Talk:Vatican conspiracy theories/Archive 1

POV
See AfD for discussion. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to disagree with POV. The elements of the article are notable and verifiable.  I do rather think it is OR (and have nominated it thus.  I'm not about to remove the flag that you placed there, I just think you are not quite correct.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fiddle Faddle, many of these elements are not notable or verifiable--and a lot of them derive from works of fiction or from books by kooks. A lot of this (well, a lot of what I've removed) is blatant nonsense or fictional. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is not about the content of the theories themselves, which is generally likely to be trash. The existence of the theories is verifiable and notable whatever trash they contain. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if the theory in question is being proposed in a novel, for instance. Or when the theory is not a "Vatican conspiracy" by any stretch of the imagination. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A novel is just a novel. It is invalid in such a list.  I agree with your other point also.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I got a little worked up. It's this conspiracy stuff, and the absolute sloppiness perpetrated by most conspiracy theorists. And I'm not denying that there are conspiracy theories--but not this way, this haphazardly. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing we have to do is to do what an encyclopaedia does. That is to document the citable existence of such theories and to document any citable opinions that support and that reject the theories without giving credence to or ridiculing the theories.  That is hard to do if one is either a believer or a non believer.  The role here is to be as objective as we can.
 * This is the same as religion. I do not have an imaginary friend, a deity.  Others do.  But, if I or they write an article about the deity in which they believe and I do not we must each present citable facts about the belief in or non belief in that deity. I may not ridicule that deity and the believer must not ridicule the non belief.
 * Thus we create a useful work of reference that is neutral. It is hard to do that well.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Google book search
Here are some sources that might be useful:
 * http://books.google.com/books?q=vatican+conspiracy
 * http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=vatican+conspiracy+theory&ie=UTF-8

Hasn't anyone seen the Name of the Rose? Most of this article is true. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right--if Sean Connery says it in a movie... Hey, you should read the book, it's fantastic. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sections that need sources
Some rogue removed this section:

New World Order (conspiracy theory)
The Vatican is often alleged to be a major actor behind the New World Order, along with the Knights of Columbus and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The New World Order is said to be a revived Holy Roman Empire.

Which I think is good evidence that it is probably true. I'm posting it here in case anyone wants to source it and get the truth out!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This one can be re-added with some sourcing as well.


 * Good luck! The truth will set us all free, CoM! Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican-Mafia conspiracy
Various conspiracy theories have alleged that there was at one time a Vatican alliance with the Mafia, based on the controversial career of Giulio Andreotti. Carmine Pecorelli, a murderer Italian journalist, also alleged a secret deal between the Vatican and the Italian mafia. The P2 Lodge was a semi-Mafia and semi-Masonic organization linked to the Vatican.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed here are some good sources on this well established conspiracy theory:


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Hma6g7YgWwEC&pg=PA845&dq=vatican+mafia+conspiracy and *http://books.google.com/books?id=4QBjaEMELSsC&pg=PA256&dq=vatican+mafia+conspiracy
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=mFxYvLfnfs4C&pg=PA61&dq=vatican+mafia+conspiracy&lr=ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey troublemaker, I'll grant you this one on the basis of that first book. If you cite the second, I'll pour vanille vla down the back of your neck--that's not a very acceptable source, since all it does is list crap (look at the cover of the back--the dude is getting an M.A. in Conspiracy Theory at a leading British University...we can't tell you which...or we'd have to kill ya...). And look at the third one. Click on it, and right in the middle of the page you find phrases like "there are many links" and "it is even thought that." Not acceptable.


