Jump to content

Talk:Clinton body count conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Restore this article

I found this article on the Wayback Machine site; and it was AWESOME. Comprehensive, factual, sourced, and balanced. I'm sure it was deleted amid a lot of election year partisanship. Can an admin please help me restore it. Thanks. The Bad Hombre (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted pursuant to a community discussion, so the procedure for undeleting it would be to file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate inclusion

User:Prinsgezinde, care to discuss why Pizzagate is relevant to an article about the Clinton Body Count? Neither Marina Abramovic nor Comet Ping Pong are pertinent to conspiracy theories surrounding Seth Rich's murder. If you are adamant about this inclusion, it belongs in a different section. As it stands, the section is incoherent and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources for consideration

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@SK8RBOI: Please take some time to review the guidelines on reliable sources and biographies of living people. Worldnetdaily and Gatewaypundit are truly terrible sources which should not be used for anything. The other two don't contain any new information. Also please sign your comments by adding 4 tildes at the end. Nblund talk 02:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries m8, that's the reason I posted them here. The latter two are not deprecated in the perennial sources and the individual articles seemed on the level, but if they are controversial as you say then I see no real need to include them. I only bring them up as a source for the term "Arkancide", which is a popular vernacular relevant to this topic (Clinton Body Count), and which could be considered noteworthy, even if TGP and WND are not typically reliable as sources of fact. Do you think that would be an acceptable use for them User:Nblund? Also, this is my sig-- if you will note there is in fact a timestamp attached— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@SK8RBOI: WorldNetDaily is deprecated. GatewayPundit is about to be deprecated, and many users have remarked that the only reason it isn't already deprecated is because is is patently obviously that it isn't useable for anything. So, no, I don't think that's an acceptable use. You will probably get a better reception from other editors if you change your signature. It gives the impression that you're trolling, which is something there's very little tolerance for in this topic area. Nblund talk 22:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to give you that impression User:Nblund, that is not my intention, my sig design only expresses my personal aesthetic and serves no other function. As for the Gateway Pundit, as it is about to become a deprecated source, do you believe there is any context in which it could be used? It is my understanding that even deprecated sources can be made useful in specific situations. If not, could you imagine any circumstance where a typically unreliable publication could be used to source a common term, when the reliable publications do not use the term? This is a page about a conspiracy theory after all, and it would be remiss not to include "Arkancide", which is a synonym for the topic being represented here. If not, what do you recommend we do to include this widely used term? A redirect?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
That's obviously not true, but whatever. The term "Arkancide" can be sourced to reliable outlets. If a detail only occurs in a deprecated source, then there's a decent chance it is false, and even if true it is probably WP:UNDUE for inclusion. Nblund talk 16:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Wow! That's incredible-- how did you find that Daily Dot article?? That is exactly what I'm looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What would be needed to add Jovenel Moïse to this list?

I've seen some people suggest that the Clintons had a hand in the assassination of Jovenel Moïse. What kind of information and sources would be needed to add him to the supposed body count? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You would need to provide a reliable secondary source that corroborates what "some people say." soibangla (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

In fact, the DNC emails were stolen by Russian-linked hacker Guccifer 2.0.[14]

In fact no evidence of Russian hacking was ever proven as the DNC refused to allow the failure access to their email servers during the "investigation". 199.188.142.6 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––Sirdog9002 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The FBI was given an image, a bit-for-bit duplicate, of the server (they just weren't given the box, which wasn't needed) and Dutch intelligence AIVD hacked into the GRU to observe them hacking DNC in real time, and saw the emails stored there. Definitive attribution. This is covered in other articles.soibangla (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Seth Rich

@Jasper0333: You replaced the factually correct previous sentence, which said that the theory was debunked, with one that is not supported by the sources, stating in your edit summary that you "cleaned up some phrasing." The cited source doesn't mention who stole the emails, merely that WikiLeaks dumped them. Adding unsourced material is not a clean-up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Oh, not my intention. I replaced "the theory has been debunked" with HOW it got debunked. Feel free to change it to make it more clear.

Jasper0333 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clee5635.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Jen Moore

Doesn't she qualify? 174.247.250.224 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? -- Valjean (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

List of "victims" needed?

Coming here to discuss per WP:BRD. I think all of the content after the lead section should be removed. Why? First of all, there is no adequate way to determine who exactly should be on this list and who should not. Clinton "victim" lists can include literally a hundred or more names. Why are we singling out seven names under "Alleged victims" and six+ more under Others? Why the separation there and why are many others left off entirely? I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a reasonable criteria to include some people and exclude others.

