Talk:List of conspiracy theories

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)

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)

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: [2].--92.211.155.37 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 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)

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.

References

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 [[3]], 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)

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 [4] 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.[5],[6],[7],[8]. 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