Talk:List of conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of conspiracy theories article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-07. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] In response to 'LUCIFER TRUST'

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

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

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

[edit] Lavon Affair

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

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

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

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

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

AND IF secret societies want to be recognized by secret numbers

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

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

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

Maybe an example could be put there? I dunno, when I saw that, it just looked like someone was saying that critics of corporate globalization are whacko conspiracy theorists (it is common for people to claim that everyone on the radical left is a conspiracy theorist, which is unfounded and kind of insulting..). I've never heard
a "wild conspiracy theory" regarding them... --Tothebarricades.tk 00:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

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

[edit] Lucius Trust / "Lucifer trust"

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

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

[edit] Hahahah!

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia Indian-Polish Conspiracy Theory

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

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

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

[edit] javier solana

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

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

[edit] Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

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

[edit] "alleged" is a little unclear

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

[edit] Incorrect grouping

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

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

[edit] Diana

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

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

[edit] Merge

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

I also support the merge. MrHen

[edit] huh?

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

[edit] Merges

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

[edit] Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

I'm not sure that this is the kind of conspiracy being discussed here. Everything in the article plays it as a joke (which it has become). Just because the word conspiracy is in the title doesn't mean it fits in this list.

[edit] Paranoia Conspiracies

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

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


[edit] Please don't

I agree, if you don't beleive it, it does not mean it's not true, and if someone else does believe it, it does not mean it is true. For the sake of all the people that do believe it or all the people that might just want to see some conspiracy theories - please don't delete this page. For this page is an excellent reference for conspiracy theorists.

[edit] FLQ and CDA

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

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

[edit] international communist conspiracy

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

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

Many historic events attributed at the time to having been run out of Moscow simply were not. User:VeriGGlater 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Specific examples? The Myotis 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Take for example the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This was initiated by the United States. Zbigniew Brzezinski boasted in 1998 that the US was in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet Union. It was the plans of the US to draw them into "the Afghan trap". The Korean civil war. Advisors to NKorea were minimal, according to Korean expert Bruce Cumings. The civil war was not the result of the Soviet Union trying to take over the Korean penninsula or specifically do to communist ideology. Nicaragua in the 1980s, as with most of Latin America was merely sick of being ruled by corrupt oligarchs. The Sandanistas only turned to the Soviet Union for help as the United State's terrorist war commenced. User:VeriGGlater 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

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

But not all conspiracy theories, even wide spread ones, are written down. In fact it might be someone's theory that you are part of a conspiracy to get people to write their theories down so your masters can keep tabs on what people are thinking and easier control them. bwah-ha-haw. Admit it! That is why you also invented personal web pages and even stuff like myspace. So people become gleeful at creating personal psuedo-private bios. It is about control. Keep you in line psychologically so you don't stop buying crap which keeps them in power to keep you in line. User:VeriGGlater 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, obviously this article is a bit different from most in that you do not have to provide evidence that something exists as much as somebody believes it exists. Ideally, there is some book or news article that either documents people who believe in such a theory or who believe in it themselves. "Citation needed" tags are needed thought much of the article, and while I am pretty sure that most of these theories do exist in some form, we should be able to find at least some source. The Myotis 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] AIC

