Talk:List of conspiracy theories

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-07. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Pearl Harbor

Discussion and proof of forwarning. http://dottal.org/japanese_may_strike_over_weekend.htm

33 missing theories.

I'm wondering why none of the conspiracy theories that turned out to be true are here.

Do a search on "33 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true", and you will see what I mean.

Seems to be verifiable referenceable facts to me. Mostly common knowledge...

In light of the omission. I propose another possible conspiracy is added to the list. Regarding Wikipedia's omission of critical facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.247 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lede states that this is "a collection of the most popular unproven theories". If it is proven, then it is no longer a theory. Location (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the title of the article should be changed to reflect that the list is of unproven theories. Theories can exist with or without a commonly accepted proof. Einsteins theory of relativity is an example of a commonly accepted "proved" theory. (edited to add more clarity) --TheHamburger (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, a conspiracy theory does not have a commonly accepted proof. To entitle the article "List of unproven conspiracy theories" would be redundant. Location (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of a theory is that it can't be proved but can only be disproved as there can always be more evidence. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of a theory is also that it is possible to disprove it (i.e. falsifiable). Given that, this article should really be titled "List of unfalsifiable conspiracy hypotheses" or even a less snooty "List of undisprovable conspiracy psuedo-theories".-jss (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A conspiracy theory is never falsified -- it's just expanded to include whoever faked the "research" seemingly "proving" it to be "nonsense." Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Good science is establishing hypotheses with clearly defined falsifiable parameters followed by painstaking and tireless work to prove oneself wrong. Success is achieved upon complete and abject failure to accomplish this latter goal."-jss (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's right of course. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GMO foods

As for the GMO foods conspiracy, I looked into the citations and found nonthing specifying "the overwhelming benefits" of GMO foods. The section's conspiratory nature is valid, as little has been done to prove their harm, but I'm concerned it might be a bit biased. If there are benefits, a citation is needed. 24.60.164.41 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian creationism conspiracy theories

The belief that the scientific consensus consists of a grandiose satanic political deception, that scientists are influenced by demons, that any actual evidence of common descent was planted by Satan, after a bet in heaven for sovereignty? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.224.159 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]