Talk:List of conspiracy theories

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

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 article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Lists Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Cecily Mauran (February 5, 2022). "10 Wikipedia rabbit holes to fall down instead of doomscrolling". Mashable.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Port Chicago disaster#Debunked nuclear bomb theory|accidental explosion of conventional munitions at Port Chicago]] The anchor (#Debunked nuclear bomb theory) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan#Ultimate fate and reported sightings|disappearance of Lord Lucan]] The anchor (Ultimate fate and reported sightings) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

New England Patriots

Does the section about the new england patriots really belong here haha

Should Birds Aren't Real be added to the list?

Birds Aren't Real is a satirical conspiracy which is why I am not sure whether we should add it to the list. Sönke Joppien (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no it should not. Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to apologise for not seeing this talk page and thank User:Knitsey for reverting my rash edit— ~~unless a page exists.~~ ~~unless a page is created from the list of satirical conspiracies.~~ I will make a draft for satirical conspiracies based of the list. ~~it fits here, not any satirical conspiracy… this one, due to its notability.~~ I personally think it may fit in someways but outside input would be good. Legendarycool (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to go look at the article first as I wasn't 100% sure it was satirical. There may be some who believe it because, some people seem to believe anything, no matter how outlandish.

I think its natural home is Category:Satirical conspiracy theories Knitsey (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my theory, which I can't prove, and is thus a conspiracy theory, some birds (thrushes, robins, blackbirds) are genetically modified to pick up signals from low earth orbit. This causes them to "scream" and speak in syllables much to the torment of a human. It is a sad theory, which can't be verified. Conspiracy theories regarding the American Rangers that hunted Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan on horseback, are similar, ie. communication via satellites that somehow influence the atmospheric pressure in order to relay a low bandwidth message. In regards to the poor birds which seem to be tortured, they seem to be louder in urban centers where motor noise causes them to lose the message they are trying to relay. It's also possible, that the birds have figured out that some human listeners are "telepathic" and use their sound to repeat messages over great distances. This would require the birds to be telepathic themselves. Pissed off humans conduct viral warfare against these birds which is inhumane. We have a name for this. It's birdflu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D2:5728:FB00:65B5:57BA:F0DE:8688 (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

huh. Okey dokey ig....... 71.64.203.243 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion

under the conspiracy theory concerning the death of Nero and the suspicion that he maybe raised from the dead, at the end it says "The Book of Revelation may allude to these conspiracy theories in its description of the slaughtered head returned to life." I'd like to suggest that part is removed, since Nero is never even hinted at being a character, or playing a part in the Book of Revelation. 71.64.203.243 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Port Chicago nuclear explosion theory is controversial but not debunked.

No authority is provided for the assertion that the Port Chicago nuclear explosion theory has been debunked. Since there has been no official investigation of the theory, that assertion is an inaccurate assumption, which amounts to an ungrounded counter-counter theory. On the other hand, the well-documented link to the Manhattan Project bears further investigation. A team of Manhattan Project scientists and engineers visited the site to study the "effects of the detonation" (-- note the experimental language.) They used that data to establish the first realistic estimates of the blast damage from the atomic bomb. These are some of many under-examined facts that warrant further investigation of the controversial theory. PCWitness (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]