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

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

Firstly, you will see that my two of my three recent edits to the section were not reverts, I simply moved around some information and eliminated some irrelevant information, acceptable neutralifying. Second, there is no real reason to say that the book is available anywhere. You can get virtually any book ever written at Amazon.com, everything from the Halo novels to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you believe that its sale at this website legitimizes it, you are mistaken. And I did not see any false claims on the original; only one statement even seemed debatable. Now, I would like to hear your explanation(s). The Myotis 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
They are reverts of my edit. Part of my edit was moving information around, and eliminating irrelevant information, you reverted them, there might have been some edits in between but they did not do anything to this part. You broke the 3RR rule, I just want you revert on your own. If you say that whether the book is available somewhere is irrelevant, we can maybe reach a consensus there. Anyway please revert yourself, since you have broken 3RR and then I will make my edits. denizTC 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
First Denizz, if you would mind look at my last edit, you will see the only thing I did was remove the Amazon.com reference and shift a part of the new title. I did not even move the paragraph back, nor did I eliminate reference to Weems in the title. If you are trying to gain legal superiority over me using the three-revert rule, you have a poor case, particularly considering how you ignored my pleas for discussion initially. But the point of the talk page, and the reason I asked you to use it in the first place, was not to get into ad hominem arguments, a technique reserved for those whose claims lack backing, but to find a policy-acceptable consensus. Now, can we agree (to ensure conformity in the article) that though Weems may be a major contributor to the theory, his name does not need to be in the title? As almost every book ever written in English is available at Amazon.com, can we agree that it is not a significant piece of data and should be left out? What I would like you to explain to me is why you believe the section introduction should be at the bottom of section, rather than at the top. Also, to prevent future edit wars, I would like a complete summary of whatever edits you are planning on contributing before you add them to the article.The Myotis 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The first three are definitely reverts, and the fourth one might be considered a revert as well, in my opinion. Also, you were asking me to discuss on the talk page, without you discussing first, and without you telling the reasons for your reverts/edits first. Like I said before, I was waiting for you to discuss here. If we are not supposed to give any reasons for our edits, the we shall not give any, as usually the reason is basically just to improve the article. But if you insist on seeing reasons, that might mean there are possibly other reasons. I would rather have you first state those (your?) reasons, so I waited. Like I said I was going to edit my version as well, but since I thought you breached a rule, I was waiting for you to undo that by reverting yourself. Note that, I made changes as well while "reverting" and called it a revert, as I think that still counts as a revert. My edit will be similar to your last version, except that I would add one line (being sold in popular (online) bookstores). So you have three reverts + 1 edit (or revert). denizTC 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The first of three edits of which you (assumedly) refer to happen on different days, not all on the same, and the first edit was reverting a edit that had been added several days earlier. And when a person ask you to discuss your edits, but does not specify a thread to discuss it in, it does not mean you should you keep editing without the requested discussion. Again, where the book is available is irrelevant. I don't know of a single other article that tells you where to buy the described book, but if you can find one, please show me. Also, I would like to (again) ask the point of moving the introduction to the bottom.The Myotis 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know it is last 24 hours, not in a calendar day. I think, where the book is available is relevant. I think it is better to keep the Azerbaijan part down there, it is not an introduction. We might need rewording. We might also need to try to match the wording here and on the main article for the book. Please check my edit. denizTC 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to tone down Azerbaijan, after all, I have reason to believe that such theories are most prevalent (and most intense) there, though I don't think that Azerbaijan was in the original introduction (I think parts of the introduction were merged with another paragraph). Also, for article conformity, I am going to remove Weems' name from the title. I still think where the book is available is irrelevant, as is the modern day all books are available online. But, since it seems very important to you, I will ignore it.The Myotis 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
....seriously, after the first accusation, you should have called in a third party to examine the case. Wasting so many paragraphs arguing over who broke 3RR first accomplishes nothing but looking silly.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Common flaws

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

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

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

2007-05-21 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

[edit] Armenian International Conspiracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Don't forget to list americas Theories!

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

[edit] Spain

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

--

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

--

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

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

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

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

[edit] Why only conspiracies not accepted by the mainstream?

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

[edit] Zeitgeist

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

User:Xiutwel has created one here, but it was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. A brief follow-up discussion on this AfD is here. Corleonebrother 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
...really? Are we talking about the movie that implies that those during the Renaissance who introduced paper money foresaw the creation of the Internet? Or the incredibly discredited Horus/Jesus myth? Or that somehow the much-hated Bush administration managed to convince all of their political enemies to keep a secret that would ensure instant win for these same enemies if released?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protocols of Elders of Zion is "Factual"?

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

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

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

[edit] Serious work is needed on sourcing

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

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

[edit] Fact, not conspiracy

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] jew dominated wikipedia suppresses world domination by jews!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! etc.

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

[edit] Bush/Iraq War - Fact, not theory?

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

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

[edit] Major rewrite

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

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

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

[edit] What qualifies?

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


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

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

[edit] Holy Grail/Da vinci Code

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

[edit] A good decision

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

[edit] What about Pre Twentieth Century Conspiracies?

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

[edit] Lets delete the Jesus hoax section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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