Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proven conspiracies (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete, serious NPOV and verifiability issues. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  08:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

List of proven conspiracies

 * — (View AfD)

Inherently POV listcruft. The inclusion criteria for this article are vague, and include: "an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law (or have the law unconstitutionally changed) at some time in the future (civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy); conspiracy in the sense of conspiracy theory; or actions undertaken in secret (and outside public legislative processes) to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations. Any list aiming to include any instance where two individuals conspire to break the law is going to be enormous and unmaintainable. It is hard to imagine such a list having any kind of encyclopedic value. Also, I feel that the list was created to provide some support for conspiracy theorists. Finally, the examples given in the list are very POV as an aggregate, because they come almost entirely from the US and reflect very badly on that country. GabrielF 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT MESSAGE This AfD is listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, with the comment "inherently POV listcruft".   User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is a list of articles several wikiusers want to delete, what User:Striver calls a "vote soliciting board". This user page is in violation of several wikipolicies, see Straw_polls and WP:SPAM "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view", for example. Many of these articles on past AfDs are well reserched and well written, despite User:GabrielF opinion, and recently, the Allegations article had a 4 to 1 "keep" ratio. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard is watched by several of the same wikiusers. Travb (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that a previous AfD exists at Articles for deletion/List of proven conspiracies —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielF (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Delete. What the heck? Who must consider a conspiracy proven for it to be included? We could rewrite it to use the legal definition... which would make it useless, since the legal definition includes people in getaway cars. -Amarkov blahedits 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainstream consensus "proves" it, scholarly sources proves it. Just as most anything. We do not decide, we source, remember that part`? Even if the list would confine itself to the legal meaning, it would still be very encyclopedic. All list imply notability, and you know that, List of persons do not include me. --Striver 06:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 'List of people' is defined as 'lists of people within Wikipedia', so the person in question has to have an article and has to be notable. A list of events where two people 'conspired to break the law' is going to be huge - two burglars agree to burgle a house and it qualifies!  Hut   8.5   20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you giving double standards? Of course is this list subject to notability, has anyone implied otherwise? Lets be seirous, no straw mans, please!--Striver 13:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete listcruft, original research, list has many items that are not conspiracy theories and items that are not proven. Besides, once a conspiracy theory is proved wouldn't it no longer be a theory? wtfunkymonkey 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me which items are not proven? Your comment is rather vague. Maybe wikieditors should clean up the article.  I will do this if the article survives AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree, this is OR listcruft with inherent POV. TSO1D 03:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Split Infinity (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is really pathetic. Split Infinity (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... You just commented above... -Amarkov blahedits 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Interesting that all that is needed to make the list is "an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law..." and yet 19 natural persons hijacking four planes doesn't make the cut. Pjbflynn 05:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * then add it, please. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It of course needs to be re-written, but it does have a place. This is of course an encyclopedia. Somitho 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Odd, that's exactly why I think it doesn't deserve a place. Maybe you should try to use more arguments than "This is an encyclopedia"? -Amarkov blahedits 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is you who need to show why this is not encyclopedic, and you have done nothing of the kind. --Striver 06:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've said it's inherently POV, because someone has to make the judgement on what is necessary to be considered proven. You have just said "It's not POV/unencyclopedic/too large/whatever!" -Amarkov blahedits 15:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is poorly written you want to delete it Amarkov? Doesn't that mean that it should be tagged, instead of deleted then? Pjbflynn never said it was POV/unencyclopedic/too large here, he said it "needs to be re-written" only, and you agreed: "Odd, that's exactly why I think it doesn't deserve a place." Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want it deleted because it's badly written. I want it deleted because the subject is inherently POV. You don't get to complain about strawmen while making them yourself. -Amarkov blahedits 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep "listcruft" is not a criteria for deletion, please remember that this is not a vote. For other lists, see List of United States Presidents by height order. List is not OR, most entires are very well known conspiracies. 