 * That's the problem here. Sources that establish conspiracy theories need to be beyond reproach. Some of the stuff MQS dug up won't pass that sniff test. Mind you, I have never denied that such conspiracy theories exist--I may even believe one or two. But this article, how it was written up, was crap. People should stop thinking that the History Channel presents history. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They've gotten to you too? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. It's late! I'm off! I haven't deleted anything today! (OK, I can't, but I wouldn't have anyway.) Now you go and see if you can find MQS somewhere--he's probably clubbing with half the IMDB. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep
The vote was Keep, so it's not always right to remove basic parts unilaterally or without discussion. About 90 % of the original text could be re-added if some of you would just let me re-trace my sources. ADM (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you refer to my removals. "The vote" has nothing to do with this as it concerned whether to keep this article at all or delete it. A "keep" vote doesn't mean that it is a good, neutral, etc. article. I removed the worst cases for the reasons I indicated: these were not conspiracy theories, and one endorsed the theory instead of describing it. Finally, a useful article would not merely list them but critically cover each theory. Most of the items fail that criterion right now. Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. No one is preventing you from "re-tracing your sources". Str1977 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ADM, I think you should look very carefully at those "conspiracies" that were originally in the article. Perhaps you'll see that a whole bunch of them didn't involve the Vatican, for instance, and no matter how much sources you add, they won't be about the Vatican. Worse, not a single one of these "conspiracies" (and that includes the ones we left) had any kind of reputable references to back them up, and I find it difficult to understand how you can add such accusations to an encyclopedic article without a shred of evidence. Finally, the individual entries were often grammatically and rhetorically challenged, to the point where it was often entirely unclear who was accusing who of conspiring to do what. I suggest you look at WP:N and WP:RS before you start re-adding some of those allegations. I chime in with Str1977: no one is disallowing you from retracing your sources, but keep in mind that the proper way is to have sources BEFORE you put the article up. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Drmies, are you saying that the Pope is not a citizen of the Vatican ? Any conspiracy theory which involves the Pope also involves the Vatican, and vice-versa. For instance, you removed the one about the UFOs, it is very clearly a Vatican-related theory, and it involves Pius XII meeting with aliens. On the topic of grammar and rhetoric, all I can say is that conspiracy theories are really not rocket science, the people who write them are ususally very imaginative types, but not grammarians and rhetoricians. ADM (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the writing of those proposing conspiracy theories; we never got to see that, since the article was unreferenced and lacked any citations at all. The UFO conspiracy isn't "very clearly a Vatican-related theory"--it really isn't anything at all.
 * Here's your UFO conspiracy: "There is a conspiracy theory called Secretum Omega which alleges Vatican knowledge of UFOs since 1958, when Pius XII is supposed to have met some of the aliens. The Servizio Informazioni del Vaticano is the name given to a secret organization alleged to be hiding this knowledge." There is" such a theory? Not without evidence. Who calls it that? Who supposes Pius met aliens? Who gave the name to that organization? What is that organization? Who does it consist of? Who alleges that this alleged organization is allegedly hiding this alleged knowledged?
 * This UFO conspiracy was deleted not because the pope is not a citizen of the Vatican, but because it is completely unreferenced and ridiculous to boot. Conspiracy theories may well be notable in the sense that they exist and people believe in them. But this entry proved neither--no wonder. It had no sources. That's what I mean with doing the research and having the references before publishing. Oh, that link, that's never going to count as a reputable source. It's a primary source at best. A reputable source, in this context, is a secondary (or even tertiary) source in a notable, third-party publication that discusses the subject in a non-trivial manner. But I'm just repeating WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your criteria is too subjective, Drmies, it's almost as if you have to believe it yourself in order to include it. I simply put all the ones that I knew about, especially the ones that were already in Wikipedia and the ones that had been printed in major newsmedia and conspiracy websites. ADM (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My criteria are entirely derived from WP:RS. It's good reading, try it. I have little faith in anyone's "knowledge" of conspiracies; remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Websites, especially conspiracy websites, are not reliable sources. If these conspiracies are "printed in major newsmedia," why couldn't you provide a single reference? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to call it vandalism, but several perfectly reasonable conspriacy theories and a Discovery Channel source were removed in this edit. I trust there is a very reasonable explanation that will not require a Name of the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum or DaVinci Code type unraveling before it's revealed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez v. Vatican
"Among the critics of the foreign policy of Hugo Chávez is Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara, the most outspoken prelate, referring to Chávez as a "paranoid dictator" who has crushed democracy in Venezuela. In the battle of words that followed, the President, in turn, has referred to the critical bishops as "devils" and made a charge against the Catholic hierarchy that the latter were plotting against his government." was removed. If it can be sourced and cut down I think this it might be nice to include a tidbit on this. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vatican - Hezbollah conspiracy
There is news of a widely disseminated conspiracy theory in Israel about alleged Vatican links to the Hezbollah. It could perhaps be included in the article with appropriate sources, such as this article from Haaretz. ADM (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider starting Israel Defense Forces conspiracy theories, which is where that belongs. Or try adding it to Public diplomacy (Israel). Good luck! Drmies (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page VS Article
It's pretty bad when the talk page has more information than the article itself. Anyone up for incorporating some of the information from here to the article? I can't at the moment, but I'll check back and try later if no one else has done it or started. Duchess of Bathwick 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. There's nothing here, which you'll see if you look at the above comments with a copy of WP:RS in your right hand. Best move is probably to archive the talk page! Drmies (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)