories should be included in the article. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

No. According to selection criteria on the top of this list, "This is a list of conspiracy theories that are notable.". We are not going to include all pranks in the world to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Was some part of "I don't" unclear? No. do not include Mensch, because she's a crackpot. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17

The article Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 does not (and cannot) explicitly say that it "shot down over Ukraine by Russia-backed rebels or by the Russian military". It goes into detail on the fact that several western governments blame Russia, but does not precisely say Russia did it. I removed the words in quotes above, with an edit summary saying pretty much what I said above. User:Sumanuil reverted my edit with an Edit summary of "Read the article again". Well, I have, and my view is the same. I am not defending Russia here. My concern is with the wording. We cannot be absolute in blaming Russia in this article when we are not absolute about it in the main article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. I went to the Talk page of User:Sumanuil to draw his attention to what I had written above. He refused to discuss the matter. So I sought discussion. He won't discuss here. I now feel justified in reverting his revert. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I did respond. I told you that you can't remove well-sourced information because it disagrees with your opinion. Not my fault if you don't listen. It also didn't help that it was 1:26 AM here.Sumanuil (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the statement. The most that can be said is what the main article says, that the missile was fired from Russian-controlled territory, which is sourced and discussed at length in the main article. Let's not make statements in peripheral articles that are at odds with the primary subject, or which draw flat conclusions that aren't present in the main article. Apart from that, my warning to Sumanuil on edit summaries stands, and I will enforce it. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The point of view that the Ukrainian Air Force commit this war crime is not a Conspiracy Theory. There is a Study of a retired German Air Force General (Hermann Hagena) of Western German and later German Bundeswehr whose result is that its unlikely that MH17 was shut-down by a Buk missile.--92.75.155.149 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide an online link to that study? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the German-speaking Report of Mr. Hagena: Der Malaysian Airlines Flug MH17- Die Geschichte eines Jahrhundertverbrechens.--92.211.155.37 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Spygate

This is a mess:

Today, there are many conspiracy theories concerning the alleged collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia.

CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company based in the United States, claimed that the Russian Government hacked the Democratic National Committee computer network in 2016 in order to help Donald Trump win the United States Presidential election.

Do any reliable independnt sources identify this as a conspiracy theory? The email thefts are a fact, the contacts between the Trump campaign and the ussians are a fact, the Mueller report establishes all of it and only falls short of alleging conspiracy because of the difficulty of proving intent, and the fact that Trump and others lied to the FBI. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes here we are [[7]], clearly says that spygate is a conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think that was good removal by JzG, and I would also remove this Epstein thing (just included). Not every nonsense twitted by D.Trump belongs to WP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly the Epstein nonsense was doing the rounds before Donnie stuck with oar in.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was title titled Trump–Russia conspiracy and I replaced the "See also" with Spygate (conspiracy theory). The rest is was under the section title. This discussion above appears muddled. A section titled Spygate with a Template:Main of "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" would be fine; but I agree the other junk should go. X1\ (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the "Epstein" theories should probably be included, I agree with Slatersteven and X1. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Since Trump's Obama "conspiracy theory" his is under his section, this appears resolved. X1\ (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Under an ES of "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" 8675309 readded the item under a new section title of Russians hacked the DNC:

In 2016, CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity company based in the United States, claimed that the Russian Government hacked the Democratic National Committee computer network earlier in 2016 in order to help Donald Trump win the United States Presidential election. Crowdstrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the government because the FBI never required it to, the Justice Department has admitted.

Note related discussion in #Russiagate conspiracy theories — new section below. X1\ (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Russians Hacked The Democratic National Committee

8675309 has at least three times added this text: [8], referencing QAnon conspiracy theories about CrowdStrike. There's no evidence that this is a conspiracy theory as generally understood. The sources are consortiumnews.com, truthdig.com and thenation.com. These are not WP:RS. Since this user seems very insistent on including it but has not brought it here, I thought I should. Guy (help!) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it before because it's not a conspiracy theory. Also, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soibangla#Crowdstrike soibangla (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Further, see #Spygate and #Russiagate conspiracy theories — new section above. X1\ (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

See Trump's rehashing in Trump–Ukraine controversy. This may be helpful: "What is CrowdStrike and why is it part of the Trump whistleblower complaint?". CNN.com. September 26, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019. {{cite web}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) X1\ (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Trump nor do I have any respect for the morons of QAnon, so please don't associate me with either of those parties. That being said, the claims about Crowdstrike not providing any evidence of a hack to the FBI are backed by recent court documents and Comey's testimony before congress.8675309 (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Mueller Report cites the "Netyksho Indictment ¶¶ 28-29" as the source for the "FBI later received images of DNC servers...". That document says nothing about the DNC giving up forensic images of its servers. According to this: the FBI asked for forensic copies but received none. Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) asked Comey during a congressional hearing about the forensic images:

BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate — did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, … we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn’t get direct access.

BURR: But no content?

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: Isn’t content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?

COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks — the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

On March 20, 2017 during a House Intelligence Committee hearing and while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics:

HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI’s first notification of some potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on — getting on Wikileaks.

COMEY: Yes, sir.

HURD: …when did the DNC provide access for — to the FBI for your technical folks to review what happened?

COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system. …

HURD: …So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on Wikileaksand when — youhave still been — never been given access to any of the technical or the physical machines that were — that were hacked by the Russians.