Second of all, including any "victims" in the article suggests that there is some level of veracity to the claim that they were killed by Clinton. Wikipedia should not be including the claims of fringe figures as though they are actually relevant. No reliable sources have ever connected any of these people's deaths to Bill or Hillary Clinton. This is a case of due and undue weight. Fringe theories shouldn't be given space on the page. The article is simpler and better by just explaining what the theory is and where it came from rather than listing a select subset of cases in detail, which has no benefit to the reader. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the "body count" meme, not about real events. Of course the Clintons haven't killed anybody and there are no real dead bodies to include in that fictive "list". This article is about what RS say about the meme, and of course that involves real people who are named in that connection. Therefore their inclusion is very much on-topic.
Inclusion criteria are an easy matter: Does a RS mention the meme and a person as a supposed victim? If so, that information and person are legitimate (literally required) content here. Our job is to document the "sum total of human knowledge", and that includes all types of "knowledge", true and false, about this topic, as long as it is sourced using RS. We don't link directly to the unreliable sources, but cite how RS filter bogus knowledge from unreliable sources through their coverage and explanations of the facts.
I understand your concern about elevating the original bogus claims by mentioning them here, but it is RS that have done this, not us, and our job is to document what RS say. We should be careful how we do this, and in that regard your concerns are legitimate. We should word things carefully so as to make it clear the claims are bogus. In a sense, this is related to BLP's WP:Public figure policy, which also requires that denials are included. Here we have false claims made in very public ways by unreliable sources, and the "denial" comes as we use RS to debunk those false claims. Thus the inclusion and debunking serves a very public service. We don't leave those false claims out there. We document how RS deal with them and debunk them. That's a good thing. People who search for information about this meme will find some really good information here that will be missing if we don't include this content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

Inappropriate Use of Characterization

It is not the place or purpose of Wikipedia to state whether a conspiracy theory is "debunked" or whether allegations are baseless. The closest appropriate action would be to detail organizations who provide or claim discrediting. Saying "these articles have proved the Clintons have never murdered anyone" is not only trying to prove a negative, its also contrary to form and function.

Suggest redraft of opening paragraph to change phrases like "baseless claims" to instead reflect the absence of "evidenced considered actionable by a relevant legal authority" or "to be considered factual by most of the general public". Also, removed "discredited" as source is not definitive authority on credibility of claim, and author is not authority on how convincing the source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth (talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? It is the job of the article and lead to summarize what RS tell us. Do you know of any disagreement among RS on this matter? If so, please provide your evidence. Until then, the content based on RS remains as is.
We do not allow content that violates BLP to remain unchallenged when RS say otherwise. If a BLP-violating claim is made, and RS tell us it is false, misleading, baseless, whatever, we describe it that way. NPOV does not allow us to neuter what RS say.
We take the side of RS every time, unless there is a real disagreement among them, and then we present both sides, giving due weight where appropriate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually no, the purpose of the article is not to detail the accuracy of the conspiracy theory, or to provide an accurate account of the events described. The article is not titled "The deaths of several people associated with the Clinton foundation" the article is titled "Clinton Body Count" which is a description of a particular conspiracy theory about said events. It is the purpose of the article to detail what that conspiracy theory is, what is believed, and if possibly to provide relevant details about who believes it an why, as well as topical cultural details about the conspiracy in general, its influence on media, and information about its perceptions.
It is certainly the place of the article to specify the reliable sources which discredit the conspiracy, it is also the place of the article to explain why these discrediting articles which constitute a repeat or summary of official findings are unsatisfactory to proponents of the theory. It is also the place of the article to provide all information necessary to the reader to BOTH derive their own conclusion about the matter, as well as understand why other's may draw contrary conclusions.
As the Clinton's not being serial murderers is the largely accepted position, and criminal investigative services not generally considered unfathomably corrupt, it is not necessary to detail in the article why it is prudent or reasonable to believe the conclusions drawn by professional and experts on the subject; however, it is necessary to explain why some people choose to believe otherwise.
Also, you characterize the conspiracy as "malicious", which is a plain demonstration of editorial bias. While people have malicious motives in propagation, or the original theory was originally fabricated for explicitly malicious purpose, that doesn't mean that the existence of or the belief in by all persons is malicious. If you have a RS with proof, which is to say, it is not merely the personal opinion of the writer employed by as RS, that the conspiracy was originally conceived or it persists as a malicious act of disinformation, please detail and reference it accordingly.
Also note, that a description of a lie is not the promotion of the lie. It is inappropriate to preclude the accurate description of claims which assert events to be inconsistent or irregular even if there is contrary evidence to those claims, because this article is about the claims, not about the events. If you believe this is an inappropriate construction for an article, to be about claims about an event rather than the events themselves, please petition for its removal.
@Valjean Azeranth (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't add unsourced conspiracy theories

User:Azeranth, stop everything. Your last three changes were reverted, and on my phone I could only do it by reverting with no option to add an edit summary. Now comes the explanation. Your POV editorializing must stop.

We do not cater to "proponents of the theory" because they deem something suspicious. Their thinking is not based on evidence described by RS as evidence for their conspiracy theories.

Your addition of WaPo doesn't help you. It never mentions the Clintons or any conspiracy theory related to them. You have misused a RS and engaged in WP:OR.

You need to discuss any proposed changes and get a consensus before you act. You have done this on several articles, so a pattern of disruptive editing is emerging.

User:Muboshgu, something needs to be done. It appears that User:Sandstein's old warning on another article hasn't helped. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That completely innacurate, and the section about Mohane's death and my edit does not assert anything about the Clintons or their connection. The facts provided are simply to describe in detail what are the official conclusions of the police investigation into Mohane's and the nature of those circumstances which are pointed out for the purposes of the conspiracy theory. The article as it was reverted btw, is completely innacruate, as according to official testimony, no, Mohane did not fight for the gun, she refused to obey orders and was shot following a close quarters struggle during which she attempted to flee.
Also also, while Snope is an RS, there are numerous examples of editorialization and opinion in the Snope article that are ripped directly and put into this article. While the admixture of editorial opinion, or the deriving of a conclusion may be appropriate for the Snope article, and does not perclude them from being an RS, an opinion expressed by an RS or its writers does not automatically become fact and is not appropriate for this article or any article. Its an opinion, and laundering it through Snopes doesn't change that

Added details and changes for more neutrality.