19 hijackers? Yes, please add them, i had them in, but somebody must have deleted it. Western Bias on wikipedia? So what more is new? Large list? Large list are great, we do try to build an encyclopedia, remember? See also List of people who have disappeared or why not List of lists. Not one single valid argument for deletion has been presented, please do not misuses afd to vent personal views or as a place to raise editorial issues. --Striver 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, "Inherently POV" isn't a valid reason for deletion? I'd love to see what you want, if incompatability with a Foundation-level policy isn't good enough for you. -Amarkov blahedits 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "inherintly POV"? Who's point of view? I hate emotional arguments, explain to me who's point of view we are talking about. --Striver 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Amarkov did not answer. :( The criteria for deletion, the suggested criteria, is that people attempt to fix the article before putting the article up for deletion, has Amarkov attempted to fix this article before it was put up for deletion, has any of these users worked on the wikipage before they decided to delete it? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OR: "Articles may not contain...any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position." Deciding which "conspiracies" have been "proven" (or if they were indeed conspiracies in the first place) is inherently POV. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  06:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A list is not a "synthesis of published arguments", and you know that. Further, what "position" is this list "advancing"? --Striver 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that it is hard to prove a conspiracy? If that is your argument, then you claim that 19 hijackers did not conspire? That Brutus did not conspire to kill Cesar? Are you stating that conspiracies do not occur, or that it is impossible to prove that they had occurred? If your are simply concerned about individual entires in the list, then that would be an editorial issue and most definitely not a ground for deletion.--Striver 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are trying to initiate a discussion about what is or is not a "conspiracy" kind of proves my point. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  06:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to initiate a discussion, those a rhetorical questions to show that there is obviously proven conspiracies, and that it is perfectly encyclopedic to list them. Nobody disputes that the things i listed are proven conspiracies, add Watergate to that short list. Are you disputing that they are proven conspiracies? Is anybody? --Striver 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "It is commonly accepted that..." and "You can't seriously dispute that..." ARE NOT foundations for an encyclopaedia article. That notwithstanding, the nom's indiscriminate list argument is perfectly valid and more than enough reason for deletion on its own. We are now firmly in WP:POINT territory and I will not be contributing any further to this discussion. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Commonly accepetade facts are the very basis of encycplopedic article, see Sun and Air for example. And regarding indiscriminate, List of people (including List of people with disabilities) voids your argument. --Striver 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This afd is on a vote soliciting board, with a "tip" on how to vote --Striver 06:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Cute, Striver. Perhaps you've forgotten ? And by the way, there's a difference between offering an opinion and telling people how to vote. GabrielF 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link just proved my case. --Striver 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice one Striver, care to hassle someone else instead>? --Nuclear Zer0 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the "The conspiracy to delete the List of proven conspiracies around the Christmas season" should be added to List of proven conspiracies. ;)  I'll sleep on this before I decide to vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Umeboshi 06:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV; the self-styled definition of "proven conspiracy" is a mark of OR. A category, on the other hand, based on a bright-line criterion like Category:Persons convicted of conspiracy based on actual criminal convictions might be useful. --MCB 08:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the content, this looks very much like soapboxing. Federal reserve act my arse. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * JZG, like Tom, in the original AfD you voted to keep. Why the change of heart? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. I agree that the criteria for inclusion is very vague, and citing Wikitionary to verify hardly helps. This list could never be complete, and it does not even include the 9/11 attacks.  Hut   8.5   11:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapboxing, original research by selective synthesis Tom Harrison Talk 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tom, in the original AfD you also voted to keep. Why the change of heart? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, soapboxing, irrelevant and if every person convicted of conspiracy would have a single line it would end up being gigantic. Alf photoman 13:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I had added 911, somebody removed it. That is an editorial issue. Inclusion is not vague, it is very specific and it is intended to be broad, broader than simply the legal act to include other notable conspiracies that are not necessarily illegal. The list ending up being big is not a problem, it has been up for a long time and has not ballooned. And the reason is simple, we only include notable people. I mean, just look at List of people, that is most definitely a list that is potentially bigger than a list of people who have had notable conspiracies. --Striver 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not vague? The criteria are being a proven conspiracy. What's considered a conspiracy? Blah blah blah blah people blah blah lots of people blah blah Nixon. When is something considered proven? When it's considered proven. So, we have a bloated definition which as a result makes no sense, and another circular definition. That's about as vague as you can get, short of "The things which are in it". -Amarkov blahedits 15:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a conspiracy when two or more people communicate in secret. It is proven when no notable scholar doubts that it factually happened. We have several articles that are and will always be much larger than this, i have already pointed to list of people, that includes ALL people, not only those who conspired. Further, this list does not even include all those who conspired, only the conspiracy, for example, instead of 19 hijackers and their financers and OBL, we only have one, the 911 entry (or had, till somebody removed it). Does that answer all your questions? --Striver 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But a scholar can become notable simply because they do disagree with a widely-accepted conspiracy theory. And I doubt more than like three of the ones listed have unanimous scolarly agreement. -Amarkov blahedits 16:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * keep per striver, no valid argument for deletion.--Sa.vakilian 16:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aargh, why does nobody think they have to say why the arguments are invalid? -Amarkov blahedits 16:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He said it, "per striver". Why does not a bunch of the "delete" people just sign, as if this was a vote? --Striver 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Agreeing with them doesn't mean I'm forced to like it. -Amarkov blahedits 16:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no need of a court conviction to prove a conspiracy, no court convicted Brutus, no court convicted the 1953 Operation Ajax, but they are admitted and proven still. And in either case, that is an editorial issue regarding what to include and not a ground for deleting. --Striver 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Another example are the Secret CIA Prisons, they are now considered factual by all parties, and i think they are admitted, but there is no conviction. --Striver 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Inherently POV Original research, non-encyclopaedic list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doc Tropics (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete Very non-encyclopedic. Some of the conspiracies quoted are beyond argument (e.g. Julius Caesar), some are unroven, and some are purely speculative. And the list is not, and can never be, even remotely inclusive. Therefore not useful.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You just stated that there are some "beyond argument". This is a list of them. Those who do not belong there are argumented, thus "not proven" and obviously not in the scope of the list. You can't say we should not have list of people since there is other types of animals (dogs, giraffes, fish...), you can't say we can't have a list of proven conspiracies since some are unproven. --Striver 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and I think that many of the arguments for keeping it very much establish why it should be deleted.--Dmz5 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it's all well and good to put that tag at the top saying that the list will "never" be complete to WP standards (a tag which I have problems with anyway), but really, are we going to open up court records and add to this list every person ever convicted on a charge that involved the word "conspiracy"? --Dmz5 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we going to the hospital to add every newborn to List of persons? C'mon, why do you say things like that? --Striver 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are repeatedly and thoroughly putting forth a misunderstanding of List of persons, it is there to organize all the people in wikipedia, and on its face is patently not meant to be a list of every human being. This conspiracies list, however, is quite open to that kind of "abuse".  --Dmz5 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument, nobody has argued that we need to fill this with non-notable events. Try, and see how it will be deleted in no-time. I find it objectionable that you are muddying the waters of this afd by stating that this list is not subject to one of wikipedias most heavily referenced guidlines, WP:N, when NOBODY has argued so. Please stop doing that. --Striver 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep A highly encyclopedic topic, and some of the entries are generally accepted by historians as "proven conspiracies," such as the assassinations of Caesar and Lincoln, and the Gunpowder plot. It has some of less general acceptance, and it is proper to demand references besides other Wikipedia articles. Each conspiracy should have references to reliable sources. That is a matter for editing, not for deletion of the article. Just because there are conspiracy hoaxes does not mean that there never were any actual conspiracies, and a listing of them is interesting and useful. Edison 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Inherently POV article.  We have to start getting rid of all "opinion" articles on Wikipedia, and just stick to the facts WP:Wikipedia is not a  soapbox.  This article can never be anything more than someone's opinion about whether something is or isn't a conspiracy, and then, whether or not it was "proven".  That's ridiculous.  Morton devonshire 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the watergate was not a conpiracy, never happened? 9/11 was not a conpiracy, never happened?