According to Federal Court documents, Crowdstrike does not have forensic images or any evidence of a DNC hack. Under the Rule of Discovery, Stone's attorneys received only redacted drafts of the Crowdstrike forensic report. There is no "Chain of Evidence" here, only redacted drafts.8675309 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So what? This is the article on conspiracy theories. To add something here, you need reliable independent sources saying that it's a conspiracy theory. There are large numbers of sources showing Trump's Crowdstrike claims to be bullshit, but you have yet to provide a single credible source supporting the text you are edit-warring into this article. Guy (help!) 07:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As with the above, RS have to say it is a conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@guy - What is this creepy fascination you have with Trump? This is the second time you have accused me of shilling for him. First you say that I'm some kind of QAnon moron then you claim I'm making Trump's arguments for him because apparently no one would make my argument and utter the words Crowdstrike without being some kind of Trump supporter. I don't have any love or respect for Pres. Orange Julius. Please stop throwing subtle or overt accusations at me. My edit shows that any claim of Russians hacking the DNC is a conspiracy theory. There have been many claims of such activity but there has been zero evidence put forward. However, there is metadata evidence that suggests something other than the official "hack" story and there is Comey's testimony before congress and numerous articles by respectable journalistic sources covering said information, not to mention Roger Stone's discovery documents in Federal Court which explicitly state that there is no evidence from Crowdstrike nor is there evidence from the FBI concerning said DNC "hack". (Please don't try to associate me with Stone.) Sounds to me like you and other interested editors are vested in the "Russians did it" claim even to the detriment of other reasonable explanations. 8675309 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a novel interpretation of what I said. By novel I mean, of course, ridiculous and incorrect. Guy (help!) 23:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Touche, your previous attempts to connect my edits to Trump are novel as well. 8675309 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Novel in the sense of imaginitive fiction, there. I didn't connect you to Trump. I connected the Crowdstrike bullshit to Trump. Or, more specifically, Trump did that, through the transcript of his call to Ukraine. Guy (help!) 06:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@guy - "There are large numbers of sources showing Trump's Crowdstrike claims to be bullshit...". That may well be true but Trump has his own delusions about what's happening with Crowdstrike. I am specifically referring to Crowdstrikes's claims of Russians hacking the DNC and the lack of evidence for that claim as well as the existing evidence indicating a leak instead of a hack. Please stop trying to discredit my argument by associating it with Trump or QAnon. Guilty by Association is a weak position to take and in this case completely off base.8675309 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As above: find reliable independent secondary sources calling ti a conspiracy theory, show that they support the specific wording you propose, or drop it. Guy (help!) 06:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven - Where in RS does it say the source must use words like "conspiracy theory" in order to be recognized? 8675309 (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between reporting on the theories and actively promoting them. The sources you posted promote the theories. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The requirement for sources to explicitly support the text (i.e., in this case, to explicitly identify it as a conspiracy theory) is WP:NOR. WP:RS adds to this a requirement that the sources identifying it as a conspiracy theory are reliable. That's why RS has been the focus here: you provide some unreliable sources, we haven't bothered to even look at whether they support the claim per NOR because the sources are not usable so there's no need to start parsing them in detail. Guy (help!) 11:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It does not, but it does say that we must accurately reflect what RS say. Thus they do not have to mirror exactly what we say, but it must say something similar. wp:v is what counts here, would I see the same thing as you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Apparent political bias with repeated use of "see also 'Veracity of statements by Donald Trump' " comments.

The cross-reference linking statement "see also 'Veracity of statements by Donald Trump' " hyperlink to the Wikipedia article is included 5 separate times in this article, in the following sections :

• George Soros
• Barack Obama
• Deep State
• Vaccination
• Global Warming

However, the linked article Veracity of statements by Donald Trump has no mention whatsoever of Trump's promotion of conspiracy theories about George Soros, Deep State, Vaccination or Global Warming. It does of course refer to his well-published promotion of theories around Barack Obama's birth certificate / place-of-birth.

It seems fairly apparent that the repeated link to the other article within these OTHER 4 sections of this article is not encyclopedic, and they should be removed. Tdh777 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The links are there to find out who these people are. All are sourced here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump is a useful starting place. X1\ (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Steven, thanks for the response but that makes no sense. A link to an article that does not mention the people linked is not a good link. I repeat, none of them cited in my comment are mentioned in the linked article.Tdh777 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I checked this category list and again the only connection is the mention of Donald Trump retweeting the theory that there may have been a conspiracy to kill Epstein in the article Death_of_Jeffrey_Epstein. The link to the article "Veracity of statements by Donald Trump" cannot be appropriate at the multiple places it currently exist in the article. Can someone with appropriate editing rights and sense of encyclopedic NPOV remove them from the section headings where they are not appropriate ? Cheers Tdh777 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

They do not have to be, as long as it is sourced to RS here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Tdh777, It only looks like political bias but only because the ongoing promotion of conspiracy theories is restricted almost exclusively to one side. This is largely an artifact of the changes in the right-partisan news and comment space since 2015, as documented in Network Propaganda - there is an asymmetric polarisation of sources that results from a difference in incentives. Mainstream media have incentives to be factually accurate, so conspiracy theories self-correct out, whereas partisan right wing media, notably Fox, have incentives to be "on message" and suffer no penalty if that message is factually incorrect. With a feedback look that runs from the Fox talking heads right back to the White House, you have a perfect breeding ground for the growth and promotion of conspiracy theories, and that is what we are seeing in real time - to the point that the Attorney General of the United States is flying around the world trying to support one of them, despite every single US and allied intelligence agency contradicting his narrative.

It's a bit like social media bans on racist speech being perceived as targeting conservatives: it's just a coincidence that all the prominent racists also happen to be conservative. Guy (help!) 09:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to Jeffrey Epstein section

The recently-added short section on Jeffrey Epstein seems to lack the qualities of WP:NPOV in regard to the mention of Donald Trump.

Either any connection to D.Trump is irrelevant to the fact that theories about Epstein's death being the result of a conspiracy have come into existence, OR if Epstein's older or more recent connections with prominent political figure are considered relevant to the theories around the cause of his recent death, then perhaps the sentence should read be something more neutral such as : "The death of Jeffrey Epstein, an American financier billionaire and convicted sex offender with connections to multiple prominent political figures over many years, has become the subject of conspiracy theories." I cannot see how the mention of particular politicians is relevant, unless more detail of how a particular conspiracy theory implicates the politician in question, is also included. The current text is either wittingly or unwittingly casting aspersions by association that are quite separate to the presence of conspiracy theories surrounding Epstein's death. Cheers, Tdh777 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The same can be said if any individual claimed to be part of a conspiracy (such as the Clintons). If the claim is "he was killed because he knew X" we need to know who X is (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

So, given that there is only agreement with my comment here, but the page is locked from change, can we please get someone to make the appropriate change to the Article ? Thanks. Tdh777 (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Tdh777, what change do you propose, exactly? In a "change X to Y based on Z reliable source" sense. Guy (help!) 09:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Update 2020 : Google 1649ish - the first 16 centuries did not exist !

Hello Wikipedia,

i would like to discuss this:

Update 2020 : Google 1649ish - the first 16 centuries did not exist !

Humans are not older than 1649ish ! , where you will find the original link and text !

Ewing2001 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC) ewing2001

I doubt this is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Lenin page, conspiracy theory section

So I've added a conspiracy theory section to Lenin biography which keeps getting deleted. I think that's a perfectly valid section to have. What do other people who document conspiracies think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berehinia (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories tells us that "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." I'd suggest that your theories and sources are neither serious nor substantial. They don't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Based on the above, conspiracy theories shouldn't be documented at all on the wiki. How do you decide what's marginal and what isn't? Berehinia (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

What about under the headline "government," add Deep Underground Military Bases, or D.U.M.B. bases. This is an extension of the aliens / UFO's conspiracy. This was made popular by a dead guy named Phil Schneider. He claims he was a geological engineer who excavated such bases. Svenstadt (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Svenstadt, based on what reliable independent sources? Guy (help!) 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Wuhan and the Coronavirus

I've seen some claims that the coronavirus is manmade by a group (often the Chinese government or that drinking bleach helps). Seeing this is a fairly recent development and there's a lot we don't know about the virus, we should approach it carefully or wait for a bit before proceeding (like when more research comes in about the virus and/or when things have died down for a bit).

