Talk:List of conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Move Stolen elections in American history to new article

I moved the section "Stolen elections in American history" to a new article on Contested elections in American history. The old section/new article is not primarily about conspiracy theories but about the actual course of events as described by historians. Also this article is much too long. Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Off topic detail

Does the “Larries” section of really need to be in this article? It has once source which links to Buzzfeed, and I hate to say it, but there are more important things than One Direction being in an article on conspiracy theories. 2601:483:5100:328D:3130:E4B9:CE82:5332 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It sure looks like trivia to me. Even worse is that it comes after an intro that claims "Numerous conspiracy theories...", then lists only that one. I shall watch this page for a few days. If nobody comes forward to defend it, I will delete it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It's on topic, and the book is a reliable source. Don't expect conspiracy theories to be logical or important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Something can be on-topic, and still be pointless trivia. We don't fill our articles with junk. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources are not trivia sources (like the Hollywood Reporter or National Enquirer), so the determination of "trivia" is out of your hands. IDONTLIKEIT is not how we determine trivia. Shipping is a serious form of conspiracy theory that deserves mention.

There are four RS for the whole section, and it can be improved by adding more of the examples mentioned in the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

2016 election collusion

I was surprised that this list doesn't mention one of the most prominent conspiracy theories of the past decade, which might be true or might be false, namely the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

While the Mueller Report actually mentioned the word "conspired" in this context, the report made no conclusion about whether the conspiracy was true, even though most people in the United States have a strong opinion one way or the other.

This is a rare example of a conspiracy theory embraced by the left end of the political spectrum. Most political conspiracy theories seem to originate from the right-wing end. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is an interesting one as it has always conflated issues, likely in a deliberate way to confuse people. Mueller did NOT find there was NO "conspiracy". He could not prove it, for two possible reasons: (1) a formal conspiracy may have never existed in a "you do this and I'll do that" form; (2) all of the obstruction and destruction of evidence (things Mueller documented) prevented him from being able to prove it. So it may or may not have existed. We just don't know.

What we do know is that Mueller deliberately mentions "collusion" and how he did NOT seek to prove it, only to prove "conspiracy" and "coordination". He explained why. When one reads the Mueller Report, it becomes plain that his investigation actually found myriad forms of collusion, often using other words. We know that the Trump campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated, aided and abetted, lied about, facilitated, encouraged, did not prevent interference, and tried to prevent U.S. intelligence from doing its job because Trump "expected to benefit" from Russian interference.

That sounds like collusion, so it would be wrong to label claims of collusion as a "conspiracy theory", since there was lots of collusion.

For all practical purposes, Mueller used the words conspiracy and collusion in different ways. Conspiracy is synonymous with coordination, whereas collusion is synonymous with cooperation. Steele alleged a "conspiracy of cooperation". The conspiracy was unproven, but the cooperation existed in spades. So something weird happened because people focused on "conspiracy", not on what actually happened, which was "cooperation".

To illustrate, if two bank robbers are caught in the act and arrested, and their defense is "we did not conspire to rob the bank", would any judge in the world let them go free because the police could not find evidence, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they "conspired" to do it? No. They did rob the bank, so whether there was a conspiracy is an irrelevant distraction. That's the case here.

See Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion for an explanation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I could only find a few conservative sources that promoted this as a conspiracy theory. We’d need much wider notice from mainstream sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's an accusation made by Trump supporters and right-wing sources, most of which are not considered RS. Even without any evidence, right from the beginning, Trump has called anything negative, including all the proven facts about Russian interference to help him, a witchhunt and fake news, so we're dealing with an accusation that does not rely on evidence. Claims of "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia are reasonable claims with lots of evidence to back them up, so it's not a conspiracy theory and should not be listed here as such. Also, claims of a "conspiracy" are unproven, but not disproven. The things we call conspiracy theories here have lots of evidence against them. This is a different matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

This article says that the things we call conspiracy theories are not always false. A theory can be true and still be a conspiracy theory. Mueller report#Conspiracy or coordination vs collusion says that conspiracy or coordination was not proven in the Mueller report, and yet there is a widespread belief (at least on the left) that a conspiracy occurred. Do we need mainstream sources characterizing this as a conspiracy theory, or mainstream sources simply saying that there is a widespread belief in the existence of a conspiracy? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

MKULTRA

Why is MKULTRA listed as "Genuine American Research"? Considering that the page that it links to plainly states that the program was "illegal", I think that "Genuine Research" is hardly accurate. 2600:1700:1C64:E310:11A2:6597:4834:9787 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

MKULTRA

Why is MKULTRA listed as "Genuine American Research"? Considering that the page that it links to plainly states that the program was "illegal", I think that "Genuine Research" is hardly accurate. 2600:1700:1C64:E310:11A2:6597:4834:9787 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Crash of Polish Tu-154M

On 10 IV 2010 Polish Tu-154M, with polish president Lech Kaczyński onboard, crashed right before Smoleńsk airfield.

The official version was finalised after many computer simulations and analyses of of damage to plane's construction.

However soon after a conspiracy theory about an alleged bomb appeared, largely propelled by the PM and brother of deceased president (Jarosław Kaczyński) and a minister in brother's cabinet (Antoni Macierewicz).

Despite lack of evidence to support this theory it still exists in public discourse even after new evidence disproving the "bomb theory" came up (lack of explosive material trails in deceased passangers' bodies). 188.147.12.203 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia article explaining the crash and conspiracy theories:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smolensk_air_disaster 188.147.12.203 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

Robert F Kennedy

Martinez, Michael (April 30, 2012). "RFK assassination witness tells CNN: There was a second shooter". CNN.