There were a series of changes made to improve the neutrality of the article, to remove editorialization, and present a more coherent explanation of the CLAIMS which the article is about, rather than the actual sequence of events which are generally accepted. These changes were reverted.

I would like to know what specifically about the changes made them less neutral, why the standardization of the usage of the phrase "allege" and its variations is not an improvement, why the changing of phrasing like "Such baseless allegations" is not blatantly opinionated, as well as "This conspiracy theory has been discredited by..." is also obviously an opinion.

I would like to remind you that this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism and as such it is not the place or purpose of this article to convince the reader of the correct or commonly accepted perspective, but rather to detail what the subject of the article it is, an in the case where it relies upon conclusion or beliefs which are not largely held, to explain what they are and why they are held.

Obviously a description of the accepted convention is needed to do this. In the article as I wrote it there is not a single allusion or phrasing which is ambiguous about the "alleged" status of the official conclusions of the investigation. The two conclusions are not presented as being of equal probability, and the tone, tense, and context of all language describing the events were written accordingly. All references to spurious beliefs about motivations, all speculative endeavors, and unclear or ambiguous claims are clearly labelled as such.

Even if you do not see fit to reinstate my changes, feedback on this subject is very important.

Footnote for @Muboshgu 'actual examples of corruption or fraud" and what follows is a completely unacceptable BLP violation' is not a violation of BLP, the articles mentioned Jeffrey Epstein and Death of Jeffrey Epstein are both well sourced articles. In those articles they provide explicit evidence from numerous RS, including testimony from relevant officials that both corruption and fraud did take place, including the forgery of official records and the defrauding of the US Government for which two persons were convicted following a plea bargain. If copying these sources from the original article to be cited here as well would be more appropriate, please indicate as much

Azeranth (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already mentions Jeffrey Epstein. What you wrote veered into a BLP violation by suggesting anything about that testimony is worth regurgitating or validating. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
So your claim is that stating that actual events, which we both agree occurred, with we both agree are related to this article, increase the confusion and difficulty of separating fact and fiction is a violation of BLP?
I mean, if you want to say its beyond the limits of Wikipedia to cite these incidents as a source or cause of confusion- despite our mutual agreement that the events cited are accurate and topical- I suppose thats an argument to be made. But it is MOST CERTAINLY NOT a violation of BLP Azeranth (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Your first change I cannot see because it was apparently such a violation that it was WP:REVDELed. The later changes I don't understand at all. You removed the most important statement relevant to the article: However, conspiracy theorists believe Mohane was killed on the orders of the Clintons., while adding a very large amount of detailed text not relevant. The article would be massive if every case was completely documented here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Shit, maybe the first edit wasn't a BLP violation but it was also so convoluted that I thought that it was. Either way, if three editors are saying that this content is not okay, then there's clear consensus against including it. Consensus would need to form for including it before reinserting it. Continuing to edit war will result in a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


The revdel occured to make the edit history more clear, it was merged with another change.
However, conspiracy theorists believe Mohane was killed on the orders of the Clintons.
Was removed because the article establishes early, and often, that all the persons named in the "alleged victims" are believed to have been killed on the orders of the Clintons. Thats what makes them an alleged victim. There is no further information that was not already provided AND CITED in the introduction that establishes anything about the beliefs of motives of the conspiracy theorists.
Also, the term "conspiracy theorist" as stated in the second sentence of wikipedia's own article about conspiracy theory states that the term has a negative connotation. As such, the term is not appropriate for this context, and should be changed for "proponents" or some other less charged term whenever possible. Exceptions may arise when discussing articles debunking the theories which intentionally make use of this negative connotation.
Also, "this is too much detail for this article" may be the case, but the current detail is insufficient. Its obvious that it establishes none of the material facts about the investigation or why they are in question. There are many facts about the case which i deliberately excluded. The facts included are only those needed to understand why some consider the circumstances to be suspect, and those facts which were revealed in the investigation and testimony which are related, and which explain or contextualize those apparent irregularities.
If you would like a compressed version, sure, but that isn't how the reversions framed it, and not what the claims of policy violations said either.
Also also also, the fact that you have a consensus after the fact about not liking my edits, does not mean that the reasons you cited (or failed to cite as the case may also be) were correct. It does not mean that rejecting your claim that I had violated a policy I obviously didn't violate was a violation of policy.
It also doesn't mean that its okay for you to revert the entire thing when your complaint amounts to "this is structurally or tonally incorrect". Misusing the BLP policy to insta delete is not okay. The correct response would have been to either attempt to fix it yourself, to message me, or to start a talk block and mention me, asking that I fix it, and if it wasn't addressed in a timely manner then to revert if you couldn't be bothered to make something better yourself. @Valjean @Muboshgu Azeranth (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is about a conspiracy theory that the Clinton's are one of the most lethal serial murderers in history. It is so absurd it's difficult to understand how anyone can honestly believe it. Adding a great deal of detail, in the name of neutrality, to suggest that the conspiracy believer's had some rational reasons to believe this nonsense doesn't match anything I've seen in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
1.) I don't believe the clintons murdered people
2.) It doesn't matter if you believe they have good reason to believe the Clintons did
Thats what neutral means. Our job is to present the information in the most accurate and coherent way possible. It is not to educate people or convince them of the truth. Also, the article as it was before I touched was incredibly poorly written with obvious opinions. You may like or agree with those opinions, but that doesn't make their removal needed. That does not equate to asserting the opposite opinion like you make it sound, thats just the Wikipedia style guidelines. Azeranth (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutral means to present the information as it is presented by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
No thats incorrect, reliable does not mean impartial. You may not synthesize or combine conclusions or articles, you may present the conclusions of articles, but you may not use the editorial opinion of a given RS to justify the presentation of that opinion as factual. Thats very clear, see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Azeranth (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops I meant to link Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say anything remotely like that, certainly did not synth anything, and know NPOV by heart. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The information as it is presented by the RS may be subject to bias, editorialization, and opinion.
The rpesence of these does not preclude it being an RS, it is the job of the article to extract the facts from the RS and not to include its opinions and editorializations.
You present the information IN the RS, not the information AS IN the RS. Theres a difference. Azeranth (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not our job to extract what we opine are facts as we may be subject to bias, editorialization, and opinion. Read WP:NPOV WP:RS. You are sounding very familiar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact"
Wikipedia:NEWSORG
Actually you're literally completely and totally 100% wrong Azeranth (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What does this discussion have to do with NEWSORG? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up and Consolidating