FireSparkling (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC) FireSparkling

@FireSparkling:See QAnon and "Miracle Mineral Supplement" for bleach.

Also see Russian Media Spew U.S. Coronavirus Conspiracies for Domestic Audience January 28, 2020 Polygraph.info Fatima Tlis; regarding Russian web brigades. X1\ (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking about ref. by X1, yes, this is a promotion of conspiracy in Russian state media, I totally agree. But why they are doing this? Hence I do agree it would be better wait. This thing does look suspicious (could be actually a result of bioweapon research in China), given that the exact origin of the virus has not been established and other surrounding secrecy and events. And BTW, this whole thing has been predicted 39 years ago, in book The Eyes of Darkness, just as had happen with Titanic. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m doubtful it’s a Chinese bioweapon because it acts more like SARS or MERS and doesn’t look like a chinese bioweapon (at least according to mainstream news). The current origin of the virus is thought to be bats then it got transmitted to humans although this would need more verification before we can put it down . There’s still a lot we don’t know which is why I say wait until more information comes out . Also, the claim about The Eyes of Darkness predicting the Coronavirus is highly questionable since “[...] Dean Koontz did not predict an outbreak of a new coronavirus. Other than the name, this fictional biological weapon has little in common with the virus that caused an outbreak in 2020.” FireSparkling (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)FireSparkling

I think given Misinformation related to the_2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Conspiracy theories, it might be time to add some of this material to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

SARS-CoV-2

I saw this being added and removed recently. The removal edit summary said that nobody knows where it originates. However, these conspiracy theories, while new, have been reported in mainstream news. It's also pretty well known how these strains evolve even if it's correct that we don't exactly know the animal source yet. There also were claims of lab leaks, considered unlikely, but if it was, it would still be a leak of a specimen that appears to have evolved like the others. A bioweapon would also be more lethal. I'll place the contested entry here meanwhile:

A conspiracy that SARS-CoV-2 is a bioweapon created by Chinese scientists gained prominence in early 2020 in response to the outbreak of the virus, mainly originating from two Washington Times articles. It has also been spread by ZeroHedge, a right-wing news website, which was permanently suspended from Twitter for doxxing a Chinese scientist which they connected to the conspiracy theory.

References

—PaleoNeonate – 05:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, this text must be completely rewritten to reflect additional RS (cited in discussion just above) which tell a bigger and different story: this and this. However, user FireSparkling made a point that this is a developing story, and we should wait until including it to the page. I completely agree with FireSparkling and believe the story is not notable enough (yet) to be included on the page. You say,"It's also pretty well known how these strains evolve...Well known.” OK, what exactly RS do you refer to? Do they definitely name the species it came from? Until we know the exact source, and what had happen later, nothing is known. My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For example, this analysis, does assume the existence of "the initial zoonotic event", but one must know what exactly that "zoonotic event" was. Or maybe there were several "zoonotic events" (see here)? Not according to the analysis above, but that is probably too early to say, if I am not mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Things like that do happen, and this is not a conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't have the time to look at this again yet, but a related article: Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic —PaleoNeonate – 02:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the "man-made" claim (the virus leaked from a lab by an accident) was debunked in media [9], but I am not sure the journalists and some others know what they are talking about. First of all, the biological weapons are never "man-made", just modified a little. Secondly, the creation of biological weapons (or just an experiment with a virus) do not necessarily involve significant genetic modifications, which could be easily detected in the sequence analysis. This can be just the artificial selection. That is how Russian "Vector" usually worked. I did notice some virologists saying how highly unusual this virus is and that at least regulatory (non-coding) RNA segments could be actually manipulated [10]. Add the fact that the actual animal source (and the exact events during the initial transmission) are unknown, and the recent censorship by the China, and you get the picture: there is no really a proof this is all conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So, as this source puts it, "The virus likely originated in a bat, not in a Chinese lab". But this is a loaded claim. Yes, sure, it likely originated in a bat, but who knows, it could later underwent selection and/or genetic manipulations in a lab (I am not saying it was necessarily Chinese), and that has not been disproven. It cites an article in Nature "a top science journal -- that concluded the "2019-nCoV is 96% identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus." Yes, sure, it may be even 99% identical to bat coronovirus (this is excluding regulatory sequences), but it proves absolutely nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

On the question of notability of the hypothesis: the video of the documentary by the Epoch Times on the subject as of today holds 3.7 M views, and the idea has being mentioned by BBC, CNN, PBS, and White House's statements. --Forich (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, it is notable, but it exists in several very different versions. The versions promoted by Russian and Chinese governments are obviously conspiracy theories, but the version by US intelligence - I think this is just something unproven, not a proven conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Add: While many organizations have stated that the conspiracy theories listed here are without any substantiating evidence, neither do they offer any alternative explanations for what has happened. Jsrogers663 (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:FRINGE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

May I suggest to add Judy Mikovits, she was fired for stealing IT equipment from a university/lab then claimed that she had discovered secret diseases being engineered is now being cited and linked to Covid-19. Maximumallycarbon (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

Neil Patel is renowned in identifying conspiracy theories, making it his life's work to tackle wide spread of conspiracy theories. 155.136.158.8 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your edit request is?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"300 MPG Carburetor Conspiracy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 300 MPG Carburetor Conspiracy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 31#300 MPG Carburetor Conspiracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Transvestigations" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Transvestigations. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 31#Transvestigations until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Considering how notorious it has been for all kinds of conspiracy theories and that the main article about it had a number of sources to borrow, I added a related section. —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Rewording JFK claim request

Over 1,000 books have been written about the Kennedy assassination, at least ninety percent of which are works supporting the view that there was a conspiracy. As a result of this, the Kennedy assassination has been described as "the mother of all conspiracies".

conspiracy theory instead of conspiracy. ToddGrande (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Based on the sentence, it looks like it is trying to say that ninety percent of the books actually support the conspiracy--that the books actually argue that there was a conspiracy. This is not the same as arguing that there is a conspiracy theory. The latter is uncontroversial. There is a theory. What is controversial is whether there was a conspiracy, and those that argue there was, e.g. the 90% mentioned here, are the conspiracy theorists. The sentence looks right to me. -- Ndovu (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the theory that the CIA invented AIDS in the 80s?

