Talk:Conspiracy theory

Archives
May 2003 May 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 – November 2003 October 2005 October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 – December 2006 January 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – December 2010

Conspiracy theorists section guideline

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an 'official' link for above must statement, and for the conclusive 'therefore' statement. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of mainstream there. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

it does seem wikipedia is becoming a mainstream encyclopedia. last time i was checking that policy (early 2008), there was no mention of mainstream in it. very unfortunate development -- encyclopedia that is going to mirror what mainstream corporate mass media owned by a few are repeating all the time -- beats the purpose of encyclopedia. luckily, wikipedia is an evolving system, so future editors may change this nonsense. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current list of conspiracy theorists. It's random, many of the names listed lack bios, the bios of the people who are listed are poorly researched and in some cases inaccurate, sensationalized and lacking in documentation. Putting the list in a table and adding birth years does not constitute unbiased research. The criteria being used appears to be "someone once said something somewhere that sounded like it could have been a conspiracy theory therefore I feel it's acceptable to list this person as a conspiracy theorist in wikipedia." This is clearly not in keeping with even basic wikipedia standards.

The intent to smear specific individuals like politician Lyndon Larouche (by highlighting his criminal conviction) or Dave Emory and Mae Brussel (by presenting a characature of their research and writings on the survival of fascism in the post-war era) is blatant and obvious. It's become especially obvious when accurate, documented and verifiable information has been added about these individuals and others and it has been removed and replaced with patently inferior and biased writing. These activiies constitutes a not-so-subtle form of vandalism of the article. I think it's blatant enough that the matter needs to be looked at by the larger wikipedia community for an opinion.

If there is to be a list of "conspiracy theorists," serious standards for inclusion need to created. It can't just be a matter of one persistent person's whim or opinion.

What has already been suggested is not a bad place to start: "we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist." It's a place to start, but it's still pretty thin criteria. Since conspiracy theorist is a derogatpry term and is a commentary on an individuals intelligence, integrity, and even sanity, this designation should be applied carefully only if the preponderance of references characterize the person this way. Even then, special care should be taken in the case of living persons.

I think the list needs to be removed in its entirety pending the creation of serious and standardized criterial for adding people to it. The rationale for including any individual living or dead needs to be open for discussion pro and con with serious data and documentation being presented. Nolatime (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Nolatime

Although I personally think that Lyndon Larouche, Dave Emory, and Mae Brussel are conspiracy theorists, I've never contributed to the list and I actually agree it should be removed from the article until each entry can be sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It’s pretty easy for anybody who’s willing to spare even a few minutes a day. A lot of these people have their own articles here. Just visit them and use any good sources they have. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be confused. We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you’re right – even if we have plenty of good sources saying that Person A believes in Concept B and that Concept B is a conspiracy theory, it’s only acceptable for us to list him as a conspiracy theorist if a good source explicitly says so. It sounds totally fucking ridiculous on the face of it, but I suppose BLP can be like that sometimes. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy

I removed the entry for Ken McCarthy from the list of 'Conspiracy Theorists' as it is inaccurate and misleading so to describe him. While a case can be made out that a small proportion of the video clip reprints on the brasschecktv.com site might qualify as conspiracy theories, much of the material comes from reputable mainstream news sources, comedy programs etc. In any case the site makes it clear that the views expressed in the contents are those of their respective originators and not necessarily endorsed by the site's proprietors. DaveApter (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even assuming that he no longer runs the site, he is still responsible for the selection, and is therefore a promoter of conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, whether hosting a site which contains - among much other material - reprints of clips that you judge to be 'conspiracy theories' justifies labelling the site owner a 'Conspiracy Theorist'. This is a term that should be used with discrimination in view of its pejorative implications (as the introduction to this article says: "The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe."

It is clearly entirely appropriate for this section to list individuals such as David Icke and Kent Hovind, and completely absurd to include people like Ken McCarthy alongside them. For this reason, I have removed him again.DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your position is absurd. I'll have to check whether you've completed the whitewash of McCarthy's article, removing the sourced information that he (at least used to) solicit conspiracies, but that is adequate, even if he didn't contribute or host. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Loremaster, and thanks for your ongoing attempts to bring some sanity to this article. However I'm confused by your endorsement of Arthur Rubin's position here as it seems completely at odds with what you say yourself in the section above:

"We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist."

