Where was it conclusively determined that these "conspiracy theories", or entertainment surrounding them, was 100% fictional? I think it would be neutral to say they are allegedly fictional, or the mainstream view is these theories, allegations, and stories are ostensibly highly dubious. But isn't it an easy way to discredit an allegation by claiming it is a story? This article needs work. zen master T 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
All of the works in this list that I am aware of are certainly intended to be works of fiction. If an author wished to document a conspiracy theory that they believed was true, then surely they would clearly present it as non-fiction rather than fiction. Of course, any works that the author intended to be non-fiction should be removed from this list, if any are present. I can't see any though. Crispy 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There has to be some truth in "consiparcy theories", like government officials, illuminati's, freemasons etc etc planning to take over the world, using and abusing citizens of the state, or all these all just coincidence's. ???
Whilst they are intended to be fictional in these works, they are still based on proper conspiracy theories. So I think the artical should be changed to Conspiracy IN fiction as it will make more sense.22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
how about merging all these "see also" articles (especially this one and conspiracy thriller), into one big new article called Conspiracy fiction ? because things like The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Foucault's Pendulum and the Dan Brown books (Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code etc) are all very similar, similar plots, similar themes etc. or at least move the non-film stuff out of that article into this one? the term "conspiracy fiction" has 1440 google hits. Zzzzz 20:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Great minds think alike, or something:) I just merged in 'Conspiracies in fiction.' Sure, let's merge in conspiracy thriller as well, and then rename the resulting article "Conspiracy fiction." After that some pruning might be in order. Tom Harrison Talk 21:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that the paragraph in "Popular Novels" about Phillip K Dick's conspiracy fiction should be either edited or removed. It does not contain any references as to what stories it's talking about. The paragraph in question:
For example, in one story, aliens invade Earth and destroy its civilization almost completely, but the remaining humans are made to believe that Earth won the war and has to be reconstructed (the aliens apparently want a pacific coexistence with humans). In another story, an undefined organization periodically "freezes" parts of a city, changes and reorders it, makes the appropriate changes in the minds of humans found there at the time, and then lets things go on as usual (similar to what is seen in the movie Dark City).
The present structure is:
1 Literature 2 Popular novels 3 Conspiracy thrillers 3.1 Film and television 3.2 Literature 4 Cinema
How does one divide literature from popular novels ? JFK is included in both 3.1 Film and television and 4 Cinema. Are 1 / 2 / 4 supposed to be one thing and 3 another ? -- Beardo 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)