That's a rather prominent and often-seen conspiracy theory that isn't really talked about much in the AIDS denialism portion. J390 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello to anyone who sees this. I can’t edit this page but we have to change the “committed suicide” in the deaths section. We don’t say that anymore we say suicided or took his/her own life.

Please change it

Cheers, 49.179.153.167 (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

The fourth paragraph of section "Deaths and disappearances" contains three rogue capitalisations: Car Accident, Orphan. Could somebody please lower the case? 2A02:2149:A000:8200:FD54:61BD:C8BC:96FD (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Beck And Black Helicopters

neither of the sources provided stated that he promoted it this is an outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"This divide grew sharper in recent months, as Beck devoted more time to so-called “black helicopter” conspiracy theorists who view government agencies as allied with shadowy business and tech interests determined to manipulate the lives of ordinary people".Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

conspiracy theorists who view government agencies as allied with shadowy business and tech interests determined to manipulate the lives of ordinary people they are just called black helicopter theorists it doesn't mean they literally advocate that theory, even if they did hosting them is not promoting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

RFID

There used to be an RFID section although supported only by a tabloid that was recently removed by another editor. I wanted to leave a note in case editors would like to restore it, to support it by better sources. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory?

How can cultural marxism be seen as conspiracy theory when the works of Antonio Gramsci are accessible to the public and the whole idea of cultural marxism is put there on the plate (by its author) plain and simple? We can speculate if someone is or is not a cultural marxist but there is no doubt there is such political project and people who associate with it.

Group of people that share one idea does not make a conspiracy. Especially when it is wide in the open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.202.30 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Because RS say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Next? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nanotechnology

This was sourced to an episode of Ancient Aliens. Obviously we don't include "shit Giorgio Tsoukalos says" unless a reliable independent secondary source establishes its significance. They have a show to fill every week, and ran out of remotely plausible claims about three episodes into Series 1, so we can afford to ignore it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It's History (American TV network) which is elsewhere on Wikipedia a potentially reliable source depending on what they call subject-matter experts, and WP:UNDUE says "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#History says "content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable". Altanner1991 (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A "potentially" reliable source? No, the History Channel is not a reliable source and Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, ancient alien astronauts proponent, is not an established subject-matter expert. I've reverted. Bishonen | tålk 03:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

And Altanner is edit warring. That's nice. Did it really take too long for me to comment here? Bishonen | tålk 03:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

No, you are edit-warring, please do not revert per WP:BRD. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I have edited this article once and I'm edit warring, really? You may want to check out WP:EW. Bishonen | tålk 03:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

You can't gang edit war. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Gang"? Gosh, this got insulting quickly. What is your basis for calling JzG and me a gang? Are you suggesting we're coordinating off-line or something? I'm not sure I've ever edited an article in this kind of area before. Or what is your basis for calling a pseudohistorian and conspiracy theorist like Tsoukalos an expert in the field, for that matter? These are some of our categories for him. Bishonen | tålk 04:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

Yeah it still counts as edit-warring. And like I said, Wikipedia has a provision for these things if it's a page on fringe theories for example. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes these is are experts (in the field) and should be represented on conspiracy theories. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you should self-revert. Bishonen | tålk 04:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC).

I apologize. I had thought it was an admissible source before finding out about the disagreements. Next time I will verify reliability or use talk pages regarding "fringe theory" topics to reach consensus before adding or removing information. Sincerely, Altanner1991 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism" extension

"Cultural Marxism" tends to be a very proliferated fascist conspiracy theory in recent years taking hold in major institutions & most of right wing parties around the world. I'd propose either this article going more into detail such as it's past in the nazi party of Germany (ie "Kulturbolschewismus"), or alternatively it could get it's own article as already seems to exist for other Wikipedia versions such as the German one. Such an article would probably need to be highly protected from vandalism & possibly mods for it would need to be vetted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C72:AB90:C849:6948:B603:9E76 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Committee of 300 into List of conspiracy theories

There is very little supported by reliable sources here. It seems to primarily be one of several variations on the Elders of Zion conspiracy theory. Some of the sources here are unreliable, or mere passing mentions— this isn’t really enough to establish notability, let alone fleshing out an article. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dollarnote siegel hq.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic - Browne

Those two last paragraphs initially appear undue to me in relation to the section's size. Moreover, it is mostly supported by primary sources (except the Right Wing Watch one, I think). —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Travel size items

I've heard a theory that travel sized items like the small tubes of toothpaste and shampoo are actually better quality than the full-sized items, to entice people to buy the full-size, but end up getting a lower-quality product. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an RS that discuss this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Further information link for global warming

From:

Science and technology

Global warming

Further information: Veracity of statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump

To:

Science and technology

Global warming

Further information: Global warming conspiracy theory

---

I think Trump's conspiracy articles are not relevant to global warming as they are too general. Quick.pooya (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done No objections, puzzled as to how these came to be listed there in the first place. AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC

Legal Definition of Conspiracy

Many of the so-called "conspiracy theories" on this list do not fit the legal definition of a conspiracy, which is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about conspiracy theory, but there is conspiracy (criminal) that may be what you were looking for, —PaleoNeonate – 03:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The theory that COVID19 escaped from a lab does not meet the definition of a conspiracy theory, as described in the Wikipedia article

Some background: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/18/1021030/coronavirus-leak-wuhan-lab-scientists-conspiracy/ (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19A:4785:ED60:7E18:3BCD:1153 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As the article makes clear, its a fringe view.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't change the definition like this to what suits you. I wrote in the talk page of the main article that there is a problem in the definition, that confuses people. I thought it would be a good idea to discuss this before proposing concrete changes. You and some others didn't like this and closed the discussion because it is not a forum. I said ok, let's have it your way and assume the definition in the article and just fix the small problems. Now however the definition that you defended earlier doesn't suit you and you invent a completely different definition. This doesn't work this way. If you choose a certain definition, then the examples you list must agree with it. Also, your response is a perfect example of the confusion I was talking about in the original discussion. (TempUser1010)

You really need to drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I came with good faith wanting to help improve Wikipedia. I never created a user, but I sometimes edited articles and added information. My edits were always informative and were never reverted, as far as I know. I don't know what you assumed about me, but I can assure you that I am as far from a conspiracy theorist as anyone can be. Here I saw a problem in an article, and proposed changes, both concrete like here, and opened a discussion about larger changes in the main article. Instead of discussing to the point, some users started closing my discussions and threatening me like this:

disruption

	+	

See wp:point, right now you are heading for a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is not how this is supposed to work. (TempUser1010)