Where are the works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist? DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to cite works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist. However, I was simply expressing my personal opinion that McCarthy is a conspiracy theorist even if we can't cite such works and articles. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, in order to comply with the BLP guideline you quote above, we should remove him from the list until such time as one of these reliable sources can be found and cited? DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entire list should moved here to the archives until it is completely sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I went ahead and did that. DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that Ken McCarthy, who has hundreds of Internet references and over one dozen book references as an Internet pioneer, entrepreneur and educator, has now been designated a "conspiracy journalist" in the External Links section of this article. This inspired a look at the dictionary.

The phrases "conspiracy journalist" and "conspiracy journalism" do not exist in any English dictionary I was able to find, online or offline. A Google search turns up three uses total - one in wikipedia, one in something called wapedia and one on a site that republishes wikipedia articles. The wikipedia article on "conspiracy journalism" has been entirely inactive since it was posted and contains only posts made by a single individual.

For these reasons, I'm removing this link. I have also proposed in the Discussion area for the "conspiracy journalism" article that the article "conspiracy journalism" be removed and would welcome the assistance of more experienced wikipedia users in making this proposal to the wikipedia community. Thanks.Nolatime (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

List of alleged conspiracy theorists

Here is the list from the article, so that adequate sources may be sought DaveApter (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists

The following people are known to have proposed conspiracy theories:

James Jesus Angleton (1917 - 1987)	American Cold War spymaster whose paranoid excesses as the CIA's counter-intelligence czar, arising from false information provided by his KGB defector friend Anatoliy Golitsyn, had adverse effects on the Agency.
Art Bell (born 1945)	American founder and longtime host of the paranormal-themed radio program Coast to Coast AM.
Peter Beter (1921 - 1987)	American lawyer and author who claimed that world events were being controlled by three factions, the Rockefeller family, the "Bolshevik-Zionist axis," and the Kremlin.
Mae Brussell (1922 - 1988)	American conspiracy theorist and radio personality, focusing on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
William Guy Carr (1895 - 1959)	Canadian naval officer and author responsible for creating the American Illuminati demonology.
Jack T. Chick (born 1924)	American publisher of comic book-style tracts, known as Chick Tracts, often depicting conspiracy theories featuring Satan, the Catholic Church, Communists, Muslims, rock musicians, scientists, and politicians, as well as other groups and subjects behind popular entertainment, role-playing games, and other perceived ills of modern culture.
Jerome Corsi (born 1946)	American author who theorizes about a potential North American Union, advances 9/11 conspiracy theories, believes in abiogenic petroleum origin and theorizes a conspiracy between oil companies and politicians to maintain pricing.
Francis E. Dec (1926 - 1996)	Disbarred American lawyer from Hempstead, New York who is today known for having in the 1970s and 80s mass-mailed various rambling flyers and rants to randomly selected addressees all across the US, in which he purported to warn the public of an omnipotent machine-entity he referred to as the "World-wide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God."
James Shelby Downard (1913 - 1998)	American author who perceived occult symbolism, twilight language and synchronicity behind historical events in the 20th century.
David Emory (born 1949)	American talk radio host who asserts that an obscure, sinister, organization called the "Underground Reich" maintains the interests of the German industry, banking and finance, which survived World War II as a major part of the global capital elite. Based in the San Francisco Bay area.
Myron C. Fagan (1887 - 1972)	American writer, producer and director for film and theatre, who wrote and produced plays and pamphlets claiming the United Nations was a Communist front for one world government.
Anatoliy Golitsyn (1926 - ?)	Soviet KGB defector who provided the CIA with false information and later wrote a book claiming that the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was a hoax.
Des Griffin	American author espousing a right-wing Christian view of global conspiracies and the New World Order.
G. Edward Griffin
Zaid Hamid
Patrick Haseldine (born 1942)	Former British diplomat, dismissed in 1989 by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988. His subsequent conspiracy theory seeking to incriminate apartheid South Africa over the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing alleged that the aircraft was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia.
Stanley Hilton	American lawyer who filed a subsequently dismissed $7-billion lawsuit against Bush Administration officials, accusing them of complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Richard Hoagland (born 1945)	American author whose books claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon and Mars, and NASA and the United States government are conspiring to keep this secret. Latest theories of this nature include the Jovian satellite Europa and what he claims killed the Columbia shuttle astronauts.
Michael A. Hoffman II (born 1954)	American historian who posits conspiracies about Jewish control of the United States and about the Holocaust.
Leonard G. Horowitz	American author, former dentist, who claimed in a book, Emerging Viruses, that HIV/AIDS was engineered by the U.S. as a biological warfare agent. Reportedly inspired Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to caution against vaccinating children; mentioned by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in support of Wright's similar claim.
Kent E. Hovind (born 1953)	Young-earth creationist speaking on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs.
David Icke (born 1952)	British writer and public speaker who claims that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Alex Jones (born 1974)	Syndicated radio host, film maker and web site publisher. Has been referred to as a "conspiracy theorist." Considers himself a libertarian and a patriot. Based in Austin, TX.
Timothy F. LaHaye (born 1926)	Joint author, with Jerry F. Jenkins, of the Left Behind novels.
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. (born 1922)	American activist and self-styled politician whose publications rail against what he calls "Synarchism" and who, in spite of having received a felony conviction for mail fraud, has repeatedly sought election—thus far, without success—to the office of President of the United States.
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
William S. Lind	Paleoconservative activist and director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, Lind claims "Political Correctness is cultural Marxism." and that scholars associated with the Institute for Social Research at University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the ) determined to overthrow Western Christian culture and have turned college campuses into "small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble." Lind's theory has been embraced by conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and by Michael Minnicino who is associated with Lyndon Larouche's Schiller Institute.
Jim Marrs (born 1943)	American author who has written such books as: Rule by Secrecy, Alien Agenda, Crossfire, and The Rise of the Fourth Reich.
Texe Marrs
Ken McCarthy (born 1959)	Owns and operates BrasscheckTV via his AMACORD consulting business. Massive provider of conspiracy content, videos and alternative news stories. Site named for Upton Sinclair's book The Brass Check, an early analysis of the significance and impact of ownership patterns of US news sources
Thierry Meyssan
Gary North
Roberto Pinotti
Jeff Rense	American radio show host and web site producer, mostly UFO and 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Lew Rockwell
Christopher W. Ruddy
Ben Stein (born 1944)	former Nixon speechwriter turned actor/game show host, whose movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alleges a vast conspiracy among modern scientists to squelch evidence for creationism in order to promote atheism.
Oliver Stone	Academy award-winning film director and screenwriter
John A. Stormer
Webster Tarpley

Richard Belzer is a self professed Conspiracy Theorist. I would have left this out as being more along the lines of a hobby rather than his lifes work, but the same would also apply to Ben Stein and Oliver Stone. 70.179.142.114 (talk)

Any non english speaking authors on the list? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

o.k. few have been added... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfair use of sources

The text says:

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.

and these books are cited:

• A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America
• Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change

which are two essays by two sociologists and as such they explains the respectable point of view of the authors on this matter, yet they are used to justify factual statements. This is unfair: we must specify that we are citing the authors and not stating a fact.

Also what we are expressing seems not really plasible:

1. since we defined "conspiracy theories" as "fringe theories" obviusly (by definition of fringe theories) they are not accepted by the mainstream scholars, yet it is not necessarily true that they are not accepted by any scholar (again according to our definition) as we are instead saying with the phrase "Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars"
2. it seems that we are suggesting that institutional analysis denies the possibility of any single conspiracy, it's hard to believe that any serious theory would assume such a position.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you said. I'll explain why when I have time. --Loremaster (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proven True Category

The category navigation box at the bottom of the article has a section called "Proven True". It's not clear to me that many of these were actual conspiracy theories before being exposed to the public. For example, before Watergate was exposed, was there a conspiracy theory that the Republicans had stolen documents from Democrat campaign headquarters? To be "Proven True" conspiracy theories, there needs to have been a conspiracy theory beforehand. The Watergate article doesn't mention a prior conspiracy theory that I could see, so it doesn't really deserve to be in the Proven True box IMHO.