I am going to clean up and consolidate as much as I can from all this into something coherent and I would like your help to do so. Whether this is some form of archiving or subpaging the many concurrent conversations about the same topic to replace with something more useful than this argument. Important things I think should come out of this discussion are

1.) The article is about the claims about events, not the events themselves.

2.) An opinion or editorialization form an RS is still an opinion or editorialization and we must tailor the RS to not convey that tone or form in the article

3.) It doesn't matter how much you agree with one opinion or how absurd you find another belief, its not appropriate to apply negative characterizations except in references to an RS which intentionally employs it for meaning or clarity.

4.) The purpose of the article is not to convince people it is to explain what the belief is and why some people hold it. It is neither designed convince people that the belief is wrong or correct.

5.) A statement is not in violation of the above tenant simply because it presents the uncommon beliefs or conclusions is such a way that they don't sound like the totally unfounded and absurd scrawling of a schizophrenic ignoramus.

Please add details about other important information from the discussion so that they can be archived, as a lot of the arguing has very little to do with the article itself. Then the less coherent sections can be removed.

To that end, please give feedback on my more condensed update for the Mary Mohane section.

Mary Mohane was a White House intern who was murdered along with two others during a robbery of a Starbucks in the Georgetown suburb of Washington, D.C. in 1997. The robbery and murders were committed by Carl Cooper, who according to his testimony, entered the store after closing with two guns, ordered Mohane to open the safe, and after recieving resistance, shot her to death in close quarters during an attempt to flee. Cooper was sufficiently disoriented and distressed by the close proximity murder that he fled the scene after killing the other two employees without completing the robbery. Proponents of the theory that her murder was arranged by the Clintons claim that certain details of the story are inconsistent and irregular.
Investigators originally believed there were two gunmen, due to the presence of two sets of balllistics. Cooper's explanation is that he had orignally planned the robbery with an accomplice who never arrived, and he proceeded without them. Cooper identified the accomplice to police, who later determined that at the time, the alleged accomplice was severely crippled due to a prior shooting, and thus was unable to have participated in the conspiracy. Additionally, wielding two weapons simultaneously would have made carrying out the robbery significantly more difficult and dangerous due to reduced dexterity and the risk of losing contorl of one of the weapons.
Proponents also exprss skepticism at the initial robbery motive, as nearly $10,000 dollars were left in a safe which Mohane possessed the keys to at the time of her death. According to Cooper's testimony, he had cased the Starbucks and was aware that Mohane was the person with access to the safe. Additionally, after having murdered Mohane in close quarters, Cooper exercised the care to eliminate witnesses before fleeing.
Following the murders, the anonymous tip which originally led investigators to Cooper characterized him as a callous and capricous serial armed robber with a reputation for murdering his victims. Cooper also possesed a lengthy criminal history including multiple violent crimes and counts of armed robbery. Cooper also admitted to involvement in the attempted murder of officer Bruce Howard. Cooper testified that after shooting Howard, Howard's wife shouted Bruce's name, to which Cooper replied "Goodbye, Bruce" before shooting him again. This disregard for life and lengthy streak of violence leads some to be suspicious of Cooper's claim to have been overwhelmed by the murder of Mary Mohane.