To give weight and credibility to the theory that coronavirus escaped from a Chinese lab we would need multiple high quality sources (per WP:EXTRAORDINARY). Sure, it’s possible that this could happen in the future, but it hasn’t happened yet. For now we go by what the sources cited say, which is to characterize it as a conspiracy theory. I know you feel strongly about this, but you can’t push Wikipedia into “breaking news” that sources themselves have not issued. Your other argument is a nonexistent loophole: “if your definition says X is Y, then you cannot include Z”. Wikipedia article content is never decided that way. We go by how sources define topics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually I don't at all feel strongly about any particular theory about the source of COVID19 and I never claimed that I know where it came from. I don't. I do find it very annoying how people attacked me here, and I don't understand why they attacked me. What I do claim is that the theory that COVID19 escaped from a lab is not a conspiracy theory according to how a conspiracy theory is defined here. This is not an extraordinary claim at all. The ones who need to prove their claim are those who claim it is a conspiracy theory. You see, this page claims to explain what a conspiracy theory is. I thought that the definition is problematic and people are confused by it. I tried twice to start a discussion about it pointing to the problem. Both times people closed the conversation because "it is not a forum". Looks like people here disagree with me and think the definition in the article is perfect. Ok, let's assume they are right. Then it should be straightforward to take any of the examples listed here for conspiracy theories, and show how the properties of a conspiracy theory apply to them. The burden of the proof is on those making the claim. You claim that this is a conspiracy theory. Then please show how you get this conclusion given the definition in the article. As to the later part of what you wrote, I don't understand what you tried to say. (TempUser1010)

What I do claim is that the theory that COVID19 escaped from a lab is not a conspiracy theory according to how a conspiracy theory is defined here. Again, we go by what the preponderance of WP:RS say. If they say some particular thing is a conspiracy theory, that’s what our article reports. You may feel it doesn’t fit the definition of a conspiracy, but you (as an editor) can only report what the sources say. And it doesn’t matter what the definitions contained in the conspiracy theory article say. You are perhaps under the false impression that definitions contained in our articles must cover all cases and all variations of the topic. That just isn’t so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we wrote that same thing at the same time. I realized it too. Don't you think this is wrong though? This leads to self contradictory articles. This is not how an Encyclopedic article should be. (TempUser1010)

If we leave for the moment the big issue(and we shouldn't) and go about it your way, then you can see just from the source I linked, and it is most definitely a WP:RS, that this is not a conspiracy theory, as defined in this article. It is not a problem to find other WP:RS that say the same thing. Moreover, this article is about how a valid theory sometimes gets wrongly labeled as conspiracy theory, and people who explore it get wrongly discredited and discouraged from pursuing it. This is a real phenomenon that actually happens and I wonder if this deserves a paragraph or at least a couple of sentences in the main article. Notice what happened here. I wrote that this was wrongly labeled as a conspiracy theory and you demanded extraordinary evidence that it is not a conspiracy theory. This is like saying: you are guilty unless you provide extraordinary evidence that you are innocent. (and you didn't present any evidence. You pointed to some sources, but if you really dig into these sources and read the scientific articles, you will see that they don't at all prove what people, who rephrase the rephrased versions of rephrased versions of the articles claim that they prove). This can actually happen to people, including good scientists. And to be sure, I don't claim that COVID19 escaped from a lab. I claim that this is not a conspiracy theory, the way it is defined here. (TempUser1010)

I thought about this a bit, and I possibly realized what caused the conflict here, or at least part of it. In the past I edited some articles here and there, but was never involved with the Wikipedia community and their way of thinking. Now I wanted to see how a conspiracy theory is defined and so I looked in Wikipedia, as it is considered a prime source of information. Reading the article I was not sure I understood the definition. It seemed somewhat confusing. So I decided to ask for clarifications in the talk page. It seemed that some people didn't like me asking questions. As I got the answer, It seemed to me that there is some confusion in the article. So I thought that if I explain what I found confusing, people will try to improve the article. Instead some people started attacking me and closed the conversation supposedly because I didn't propose exact changes and discussed too generally. Then I pointed to an example listed here that contradicts the definition in the article. I thought the problem should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. I think I now realized why. People here seem to put "reliable sources" above all else, and think that if a "reliable source" says so, then it must be right and should be included in the article. This however is a problematic subject, that is not well defined. The "reliable sources" contradict each other in subtle ways. So you end up with an article that defines a phenomenon according to one "reliable source" and then gives an example according to another "reliable source". The example contradicts the definition, but apparently there is no problem because both are based on "reliable sources". I could try to pose the same argument about covid19 origin based on other reliable sources, but this is really not the point. My point is that the article needs to be self-consistent and the examples should follow from the definition, rather than be blindly based on "reliable sources". (TempUser1010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19A:4785:B4C6:AF15:9AC:4052 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we put RS above everything else, because we need some criteria for what we do and do not include, and wp:or is a bad way to decide. You think X means Y I think X means z, which of us gets to decide? In this case, there is no definitive definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory, so we cannot have a definitive inclusion criterion (outside of "what do RS say"). MOorever a fringe of people disagreeing with the consensus does not contradict the definition in the article, it just means that a wp:fringe disagrees with it. If 1 person says Covid 19 is a confluence of really small midgets and 99 people says its a virus, that does not mean we have to say "but some say it is a confluence of really small midgets" (see wp:weight).Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

>>Yes, we put RS above everything else, because we need some criteria for what we do and do not include, and wp:or is a bad way to decide. You think X means Y I think X means z, which of us gets to decide?

This means that the definition is not good and should be improved to make it consistent. When a concept is well defined, people shouldn't disagree to which cases it applies.

>>there is no definitive definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory

If this is the case, then it must be stated in the first sentence of the article, and the rest of the article should be consistent with it. Otherwise you are just misleading people into believing that you are providing them with a clear definition, while actually confusing them.

>>it just means that a wp:fringe disagrees with it

I looked at the examples in the article you linked. Calling these theories is way too gracious. False beliefs would be more appropriate. These are absolutely in no way similar to what we are talking about here. They are different for two reasons. 1) If you are knowledgeable about these subjects, it is very easy to see that the "theories" from your link completely contradict all available knowledge and can't possibly be true. This is not at all the case here. The source of the virus is unknown and there are several plausible theories, this being one of them. It is possible to try to calculate probabilities of different scenarios, but these would depend heavily on your assumptions of prior probabilities. There are also practical reasons that discourage such research. ​2)There is no way you will find any reliable sources that support any of the theories from your link. It is on the other hand easy to find highly reliable sources that state that the possibility that the virus escaped from a lab shouldn't be discounted. I provided a link to one such source and it is easy to find more. I really didn't want to make this about the origin of COVID though, but more to show the systematic problem here. (TempUser1010)

Well we link to articles that say it did not escape from a lab. I am not sure what article I linked to. Also, WHO (for example) says it is not a plausible theory. Moreover (and again you really need to go over the talk page archives, as we are having the self-same discussion multiple times), whilst the idea it might have escaped might not be A conspiracy theory, much of the way it is discussed and much of the "supposition" is. Thus there is an argument for separating out the Conspiracist stuff from the genuine scientific skepticisms, I am unsure how easy that is. Nor do I think (given the length of the section) we can really add it without violating wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

>>I am not sure what article I linked to.

wp:fringe

>>WHO (for example) says it is not a plausible theory.