In other words, a "Proven True" conspiracy theory differs from an ordinary scandal in that there needs to have been a notable conspiracy theory which (correctly) predicted the nature of the scandal before it was revealed to the public. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.8.65 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, you should be raising this issue on the Template talk:Conspiracy theories page rather than here... --Loremaster (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer to this question probably depends on the definition of conspiracy theory. If we accept a definition such as: "A conspiracy theory is a set of assumptions about an event that include the assumption that knowledge about the event is not being revealed through institutionalized processes that are expected to result in such revelations," then the conspiracy theory (i.e. the explanation based on such assumptions) has been true (or not true, in case the assumptions are wrong) regardless of any observers actually expressing such a view before the facts became public knowledge. Theories, including conspiracy theories, are not necessarily conjectures, i.e. unproven assumptions, they include proven, or, for that matter, disproven, theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

unexplained revert

To the person who never contributed this page and reverted all my edits, please explain the revert of the edits, especially the vocabulary improvements. Failure to explain will eventually lead the reverting the revert. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I have restored the page to the last change that you had made. It was a simple mistake and I had realized that right after the rollback. Wikipedia would be a complete mess without users like myself who monitor recent changes and filter out vandalism. As human, I will make mistakes. No need to worry about reverting the revert. I restored the page very shortly after the rollback. I also removed the warning on your talk page. Again, my mistake. Carmichael^{95<speak·check·chill>} 07:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Badger Drink has reverted them, all of them, including the volcabulary improvements, without stating why the edits were not good edits, dispite how the edits already went through enough change to be confusing to readers. If you are User:Badger Drink, please discuss why you think EACH edit "aren't good" as you reverted every single one. There is no hurry to discuss, but the edits will soon be put back.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:173.180.214.13, you must also understand that unregistered users will forever have their motives called into question due to the plethora of anonymous vandalism that Wikipedia endures day in and day out. A legitimately interested IP is difficult to distinguish from a trolling or vandalizing IP. While there are plenty of trolls and vandals with registered accounts, their motives are well-identifiable by being able to check their edit history (IPs change hands frequently and their edit histories are unreliable). IPs are welcome to contribute, but they're far more likely to be embraced if their desire to contribute is paired with a desire to hold themselves accountable for their edits (on articles and on talk pages). In other words, create a user account. --Loremaster (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess your right there. I have an account, just keep forgetting to log on to it because I do very little editing and mostly reading, where logging in is not required. I will try to remember in the future. Neitherless, however, this does not give User:Badger Drink any excuse to retain from this discussion without having my edits redone.173.180.214.13 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll temperately restore the edits until anyone who opposes it comes to discuss, as it does not hurt to prevent the edits from sinking deeper down the articles history.Tqfmmuijtcbdlxbset (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your edits because you are altering sentences that are based on content from reliable sources (which I myself added to the article) and therefore subtly or radically changing the meaning what these sources stated on the subject. Furthermore, you are adding original research which is unacceptable. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Differences between conspiracy theories and real conspiracies

Conspiracy theories differ radically from the real-world conspiracies described by historians. Let me first point out that most conspiracy theorists seem unable to imagine that something can happen by accident. On the opposite pure random chance is an integrated part of modern historiography as well as most other sciences. However, the main differences are these:

Motives. Conspiracy theorists tend to propose motives which they have no evidence of other than their own prejudices. In some cases there is even empirical evidence to the contrary, the persons accused for conspiracy don’t possess the ideas or characteristics claimed to motivate them. It is also common for them to propose motives which would not motivate real-world people to do the things they accuse them for. For example, I see no economic motif for harming and killing millions of people. (The tobacco industry profit from making people addicted and not from harming or killing them.) Historians tend to propose motives which there are eyewitness accounts of the accused persons possessing. Alternatively, they propose motives which are likely considering personal characteristics they have eyewitness accounts of. This is something completely different from the often groundless accusations conspiracy theorists devote themselves to.
Means. The technology described by conspiracy theorists typically would not work under known laws of physics. They also typically describe methods which function there are no empirical evidence of. There is even evidence to the contrary in some cases. For example, paper does not dissolve in vinegar. On the opposite historians describe means which are already known to have existed at the time. They may also contact experts in particular fields to ask if a certain method would work. Something conspiracy theorists never seem to come up with the idea of doing.
Accomplishments. Conspiracy theorists imagine that everything goes exactly as intended except that some people (themselves) are not fooled. To the contrary, historians have described many failed conspiracies: attempts to conspire which did not acquire their goals to any significant degree. The simple explanation is that super-humans don’t exist. Experts and those in power are exactly as clumsy and unforseeing as everyone else. This fact of life seems to be unimaginable to most conspiracy theorists. At lest this is my explanation for them imagining super-human success rates. Alternatively, they image people in general to be much more skilful than they really are. But should it not be an experience common to all mankind that things don’t always go as you want?
Secrecy. Conspiracy theories tend to involve what I would call “air-tight secrecy”. What I mean is that secrets are so closely guarded that literary nothing comes out in decades or even centuries. Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that the British government kept Project Ultra secret for more than thirty years. Yet in this case the secrecy was not “air-tight”. For example, when Alan Turing committed suicide in 1954 some clues to Ultra must have been found among his belongings. Yet their significance may not have been realized until much later. Historians typically know very well that things can’t be kept nearly as secret as conspiracy theorists imagine. Often it is existence of disambiguous leaks which makes it possible to tell that there was any conspiracy at all. Personally, I am convinced that not even a single person can keep a hundred percent quite. However, the tiny fragments which slip out by mistake may appear mysterious to his or her contemporaries.
Evidence Conspiracy theorists typically search for evidence in the places most easily available. For example, adherents of different NASA conspiracies use photos made public by NASA as evidence. To the contrary historians usually search for evidence in the places most likely to contain clues which can be quite hard to reach. (They do such things for a living, don’t they?) Examples include contemporary eyewitness accounts and archives from the conspiring organisation opened much later. When leaked documents are used historians typically try to show that they are authentic. This opposed to conspiracy theorists which just assume their authenticity.
It is also common for conspiracy theorists to use circular reasoning when dealing with evidence. At least I would consider it circular reasoning when any condition of anything encountered is taken as evidence for the same preconceived conclusion. I have never encountered any historian who reasons like this. I don’t dare to say that it does not occur but it must be very rare. Why? Because historians are trained to think logically and are aware that any logical error will be criticised by their colleagues. Usually, they are also willing to take this into account.

Characteristic of conspiracy theorists is that they are ignorant of their own ignorance. They often imagine themselves to be experts. But the true knowledge they possess is only a tiny fraction of what is known to real-world experts. (Combined with their belief that experts can’t fail it might explain their unwillingness to admit any error.) The admittance of ignorance may even be used (amongst other things) to tell crackpots apart from serious investigators. Sten Forshufvud may have been convinced that Napoléon I Bonaparte fell victim to a conspiracy. Yet he admitted that he had no direct evidence of any such. I find his proposed conspiracy – consisting of four people or more – a little too large to be credible considering that no-one fund out anything during these people’s lifetime. After all, the first one who found out that Napoléon had been poisoned to death was Sten himself in the 1950ies. To me Napoléon may well have fallen victim to a single person who acted on his own. (On Saint Helena no woman ever had the opportunity to poison Napoléon.) If there was a conspiracy I prefer to imagine one so limited that only two persons know what was really going on: the poisoner and his assigner. Please note that the poisoning theory is supported by contemporary eyewitness accounts as well as forensic evidence. When examined by people with relevant formal qualification they don’t support a natural death. I have written a summary of the present-day state of knowledge on the issue. It can be found here. I don’t give myself out of being an expert, I am just an ordinary sceptic with a reluctant fascination for Napoléon. As long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks on me questions will be answered to the best of my ability.

2010-12-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.