@Valjean @Muboshgu

>Azeranth (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That has far too much detail, and no sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The original version had the sources, I will put them back when I post it. What elements specifically do you think should be removed? Azeranth (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
None. You don't have a consensus to make those changes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Without the sources there is no way we can evaluate whether this content is WP:DUE. On the surface that seems doubtful. As ScottishFinnishRadish has suggested, there appears to be far too much detail, even if the content is verifiable. Note that I am not conceding that the content is verifiable either –– due weight and verifiability are separate considerations about which Azeranth has the WP:ONUS to persuade the community before re-adding the disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The basis for the facts are. The previous two detailing the actual relation to the conspiracy etc, are all sourced from the existing sources which were previously considered RS and relevant with most of the descriptions of the testimony and investigation arising from the WaPo source. [1][2][3]
In order for the article to be complete, I feel its appropriate to explain both the events which occurred, and what about those events prompts suspicion in proponents of the conspiracy. The current version reads as essentially "A lady who worked in the white house was murdered and some people think the Clintons did it". That doesn't really do anything to explain why they might think that. There are relevant facts like the confusing and contradictory nature of the investigation and testimony.
Clarifying these details is especially different because without it, the implication is that the people who believe the conspiracy are actively lying or making things up. Especially when certain details like the nature of Mohane's struggle with the gunman is mischaracterized in secondary sources even though according to testimony it was an escape attempt not wrestling for the gun.
To clarify, the subject of the conspiracy is the irregular or incongruous nature of certain specific details of several deaths, and their collective implication of a conspiracy. The article is not about said conspiracy if it fails to list and contextualize these details. The article reads more like "these idiots think the Clintons murder people lets laugh at them". Just because the premise is laughable on its face, doesn't mean the article doesn't have to be complete and accurate. Unless the article itself shouldn't exist.
>Azeranth (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Azeranth (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
You cannot possibly know why people believe in these conspiracies. There are many possible reasons and different people will believe for different reasons -- many without any use of evidence. And, this is not a psychology article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but guidelines for reasonable sourcing and "statements which are likely to be challenged" apply here. The writeup as I've provided doesn't actually say "people believe in the conspiracy because X" it says "some people say facts about the case are irregular" and then "here are some facts that are within the realm of being interpreted as irregular".
I'm sure if I work at it, I can also find specific examples of notable individuals in media positions such as videos and podcasts discussing their opinions on the matter where they explicitly express skepticism at particular features. But to be frank I don't want to read or watch that much stormfront and cumtown. I don't think saying that "ambiguity and changes in the narrative about the character and number of gunman in a shooting is a source of confusion or unclarity to some" qualifies as beyond "statements which are likely to be challenged".
Perhaps if the article went so far as to say that these matters are unclear to the general public then a source would be required but my writing of the article was very deliberate to avoid attributions that might require additional sourcing.
An additional source for "Proponents also exprss skepticism at the initial robbery motive" and " leads some to be suspicious of Cooper's claim to have been overwhelmed by the murder of Mary Mohane." need an explicit additional source, but at least in the case of the former, they're very explicitly part of the common "folklore" which surrounds her death. I'll find a suitable article somewhere, but a quality source may not be available. I'd probably have to settle for alex jones mentioning it somewhere
EDIT: I just reread the snopes article, it explicitly says "Yes, it is unusual that three employees were killed in the course of a robbery during which nothing was taken." so, there, it is now accurate to say that questioning whether it was actually a robbery is part of the conspiracy.
Also, the Snopes article, the WaPo articfle, and the herald articles all disagree on when, by who, and why Mary Mohane was shot. It is probably veering close to synthesis, but I don't think saying "there is confusion or ambiguity in the reporting" is inaccurate or unverifiable. Whether we do say that comes down to if thats too much like original research.Azeranth (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is not about one armed robbery gone bad. There are 50+ separate deaths that this conspiracy theory says were arranged by the Clinton’s. It is an insane conspiracy theory. We should no more suggest that there is a rational view the Clinton’s are among the most prolific serial killers in history than to suggest it is rational to think Nancy Pelosi is part of a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic sexual abusers of children operating a global child sex trafficking ring, as millions of Americans fervently believe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
but an article which is about the belief that "Nancy Pelosi is part of a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic sexual abusers of children operating a global child sex trafficking ring" would be incomplete without a section about Bohemian Grove and what it is. Just because there are some coherent and intelligible things to be said, doesn't mean that the article is saying the belief is correct
Also "We should no more suggest that there is a rational view the Clinton’s are among the most prolific serial killers in history" is not a judgement we get to make. We are not claiming there is a rational view. What perhaps distressing is that you can't seem to accept that
1.) There are some things about the killing of Mary Mohane which are not immediately understood, or which are frequently misreported and misexplained
2.) The Clintons are not serial murderers
Can be true at the same time. You know how I know they can be both true at the same time? Because they are.
Also, there seems to be a moving target here with this edit. First it was a BLP violation, then we determined it wasn't. Then it was irrelevant, and I explained why it wasn't, then it was too detailed and no one had any suggestions for which details to remove, now its just one story amidst 50 of them so it should be intentionally made to be less accurate and clear so as not to stick out from the group? Azeranth (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, it is true both that (1) the curvature of the Earth is not readily apparent when taking a walk in the park; and (2) that science has conclusively proved the Earth is round. Still, if we put these ideas in direct juxtaposition to one another, we are elevating the former out of its context and presenting an incorrect connotation. So it is with the article here and (in my opinion) your proposed edits. Count me as very much with Objective above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, and again, an article about flat earth would be correct to mention that the curvature of the earth is not readily apparent to the naked eye. It would also explain that "The apparent curvature of the earth at 2 meters above sea level is approximately 50 feet at 12 miles, which is considered far to small for the naked eye to detect". Proposed edits follow that form.