Young Pair Shouted 'We Killed Kennedy'". Santa Monica Evening Outlook. Santa Monica, California. UPI. December 23, 1974. Retrieved August 2, 2017.

"The deaths of prominent figures of all types attract conspiracy theorists, sometimes elaborating on historically verified conspiracies such as the assassination of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln,[34] as well as the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr.,[35] Eric V of Denmark, Dmitry Ivanovich, Sheikh Rahman, Yitzhak Rabin,[36] Zachary Taylor,[37]Robert F. Kennedy , George S. Patton,[38][39] Diana, Princess of Wales,[40] Dag Hammarskjöld,[41] Kurt Cobain, Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe, Tupac Shakur,[42] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,[43] John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Notorious B.I.G,[42] Pope John Paul I, Jill Dando, Olof Palme,[44] member of Linkin Park Chester Bennington,[45] Paul Walker, biological warfare authority David Kelly,[46] Haitian president Jovenel Moïse,[47] Indian freedom fighter Subash Chandra Bose,[48][49][50] and Bollywood star Sushant Singh Rajput.[51]",

Jgadd77 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thought Control

The mother of all conspiracies, that we are not alone in our own mind. A secret culture and a secret governance wages a secret war upon is all, spreading confusion corruption, and provoking the masses with contrived conspiracies in a humanity wide game of power. 174.205.35.182 (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

We do mention variations on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

Remove the unnecessary parentheses in (Billy Shears). Also, replace [[Dag Hammarskjöld#Alternative theories|...]] with [[1961 Ndola Transair Sweden DC-6 crash#Alternative theories|...]], [[Port Chicago disaster#Debunked nuclear bomb theory|...]] with [[Port Chicago disaster|...]], and then remove the broken anchor box at the top of this talk page. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D088:DDE4:16D3:E77C (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Parentheses removed. Every other link in this list you're referring to links to a BLP page or at least a page with their name in the title. I think redirecting the Dag Hammarskjöld link to the disaster's page is inappropriate, given that. A link to his page's Death section would be more logical. I implemented as such. Feel free to resubmit if you disagree with this change. Thickynugnug (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

concerns about "racism" section

on a cursory read i think there are several major issues with the "racism" section here.

1. the only two races that are mentioned are white people and black people (primarily from the US). surely these are not the only ethnic groups about which conspiracy theories exist
2. the presentation not only gives equal weight to the incredibly popular and influential conspiracy theory of white genocide and other, relatively fringe topics, but actually gives it less weight (2 sentences about it, with no real summary of its origin, widespread promotion, and consequences beyond a single poll, versus 3 whole paragraphs on ostensible anti-white conspiracy theories by black people)
3. "Some Rastafari maintain that a white racist patriarchy ("Babylon") controls the world to oppress black people." it's not at all immediately obvious why the idea that the world is dominated by racist patriarchy should be considered unfounded or conspiratorial, and the source given for this is what appears to be a 14-year-old post on a very small archived personal blog. the claims about selassie are at least sourced to a BBC article, but the article presents 2 different claims: that in the aftermath of his death, some of his followers refused to accept it (it's not clear who or under exactly what circumstances), and that some made religious/spiritual claims about him being "immortal" in the sense of being an agent of god (almost every major religion believes in similar spiritual agents, but, for example, jesus isn't listed here). again, why should this be given similar weight to a very well-documented conspiracy theory like white genocide?
4. the section on "the plan" can be criticized for the same reasons of undue weight. one of the sources concludes like this: "So does The Plan exist? I don’t know. Does gentrification exist? Most certainly. One is a real process that has taken place across the country, and that has real economic and social forces behind it. The other is a theory. Without compelling evidence, or any kind of paper trail or history, it’s hard to look at The Plan as anything other than a rumor; one which happened to have come true." from the source's description, it seems to be the idea that a real event of gentrification was intentionally planned, which couldn't be conclusively proven and was widely dismissed. i couldn't access the final source to see the reason for this, but we can't claim that it was widely dismissed regardless of race and "may have widespread quiet credence" among black people at the same time- if the last source claims this it's in direct contradiction with the other. again, why is this small theory widely dismissed in a single city presented as on par with the significantly popular belief among white communities worldwide in a white genocide, historically rooted in eugenics and nazi germany? what might the implications be of presenting black people as especially unreasonable on the question of gentrification, with no equivalent scale of evidence?
5. the blanket labeling of black genocide as a conspiracy theory doesn't accord with the actual linked article, which only says that some arguments for its existence have been described as conspiratorial. the dispute over whether well-established historical crimes committed by white people against black people should be considered as genocide shouldn't be conflated with the claim that birth control and abortion are a conspiracy by white people against black people. mentioning malcolm x's charge of black genocide right before saying "some" black militants characterized abortion as genocide feeds this conflation, because it isn't at all clear that abortion is what the majority of genocide claims refer to

LarstonMarston (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You're definitely right about the plan, at least as sourced to skeptoid blog. Take it to the RS board if you disagree. Central and Adams (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

i removed the section on rastafari entirely because it was badly sourced and only cited a passing mention of disbelief in selassie's death, while implying that belief in racist patriarchy is inherently conspiratorial. if there are better sources with more information on the same topic it could be added back LarstonMarston (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

i think i was able to improve the black genocide section significantly and distinguish the arguments seen as conspiratorial. the main thing i'd like to do now is just expand on the history & nature of the white genocide conspiracy theory LarstonMarston (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)