Category talk:American conspiracy theorists

Bias Plain to See
This page suffers from bias plain to see. For example, Rachel Maddow is not listed as a conspiracy theorist despite years of reporting fake news that was actually a prominent part of the media coverage part of a proven conspiracy to overthrow the President of the United States for which at least one person has already pled guilty. She is one of the nation's leading conspiracy theorists yet she is not listed here on this "American conspiracy theorists" page. This page suffers from bias plain to see. --Lawfare (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. Thanks, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 05:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This is the problem with Wikipedia. "Reliable sources" are those deemed reliable by the few dozen Wikipedia super editors who control this site and have nothing to do with what is actually reliable. The "reliable sources" than all have the same distortions and all have the same omissions to present a politically correct view of what they want people to think.  For example, a picture of FLOTUS has not appeared on any magazine cover for four years, but the former FLOTUS is still prominent.  Reliable sources?  Reliable for what, for whom? Another example, not a single reliable source will report that Rachel Maddow is a conspiracy theorist, yet many will report or more likely echo that Laura Loomer is.  So when information is gathered together, the few dozen Wikipedia super editors have already decided that only the "reliable sources" are reliable. Then, what do you know, no "reliable source" has reported that Rachel Maddow is a conspiracy theorist, so you (generally speaking, not MelbourneStar ☆ specifically) easily put an RS tag in a comment and move on, happy to swiftly silence anyone seeking to reflect reality instead of the world view of "reliable sources." And I know this is the very problem with Wikipedia and I'll not be able to change it here.  As I said, bias is plain to see. It's just Wikipedia is tightly controlled for political gain. --Lawfare (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is and is not a reliable source has been determined by the input of thousands of Wikipedia editors over the years, the unsupported assertion that a "few dozen" control things in this project is itself a conspiracy theory. As for Maddow, if the sources do not support the claim that she is a conspiracy theorist, then...she isn't one. That wasn't hard to figure out. ValarianB (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah this list is very biased. It’s like they decided instead of research just to name every Republican politician, celebrity Trump supporter, and the few Democrats left that don’t toe the hard left line. But I quit expecting neutrality from this biased site posing as an encyclopedia a long time ago.Bjoh249 (talk) 05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)