"Here is the testimony and conclusions of the investigation. The following facts about that testimony are named as suspicious by conspiracy theorists. Here is the specific additional detail from the testimony and investigation which related to those facts"
Thats how the article should read. Azeranth (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't understand why a robber didn't act like some amateur sleuths would expect, so it's logical to think the Clinton's hired him to murder someone. The difference is that the curvature of the earth is not readily apparent actually is rational thinking. You really have no idea why people believe the Clinton's are serial killers and we shouldn't suggest this is rational and related to this conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
And nowhere did I say anything vaguely resembling "therefore the Clintons did it" because I don't have any RS claiming that. BUT I do have several RS saying that conspiracy theorists point to irregularities in the investigation and its findings as being suspicious, confusing, misrepresented, or to have changed over time.
Its almost like, I constructed my edit in such a way as to reflect the relationship between common claims made about the murders, and the findings of the investigation, rather than try to prove of disprove the Clinton's involvement.
Because proving or disproving their involvement would be a violation of Original research, synthesis, bias, and due balance all at once. But I did not and am not trying to do so.
Also please note that nearly every statement in the edit are statements which are not likely to be contested.
1.) Holding two guns at once does limit dexterity
2.) It is confusing and unusual that the accomplice story was frequently changed and blatantly false
3.) The falsity of the accomplice statement contradicts other testimony like why there were two guns
4.) The facts which were reported in the media did change repeatedly
5.) The robber's behavior was a deviation from the trend established by the anonymous tip, his criminal record, and a confessed attempted murder.
Now to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR none of those statement mean "Therefore the clintons did it" I didn't say "therefore the clintons did it". Saying "Therefore the clintons did it" would be a violation of policy. Also, because the facts like "Here are the official findings of the investigation" being placed all over the place and every single fact provided are exclusively those which appear in the investigation, directly as they appeared in the conclusion of the investigation, and framed explicitly as the findings of the investigation, its not a violation of DUE Azeranth (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Same here. This is the policy of WP:DUE balance I mentioned above. Also: I started reading the long piece in the Washington Post you've cited above. It's well written and interesting. But I didn't see anything about the Clintons. I then searched for "Clinton" and found nothing. From this it's quite clear that what you're attempting to do is add WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH material to imply shadiness on the part of living individuals, which is very much a WP:BLP violation. Generalrelative (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No, the mention of the Clintons is from the source from Herald and Snopes. They establish that the Clintons are suspected of being involved, and that elements like leaving the cash are considered suspicious by the conspiracy theorists. Perhaps placing the citations throughout the section rather than all at once at the end would make that clearer. Azeranth (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Then why have you cited the Washington Post piece at all? Are you aware that synthesizing material from that article with information about the Clintons would be a policy violation? Generalrelative (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The WaPo article is included because it is a detailed and factual account of th murder, independent of the conspiracy which is a useful compilation of a variety of complicated facts that were revealed over the course of many official releases that would be too difficult and confusing to reconstruct decades later. WaPo is sufficiently reliable that it is unlikely they have materially altered the facts.
For the purposes of saying "Here is what happened, here is what conspiracy theorists say about what happened" the WaPo article provides the former, the Snope and Hearld articles provide the latter. Notably, there are several contradictions but the Snopes and Hearld articles focus less on the actual facts of the caes and don't explicitly claim to quote testimony directly, so I have preffered the description offered in the WaPo article, and written the discrepancies off as inaccuracies accumulated in oral tradition over 25 years, which for all I can tell is what the Snope article is based on, the writers understanding of the conspiracy, not on the testimony and investigation of into Mary Mohane's death. Azeranth (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
This is called WP:SYNTH and it is a violation of our core policy of no original research. No amount of argumentation will allow you to circumvent that policy and present this original synthesis in article space. You would have to get us to change a core policy first, and this is not the place to attempt to do that. Generalrelative (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Its not synthesis. "According to this article, here are the findings of the investigation" and "According to snopes, this is what the conspiracy theorists have to say about the investigation".
I am not setting the two sources up to contradict eachother, I am not drawing a conclusion, I am not implying or claiming anything about the relationship between the two articles.
I am stating the existence of two related but distinct sets of facts, which are not in any way exclusive or contradictory, and sourcing them from two separate places.
Again, you could make a claim that perhaps the two sets of information are not presented in a way that complies with DUE, and that the article should put most of its attention on one rather than the other but:
One is a description of official findings and testimony and clearly labelled as such, so its hardly considered unverifiable and the other is literally the title of the article.
I don't know what your point is. Describing the claims of conspiracy theorists in an article about a conspiracy theory is somehow off topic? Detailing the findings of the investigation of one of the murders the conspiracy is about is giving too much weight to largely accepted facts? Azeranth (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
