Template talk:Conspiracy theories
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conspiracy theories template.|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated Template-class)|
|WikiProject Alternative Views||(Rated Template-class)|
- 1 Misleading internal links?
- 2 9/11 conspiracy theories
- 3 Removing the Anonymous group
- 4 Olof Palme
- 5 Disruptive editor
- 6 Idea
- 7 Michael Jackson
- 8 Death of John Lennon
- 9 Google search for conspiracy theories on Wikipedia
- 10 Strauss Kahn
- 11 Basis for inclusion in template
- 12 Removal of 'proven true' subcategory?
- 13 Historical fact
- 14 Smart meters
I like this template. But please be careful here. For example, a "theory article", such as Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 belongs here, but an article that describes an actual event rather than theories, such as Pan Am Flight 103 should not be included in the template. I have made a correction of that sort. Do you agree? Biophys (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theories
Removing the Anonymous group
I see that a disruptive editor[], user:Tom Reedy has added numerous theories to this template. These additions of various Shakespeare authorship theories are actually examples of historical revisionism. The "conspiracy theory" charge is often an accusation leveled at authorship doubters in order to advance the notion that "conspiracy theories are the realm of nutjobs". The editor who added the material is a POV warrior who is currently working to slant the Shakespeare authorship question article according to his personal opionion - that there is no authorship question and anyone who believes there is is also a nutjob. Smatprt (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Every theory I added has a government-wide conspiracy or a small, tight-knit conspiracy at the heart of its execution. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How about adding a new section for prominent conspiracy theorists to the template? -- œ™ 06:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Tupac Amaru Shakur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Looks like it was first added by user 22.214.171.124, then removed by you a month later, then re-added by 126.96.36.199 several months later, using no source but his own statement "Michael Jackson was murdered." This is not only an overstatement, but a possibly libelous claim, since his doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter, and a civil suit for wrongful death, neither of which has gone to trial yet. Even if the statement "Michael Jackson was murdered" was true, it still doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the charges are discussed on the Death of Michael Jackson article, but there is no mention whatsoever of a conspiracy. Thus, I'm removing the conspiracy template from that page, and I'm removing Michael Jackson from the conspiracy template. The anonymous user(s) are warned not to reinstate these. Klopek007 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- For further discussion, see Talk:Death_of_Michael_Jackson#Conspiracy_theory. Klopek007 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Some conspiracy theorists have investigated ex-Beatle John Lennon's shooting death in 1980. They believe it may been linked to past CIA records on John Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono when the couple were involved in far-left political movements such as anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in 1970-71. The US government discussed with the INS and originally proposed to deport Lennon back to his country the U.K., but that never took place and Lennon stayed in the USA. + 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Google search for conspiracy theories on Wikipedia
I suggest that if an article is about a conspiracy theory, it should have "conspiracy theory" someplace in the article text.
To that end, here is a link to Google, prefilled with a search for conspiracy theories on Wikipedia: http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&q=%22conspiracy+theory%22+site:en.wikipedia.org --Kevinkor2 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- At the very least, the article should contain "conspiracy", "conspirators", etc.. For example, I just restored an entire section, after having checked the related articles where various forms of "conspire" were indeed present.
Basis for inclusion in template
There appear to be quite a few items in the template which are not characterized as conspiracy theories on the linked to articles. Off the top of my head these include:
- I've gone ahead and cleaned up some of the more obvious gaffes. aprock (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Removal of 'proven true' subcategory?
On January 6th, 2012, A Quest For Knowledge removed the 'proven true' subcategory, which listed conspiracy theories that were later revealed to be true, from the conspiracy theories template, claiming that it's 'unrelated to this template'. I strongly disagree with this removal: In order to completely represent conspiracy theories, it's essential that the cases where outlandish theories turned out to be true should also be listed, as it provides a new perspective on the subject, especially with the popular opinion that all conspiracy theories are just crazy nonsense; history has, on occasion, revealed that not all craziness is nonsense, and these examples are essential in understanding why people believe in 'crazy nonsense'. VDZ (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are there links to actual concrete, public and provable events in this template? For example MKULTRA may be surrounded by conspiacy theories, but it was a very real documented program. Why is the link included in this template?
I removed the link to smart meter because that article doesn't mention conspiracy theories. It gives some examples of the meters being used for surveillance which appear specific, adequately-sourced, and legitimate (and hence not conspiracy theories). But there's nothing about wider theories of the meters being used for more general surveillance. I see a few results online, but not much well-sourced information on theories. I'm not sure if the topic is quite notable and I've not investigated in detail to see if there was coverage that has been deleted. I'd be pleased to see the link reinstated when there is anything to point it to. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)