WHO statements about the virus over the course of the pandemic: "The virus doesn't transmit between people. No need to worry". "The situation is under control"(They delayed declaring a pandemic for way too long), "The virus is not transmitted through air", badly miscalculated fatality rate figures, questionable conclusions about seasonality, and many more. I wouldn't give them much credibility on this unless they present evidence to support their conclusions, which the didn't.

And by the way, the head of the WHO said that the the possibility that the virus escaped from a lab needs further investigation. Does it make him a conspiracy theorist? (TempUser1010)

I have said all I have to say now (more than once), I think it is time for others to join in or this to be dropped.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I will add, IP you really need to create an account, we should not (and indeed policy forbids) communicating with you here as if it is a forum to discuss your behavior. This makes it very hard to tell you what you are doing wrong or to warn you. I have now left messages at three different IP talk pages.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP now understands the relevant WP policies but continues to argue that the policy is wrong. Time to close and hat this thread. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

References

|}

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

I would like to request an edit to change the last sentence of the 4th paragraph under the, "Deaths and disappearances" heading. Currently, the last sentence says, "The Melania Trump replacement theory proposes the same of the U.S. First Lady." However, I believe that it should be changed to, "The Melania Trump replacement theory proposes the same of the former U.S. First Lady." I've bolded the word that I think should be added to make it easier to see the difference, however I do not believe that the word should be bolded in the article. Thank you. R2d1000 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Done as she is not longer that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Main topic is at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story. Discuss there if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consistency in the Deaths and Disappearances There should be consistency in that big list of names and what they are linking to. They should either all link to the person or their death page (of course linking to the person is fine if they don't have a death page). -Taltos :) (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Taltos Harold Wilson was suspected of being a Soviet spy by MI5 until ruled out by them I'm fairly certain that the Peter Wright book Spycatcher actually says this - (in the mid 1960's) a Soviet defector told The CIA that The KGB had secretly killed a Western party leader, and had replaced him with "their man" in charge instead - but didn't know exactly which country. The previous UK Labour Party leader Hugh Gaitskell had died in a mysterious way (of a tropical disease despite not having recently left that temperate country) and this had led MI5 to initially suspect Wilson (who was Prime Minister by that time). MI5 investigated though and concluded that Greece was the country concerned, a political party there, not Britain. And the book also says that later some members of the British Establishment wanted the mere MI5 investigation leaked to newspapers in order to smear Wilson, despite him having been cleared by it, knowing that many would wrongly conclude that there was "no smoke with fire". Not sure this constitutes a conspiracy theory so much as a cock-up.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC) Only proven false or improbable "conspiracy theories" should be included. As I read through this page I question how many of these "conspiracy theories" meet the definition found on Wiki much less how this term is commonly used. In short are the claims (a) dis-proven or improbable, (b) wide-spread and propagated by many and (c) actually claims of conspiracy? Generally, I find that many of the claims of conspiracy theories on this page are a way to put down a controversial position some disagree with. Outside wiki, I hear the term "conspiracy theory" normally used this way. Is belief COVID came from an accidental Wuhan lab leak really a conspiracy theory? (Who is conspiring in an accident?) In other cases the examples on this page involve provably false claims that were only alleged by a few. Are all false claims - even when proven - conspiracy theories? Still others involve terms that are so poorly defined as to be nearly meaningless. Who knows what individual speakers mean by "deep state" or "cultural marxism"? As one particular example from this page, Joe Biden's role having the Ukrainian prosecutor removed. Certainly President Biden directly states he had this prosecutor removed in the video where he talks about it. As to why he did this I see no proof either way. My point is not about this particular issue but generally how many of the 'conspiracy theories" here have been dis-proven? How many rely on one or two newspaper stories that are simply the opinion of the author? At a minimum I feel this list should reflect how each of these CTs are verifiably false or truly improbable. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:4B2:1ADB:8718:D911 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC) This is a list article that links to other existing articles about conspiracy theories. You would need to use the talk page of those individual articles to express your suggestions, e.g. Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Lab Escape Origin Theory for COVID-19 No Longer Fringe The article currently groups the idea that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab with suggestions that the virus is "a Jewish plot" or "related to 5G mobile phone networks"; this seems unwarranted, as many prominent figures have stated that a lab origin is plausible, e.g. Robert Redfield, a former CDC director, at https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/03/26/sanjay-gupta-exclusive-robert-redfield-coronavirus-opinion-origin-sot-intv-newday-vpx.cnn , and the executive branch of the USA has released a statement calling for further investigation of this possibility https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/05/26/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-investigation-into-the-origins-of-covid-19/ . The BBC thinks the lab leak theory is now being taken seriously https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57268111 . And the page COVID-19 misinformation describes the lab origin possibility as "alternative hypothesis under investigation". So I think the mere claim that the COVID-19 pandemic began with a virus in a Wuhan lab is not itself a conspiracy theory and should certainly not be grouped with the conspiracy theories it is currently placed with. SaturnFogg (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC) That does not mean all the theories about the lab leak are not fringe, only that it is now a bit less likely the leak might not be true. So as above, we should differentiate between the differing thieries.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Most of the theories listed are fringe and should be kept. But the inclusion of the clause "that it escaped or was stolen from a research laboratory" in the list is inappropriate, since this encompasses views that do not qualify as conspiracy theories. SaturnFogg (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC) JFK Espoused Conspiracy Theories We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. --- JFK JFK, "The President and the Press: Address Before The American Newspaper Publishers Association", April 27, 1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF10:0:D044:2E29:F00:CAC2 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Please stop spamming multiple talk pages with the same topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Hillary Clinton's Conspiracy Theory 'On January 27, in an appearance on NBC's Today she said, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Denial_and_subsequent_admission, citing https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/return-hillary-clintons-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-excuse/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:FF10:0:D044:2E29:F00:CAC2 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Please stop spamming multiple talk pages with the same topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Glenn Beck and Black Helicopters Per prior discussion (below) and a thorough review of the cited articles, the current listing is false and should be removed. Neither article claims that anyone claimed that helicopters were coming to the US. The articles (which are much more in line with opinion pieces) use the phrase black helicopter theorists in a generic sense (sort of like I made a Xerox on the Cannon copier.) while not naming any particular "conspiracy theory." Prior archived discussion Glenn Beck And Black Helicopters neither of the sources provided stated that he promoted it this is an outright lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC) "This divide grew sharper in recent months, as Beck devoted more time to so-called “black helicopter” conspiracy theorists who view government agencies as allied with shadowy business and tech interests determined to manipulate the lives of ordinary people". Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC) conspiracy theorists who view government agencies as allied with shadowy business and tech interests determined to manipulate the lives of ordinary people they are just called black helicopter theorists it doesn't mean they literally advocate that theory, even if they did hosting them is not promoting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.107.172.172 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC) RFID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icrmowun (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC) I agree the sources support that Beck did not promote the literal conspiracy theory popularized in the 1990s by Jim Keith. The criticism of Beck employed the shorthand term to characterize the way-out views of some of his guests. I have copyedited accordingly: [11]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the changes LL. I will ponder and perhaps get back to you. In any case, it certainly is better. Icrmowun (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Trump's collusion with Russia theory This article provides an incomplete and politically-biased list of "conspiracy theories". Although it considers "collusion" a form of "conspiracy", and justly so, it fails to list one of the recent most egregious conspiracy theories contrived by several members of the U.S. Congress, government agencies, and the media: the Trump's collusion with Russia theory. I suppose that the omission was intentional so I don't expect correction; if anything then just a superficial "argument" why this one was not included on the list. Well, that is usually what one gets without clearly stated, rational, and objectively verifiable criteria of what is and what is not a conspiracy theory; an arbitrary choice, often disguised as "scientific" or "factual", that doesn't stand to a reason. 172.88.197.74 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Linking freemasonry Can somebody link the word 'freemasons' to Freemasonry in 4.1 § Freemasonry? I would have done this myself but I can't edit this page. Thanks! PS I am a new user on Wikipedia and have 1 edit so far. 122.161.49.137 (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Bigfoot Coverup Among those believing in the existence of bigfoot or sasquatch, there is also common belief that the government, with complicity from the scientific establishment, has conducted a long-term and on-going coverup that suppresses any evidence of their existence and ostracizes any scientist that delves into researching the substantial anecdotal evidence. MStettler (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Yes, that is a conspiracy theory, but you need reliable sources calling it that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Gender Bias on the Page This page is potentially biased towards conspiratorial communities created, populated, and experienced by cishet men. Documented conspiracies such as the transphobic "gender critical" movement, fandom conspiracies (such as the Johnlock Conspiracy and Larries), anti-feminism (including Gamergate), and other anti-LGBTQ conspiracies (such as fearmongering LGBTQ people as groomers and pedophiles) are not represented by the page at all. This is very harmful, both because it suggests conspiracies aren't harming women & gender/sexual minorities, and because it suggests women & gender/sexual minorities are not significant members of conspiratorial groups. I would like to edit all of these groups into the page, as they all have documented histories elsewhere on Wikipedia. H-influenzae (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) List of groups I think should be included, as they have well-documented histories of radicalization: Gender Critical Gamergate Transphobia Homophobia Biphobia Anti-feminism Larries Gay Agenda Incel H-influenzae (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC) You might have started out by wp:AGF, note that radicalization and "conspiracy theories" are not synonymous. And most of you examples do not seem to be conspiracy theories. Nor can we list every conspiracy theory only (selected) very major ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Why is New Coke conspiracy a more relevant and "major" conspiracy than the Gay Agenda, Incels, Gender Critical, and Larries, which have other Wikipedia articles that are extensively sourced? I've heard of Incels and Larries, but have never heard of this New Coke nonsense in my entire life. H-influenzae (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Because COke is a major multinational, and the LArries are not. As to the rest. As I said I am unsure if some of them are even conspiracy theories. For example, are Incels are conspiracy theory, as they seem to exist, so what do you mean? Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC) But you may well have a point, as I said we can't have everything, so let's discuss what should be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC) If you read the Incel page, Incels believe in the Red Pill conspiracy, which I am not going to explain here as it's literally described on the page. Shouldn't you before removing someone else's edits, if you aren't sure if something is even a conspiracy, research whether or not what they are saying is true? Just because you have never heard of it and you are a frequent editor of the page does not mean that it is not real and that it requires instant deletion. That is also not editing in good faith. H-influenzae (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Yes, as you did not add any of the ones I am unsure about. Also (and here is the key point) the conspiracy theroy is "red pills" not "Incles", hence why I am unsure. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC) "Taking the Red Pill" is the entire basis of the Incel ideology. "Incels" is not literally the conspiracy in the same way that "Racism" is not literally the white genocide conspiracy on the page. Incels are a social group of conspiracy theorists. H-influenzae (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) This page is "List of conspiracy theories" not "List of conspiracy theorists" So the "conspiracy theory" is Red pill and blue pill, not incel. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Similarly when I mention "homophobia," "biphobia," "transphobia," and "anti-feminism" I am referring to groups of people who engage with conspiracy theories. I was operating on the assumption that, as someone who is familiar with conspiracy theories, you would be familiar with topics like Gamergate, The Red Pill, and yes, Larries, which I really cannot emphasize enough, is a huge group of people who genuinely fervently believe in this asinine thing and have for 12 years. H-influenzae (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC) In terms of Larries, which was the original issue, this is actually part of a much larger issue of celebrity conspiracies - some of which are mentioned on the page such as conspiracies about celebrity deaths. Celebrity death conspiracies are NOT the only kind of celebrity conspiracies - celebrities not actually being the parents of their children [12] and celebrities being in manufactured relationships [13] are huge conspiracies that go beyond Larry Stylinson, though Larry Stylinson contains both theories. H-influenzae (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Incels: The Matrix: how conspiracy theorists hijacked the ‘red pill’ philosophy Category: LGBT-related conspiracy theories Larries: Larry Stylinson, the One Direction conspiracy theory that rules the internet, explained H-influenzae (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Err that first source only really mention Incels in passing, and is more about the Matrix's influence on conspiracy theories. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I am going to discuss this with an administrator. The fact that these are established conspiracies you are just dismissing is very strange. H-influenzae (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Please do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC) @H-influenzae we deal with conduct issues, not content unless it's illegal, etc. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Why is Slatersteven the only arbiter of what is relevant on this page, when judging from his profile he has no expertise in these topics. Surely this is a misuse of Wikipedia, to not even research what someone is claiming. H-influenzae (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Now what is annoying is that you have one here that might be valid for inclusion, but its not any of the ones you seem to be arguing the toss about Gay Agenda. Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Might be time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Dispute filed on dispute resolution noticeboard.H-influenzae (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC) The Larries bit seems worthy of inclusion, and I don't see any reason to not include some of the incel, LGBT, or other conspiracy theories mentioned as long as reliable sources talking about them and labelling them as "conspiracy theories" are included with any addition (which the Larries addition by H-influenzae one certainly seemed). If the stand alone article can exist, it certainly seems appropriate for use on this list. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I will continue fleshing out what I was writing earlier, placing it in the context of celebrity theories mentioned earlier. Additionally, I will begin adding in the other topics I also listed. H-influenzae (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I see it has not been expanded, and we do only still have this one minor example. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) List of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true? This list seems to cover mostly unverified conspiracy theories. Is there a list of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, like for example the existence of UFOs/UAPs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Aerial_Phenomena_Task_Force . If there isn't such a list, should there be? Quohx (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC) There weren't very many, but you're welcome to try. I wouldn't necessarily say UFOs were a conspiracy theory, though. UFOs are just unidentified objects that aren't grounded. The conspiracy would be that they're aliens or secret government projects, neither of which have been confirmed to be true or even plausible. If you want legit conspiracy theories that definitely turned out to be true, I can think of MK ULTRA, the Tuskegee syphilis study, and Operation Northwoods. 2601:1C0:8500:1161:4CA6:D1B7:94A9:A16B (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Anything in the proposed "turned out to be true" category would have to be a legitimate (and specific) conspiracy theory. "The government does bad things in secret" is too wide of a catch-all. For example, the Watergate scandal is sometimes mistakenly referred to as "a conspiracy theory which turned out to be true", but it was actually a political scandal uncovered by two reporters over a period of a few months. It was never an Alex Jones type of belief widely dismissed or characterized as unlikely. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Germ Theory Not very long ago, this was totally laughable. 2600:8803:9001:6900:69C8:8630:7772:173F (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC) How is that a conspiracy, rather than outdated medicine?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC) UFOs have not “turned out to be true” That is boogusRJS001 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Actually "unidentified flying objects" or "unknown aerial phenomena" are very real - there's all kinds of pictures and video/film evidence of them, including released by the United States government. What those flying items *are* is unproven. King keudo (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Is there room for the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy? I'm not interested enough in the topic, but I think it should be included here. 168.174.252.45 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022 in the section talking about the larries it says that both harry, louis and their friends and family have denied harry and louis relationship multiple times. this is not true, neither harry or louis have ever seriously denied their relationship. the only real denial of larry is a tweet from louis' twitter acount saying "why can't you accept that i am happy and larry is a load of bullshit" and at the time this tweet was sent the management of one direction had control over all the boys social media accounts (the management is who was closeting harry and louis bc they didn't think the band would do as well if people knew that 2 of the band members were a part of the lgbtq+ community and dating each other) we know that their management had contol over these accounts bc when one of the boys was sleeping (we know bc another boy posted a picture, the one that was sleeping tweeted, or one of the boys would tweet while on stage performing) in fact many times they have confimed it, they haven't confirmed by saying "yeah we are in a relationship" but they have done and said many things that could only have happened if they were togherther and there are many "coincidences" that would have only happened if they were togther. also their friends and family have never actually denied it and have many times confirmed it. now i will show some examples of harry and louis "deniying" their relationship. ex. first of all all true fans of louis know he can be a very sarcastic and sassy person and when dan wootton asked louis about larry and asked him if it was real louis started out by saying he had never been asked about it directly, which is not true bc while in one direction harry and louis were asked about larry many times. then louis continues talkiing about pointless stuff like conspirasies on iphones (like what ?? totally irrelivant) then louis finishes by saying "but in reality, obviously theres no truth to it, obviously" HOW COULD HE MAKE IT ANY MORE CLEAR THAT HE'S BEING SARCASTIC!! ex. 2. when harry was asked if sweet creature was written about louis (duh who else could it be about bc its most definitely not about gemma (his sister)) before answering the question harry hesitated a bunch then proceeded to make a bunch of horse noises then after that he still DID NOT DENY THAT IT WAS ABOUT LOUIS in many of harry and louis' solo songs and some one direction songs that they wrote you can very clearly tell they are written about each other. in conclusion, harry and louis are together, in a relationship. this relationship first started in 2010, they got married on september 28th, 2013. and they are still together now. so my request is that you change the part where it says that harry, louis, their family and friends have denied this relatonship, to say that none of them have ever ACTUALLY denied it thank you! have a great day/night and remember to treat people with kindness! The rose07 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC) 2016 Russian Collusion Theory This article would not be complete without discussion of the conspiracy theory, widely circulated in left-wing circles, that the 2016 election was stolen from Hillary Clinton due to Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Considering the "stolen election" conspiracy promoted by Trump surrounding the 2020 election, it only makes sense to include information on the 2016 election as well. Leaving out the Russian collusion conspiracy theory exposes the partisan bias of the contributors to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laowai53 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Totally different thing. Trump's claims are based on fantasy vote fraud after the voting, which did not happen, while the Russia thing is about spreading lies to influence voters before voting, which actually happened. Nobody called that "stolen election". But that is not relevant. You need reliable sources calling it a conspiracy theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC) I am not denying that Russia influenced the 2016 election. What I am saying is that for more than two years, numerous media figures and politicians posited the idea that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election. Ultimately, no significant evidence of this was found in the Mueller Investigation. That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, and keep in mind, I am not a fan of Donald Trump. Laowai53 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC) What Peter Wright actually believed about Harold Wilson In his book Spycatcher, Wright did not say that Wilson was secretly a KGB agent (though he did allege it about other people some of which was corroborated). What he actually said about Wilson was quite complicated; A KGB agent agent defected, and told the CIA etc that the KGB had killed a European party leader and replaced him with "their man". Ostensibly that could've been Wilson (the previous Labour Party leader had died somewhat mysteriously of a tropical disease having not visited the tropics). MI5 and the CIA etc urgently checked, but concluded that the "European country" was Greece not Britain - clearing Wilson obviously - the investigation wasn't public. By the time of its conclusion however, Wilson had become PM - and political opponents tried various ways to get MI5 to leak the story to the Press (which MI5 refused to do). The plotters figuring that the mere investigation becoming pubic would finish Wilson (even though cleared). Wright did mention others in politics still believing it about Wilson though - that is what the book said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC) Chemtrails I don't think these are real, I think this is just one of the things that people came up with for no reason. Jac Dodge (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Golden billion I added "Golden billion" conspiracy theory to this list. Actually due to my making a typo in my searching, I thought at first there was no article about this, which is prominent in current news, although it is not a new idea. There is in fact an article at Golden billion. I am not an authority about conspiracy theories in general, but I perceive this to be an important one. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC) I am unsure its one of the big ones, and a current upsurge does not make it so. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC) US elections I moved the 2020 election to a new section on Stolen US elections and added material on 1824, 1876 and 1912--and plan to add 2000. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)