My point is that you may not publish this original synthesis in Wikipedia's article space. It is most certainly a policy violation to do so, and by extension a violation of our more stringent WP:BLP protections. At this point I believe that you've been extended all the assumption of good faith and competency that you are due. Time to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. This argument isn't going anywhere. Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait hold on, so, I explained why my edit isn't synthesis, and your response is "yeah well synthesis is a violation of policy so its time for you to just drop it an move on"
I wanna be clear I haven't done synthesis. Please tell me what exactly from my edit is synthesis. Perhaps a quote of the offending line(s). I would be happy to refactor if you could explain what needs to be changed.
Obviously, you think it needs to be changed to not be sythesis, but seeing as I went through the definition of synthesis and demonstrated its non-applicability in this case, thats kind of hard to do. Azeranth (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, last response from me. You ask for me to point out which part of your argument is original synthesis. But you've actually laid it out pretty clearly yourself: I am stating the existence of two related but distinct sets of facts, which are not in any way exclusive or contradictory, and sourcing them from two separate places. One of those sets of facts has nothing to do with the Clintons (i.e. the facts relayed in the Washington Post piece) and yet you are insisting on synthesizing this set of facts with statements about what Clinton conspiracy theorists believe. You are attempting to put these sets of facts together in a way that no independent reliable source has done and publish that original synthesis on Wikipedia. If you still can't wrap your head around why this is a violation of our policy against original synthesis then I'm afraid I can't help you, other than to point you toward the advice given in the essay WP:1AM. Generalrelative (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thats the other thing. Due balance would apply if I had written it in such a way that it attempted to present the irregularities of the murder to be equivalent reason to refute to the official findings. They are not presented that way. My proposal is phrased as "People who believe this conspiracy say the following" not "Because of the following, the conspiracy people may be correct". The second is a violation of DUE Balance, the first is not.
To continue the flat earth analogy, it is not a violation of DUE to say "Flat earthers say that the earth's curvature is not perceivable by the naked eye". It would be a violation to say "Because the curvature of the earth is not perceivable by the naked eye, flat earthers might be right".
Please clarify if you disagree with how I have interpreted DUE, or if you think my edits don't meet the criteria I've set forward. If the latter, please recommend how you would correct this. Azeranth (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's what the guideline WP:FRIND says: The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources. I hope that's helpful. Show us what the reliable, third-party, independent sources say about these conspiracy theories and we can begin to have a productive conversation. For the record, I'm not buying that the New Zealand Herald is any better as a source than something like the Daily Mail or the New York Post –– i.e. unusable. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No no no no no you've butchered that.
"In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources." ie, Mary Mohane should only be given attention proportional to her prominence in articles like the Snopes one. I think she does. Shes one of the few people who gets her own section for a reason out of the 50+ names
"Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles" Don't write about people as if they're on the list unless you find an RS that puts them on the list. Check.
"Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse" I wonder if maybe, the WaPo article is just such a source, you know, with its description of the official findings of the investigation and testimony from the perpetrator, who is described in my edit as being the perpatrator, and whos status as the perpetrator is never questioned.
Its almost like the article should include an explanation of "the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse" who'd have thunk?
So to clarify, just because the Herald article leaves out material facts about the murder, doesn't mean that you can't describe those facts in order to establish precisely what "mainstream scholarly discourse" actually is.
While it may be common knowledge to a layperson that the earth is fact round, it is not common knowledge that the shooter was named Carl Cooper, was a violent criminal, that three people were actually killed, and that Mohane was shot while attempting to escape, that there is a reason for contradictory and retracted testimony about the number and identity of the gunman.
Its almost like, these less commonly known facts that constitute "mainstream scholarly discourse" about a subject need to be established before discussing the relation of crackpot conspiracy theories to them. Azeranth (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I should be clear by now that you are not gaining consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I've notice I'm not gaining consensus. I've also noticed that not one has a specific example of how to improve what I wrote.
You realize that everything everyone has written is "Your article breaks the rules and your motives make you a shitty person". Thats not exactly fun to engage with. Its kind of rude and missing the point.
"We don't agree with you so go away" is kind of a toxic way to do business.
I mean consensus is a two way street. Obviously you have the energy to sit here and tell me you think I'm a moron. Why don't you have the energy to tell me how you think I could improve and write a better article.
Every time I address a criticism like "its violate W rule in X way" my response has been to discuss what the rule is, how I understand the rule, what guidelines I used to determine if I was complying with the rule. The answer is always "it violates Y rules in Z way"
Maybe for a change you could explain why my interpretation of the rule is wrong, how my edit fails to meet my own criteria, or to suggest a better version.
Like, sure you don't agree, but could you be bothered to do the due dilligence to agree for a reason and avoid sounding like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing you've done nothing but accuse me of lacking good faith and being malicious and stupid Azeranth (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think you are stupid, but it's also not my job to adapt your proposal. I simply don't think your interpretation here is correct (though reasonable minds may differ on the subject). I suspect that any way you phrase this, it is going to look to me like a false equivalence. Maybe you can change my mind with a different angle or the like. Also, if you can establish a consensus around me (and apparently Objective and Generalrelative), then you don't have to pay attention to us at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, this is an incredibly insulting rant after all we've done to try to explain things to you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Leen, Jeff (2003-03-02). "A Dance with Death". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-01-02.
  2. ^ Franklin, Roger. "Murder to mistresses: Clinton cops the lot". NZ Herald. NZ Herald. Retrieved 3 January 2023.
  3. ^ Franklin, Roger (June 29, 2000). "Murder to mistresses: Clinton cops the lot". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved November 2, 2020.

Requested move 31 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to suggested lowercase title (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Clinton Body Count → Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory – This article should be renamed Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory. This would not involve any change of content, as the content backs that title. The current title is a plain, unnuanced, false implication that such a body count is a real thing about real murders. We can't allow such a fringe statement to be an article title. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support, per WP:BLUESKY. Also the sources. See e.g.
Politifact, "No, the Clintons aren’t responsible for more deaths than the coronavirus" [1]

Conspiracies linking the Clintons to various deaths are longstanding and unsubstantiated. We’ve debunked a number of them.

NBC News, "An old Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory finds new life in Jeffrey Epstein news" [2]

The news that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was injured in his Manhattan jail cell has revived a decades-old conspiracy theory that baselessly links Hillary Clinton to a number of “suspicious” deaths.

Vox, "The conspiracy theories about the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein’s death, explained" [3]

The death of Seth Rich in 2016 was the next major event fueling Clinton Body Count conspiracies.

FactCheck.org, "Trump’s Long History With Conspiracy Theories" [4]

Still, though, Foster is one in a string of people who have died and become part of what is often referred to as the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, a long-circulating theory which baselessly alleges that the Clintons have killed many people to cover up alleged crimes.

etc., etc., etc. Generalrelative (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
USA Today [5]

The names featured on the dress in the modified image are ones Clinton is often tied to on social media as part of the baseless Clinton body count conspiracy theory: the idea that the Clintons secretly killed their political enemies.

Daily Dot [6]

Jeffrey Epstein’s injury immediately tied to Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory

Vox [7]

Epstein's relationship with Clinton led to the revival of the Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory following his death.

Daily Beast [8]

The aides, this official noted, began casually discussing and joking about what to do if Trump started going hard at the Clinton body-count conspiracy-theory-mongering.

First Draft News [9]

The “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory extends so widely that Washington State University Vancouver researcher Mike Caulfield cites it as an example of “trope-field fit.”

Media Matters [10]

Decades after Foster’s death, the right-wing media still rely on the “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory to suggest Bill and Hillary Clinton target their enemies for murder.

European Newsroom [11]

The meme has sticking power in part because “it functions like a game,” said Mike Caulfield, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public who has written about the so-called “Clinton Body Count” conspiracy theory.

etc., etc., etc. Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you, folks. This is much better. We also need to be careful how this is mentioned elsewhere. It should always be clear that this is a maliciously false conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There are no longer any redirects through Clinton Body Count in mainspace. Several people worked on it. I thought it was worth getting rid of even if it made no visible change to the page as it implies the reality of something which is only a conspiracy theory.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

list

Arkansas police rule suicide in death of Clinton aide linked to Epstein: report [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B609:3900:B45C:D829:A9F8:2028 (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That report is citing this article in the Daily Mail. I think we will have to wait until a reliable source ties this to the CBCCT. -Location (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, BLP, and due weight issues

The fact that we have two sections for alleged victims creates a bit of an issue on all counts, and they all relate to noticeability (due weight). I think we should only have one list (Some alleged victims) in the format of the "Others" section. Just one alphabetical list is needed. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Softlemonades (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree, too. I'm not sure if it should be alphabetical, or chronological since multiple "victims" are tied to certain events (e.g. Whitewater, Hillary's emails, Epstein). -Location (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Chronological (death date) makes more sense to me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Valjean and Softlemonades: I made the change, however, much will be done to the prose. Feel free to revert if this is not what you had in mind. -Location (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Consideration of not using the word "baselessly"

Considering this article uses a list of people who seem to accuse the Clintons of these peoples death, I think it would be more wise and factual to use the word accusatory on the first line of the article as if "the Clinton Body Count Conspiracy" has an article and is believed and the Clintons have been accused of this it would only seem more impartial since these are allegations that are not baseless since the articles own page has a list of people who believe and accuse the Clintons have arranged the deaths of many people. hence this part in the articles first paragraph "Such allegations have been circulated since at least 1994, when a film called The Clinton Chronicles, produced by Larry Nichols and promoted by Rev. Jerry Falwell, accused Bill Clinton of multiple crimes including murder. Additional promulgators of the conspiracy include Newsmax publisher Christopher Ruddy, congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others." 2A00:23C8:3325:8901:75A4:589:8FAB:F1F8 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, as you can see in the threads above this. Reliable sources call this baseless and synonyms thereof; so we call it baseless. And yes, we know many conspiracy theorists say it's real. That's what conspiracy theorists do. They are not reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
How can you have an article about the basis of the assertion and then start the article about how the assertion is baseless? Use your big brain. 136.26.15.82 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
We also have an article on fairies; does that mean they must be factual? Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Baselessly Asserts

In the second sentence, it says it baselessly asserts this accusation, and then there’s an entire article dedicated to the basis of the assertion… careful your bias is showing 136.26.15.82 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I would invite you to simply consolidate your responses in the section above. Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Internet meme?

I thought it was an internet meme. Should we add a separate meme section? (I'm serious :V) Manasbose (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clinton_body_count_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1240520420"