--Striver 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Both Watergate and 9/11 were legal conspiracies. This article thorougly confuses legal conspiracies and conspiracy theories. The editors of an encyclopedia must be able to understand the concept of homonyms and not create a nonsensical mess by confusing concepts that sound similar due to a linguistic accident. Weregerbil 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you are stating the the article is merited, there is a real list of conspiracies, but that some who should not be in the list have crept in and that the headline needs editing? None of that is arguments for deleting, that is all editorial issues. I refer you to the title, "List of proven conspiracies". If you disagree with the def inion off "conspiracy" as viewed by some editors, why are you dragging the entire list into afd? --Striver 20:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even with the improvements that have been suggested to the article (see talk) what would remain is a useless mess. The talk page also shows the desire (yours at least) to continue keeping and even expanding the homonym confusion. And please don't put words into other peoples' mouths, you rarely guess correctly what they are saying when you do that. It doesn't makes others look like they agree with you; it only makes you look like you are unable to understand what others say. Weregerbil 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for several reasons: (1) Inherently POV. The first sentence: "This is a list OR INDEX of conspiracies considered proven to have existed or officially covered-up (and or later discovered) with or without newer evidence." Considered? By whom? The editors? Uncited sources? Putting an article on this list inherently pushes a POV on a question which is contested in virtually every imaginable example. (2) A conspiracy cannot be proven. That verb does not go with that noun. One can prove specific conspiracy theories, or specific allegations of conspiracy, or that a certain group conspired to do something. A "conspiracy" cannot be proven, however. Perhaps "List of Events Related to Proven Allegations of Conspiracy" would be correctly framed, but that title makes clear exactly how much value a list of this sort has. --Colindownes 00:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: First off, the fact that that the word "proven" is in the title and yet there are so few references raises concerns about the reliability of the article. But more importantly, the article is simply not a workable idea. Either it has to include all proven conspiracies, which would be unmanageable, or it must be selective, which would be inherently POV. Heimstern Läufer 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, an article that is based on confusing two homonyms, legal conspiracy and conspiracy theory, and then attempting to push conspiracy POV based on that confusion. No more useful than an article Cats are small furry animals that are yellow and used in construction work &mdash; confusing cats and other cats. Weregerbil 13:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there are a number of people on the list who were convicted of pedestrian things like securities fraud and insider trading who were charged with "conspiracy" in some form or another, but this is not the same thing as the "conspiracy" surrounding the 9/11 hijackers or, further afield, the "conspiracies" surrounding the CIA killing of world leaders, assassinations of US presidents, etc etc.--Dmz5 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is that some things are not notable. So? Since when is that a argument to delete a list? C'mon! --Striver 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, expand, and add plenty of sources please. Many of the topics included in this index are not disputed. --Howrealisreal 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Edison. Really needs cleanup, not deletion. As Morton Devonshire and Weregerbil note, there are may be issues with the definitions. Currently has major POV-by-undue-weight issues. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What article do you advocate keeping? List of crimes planned and/or committed by two or more people (legal conspiracy; is that useful? Would List of crimes be better?), List of things that were once considered conspiracy theories but are now considered to have happened (conspiracy theory conspiracy; empty article?), List of known events of two or more people working in secret to obtain some goal (as the article is currently defined; really?? Every time you say something to a friend without publishing the discussion fits the current definition. Every business deal that was planned before publishing it fits the current definition. You buying a Christmas present and not immediately telling the recipient fits the current definition.) What kind of an article do you want to keep? See also talk on previous attempts to clean up the mess. Weregerbil 13:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability makes sure that non-notable events are not going to be included, and you very well know that as an expeienced editor, how many false arguments for deletion is going to be given? --Striver 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Striver, I completely appreciate your enthusiasm and persistence in discussing this article, but I would ask you to consider refraining from simply labelling every opposing comment as "false" or "invalid". Some of your comments are bordering on accusations of bad faith.--Dmz5 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - conpsiracies exist, and can be documented from reliable sources. One of the most glaring examples of modern times would be Watergate.  The current article is deficient in quality, but the subject is appropriate material for Wikipedia. -- Whpq 22:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I believe that the list has been poorly maintained. I had to go into and make links to the articles, or sections of articles, that the elements in the list referred to.  I believe that the argument "...include any instance..." fails as only notable instances would be included.  As it stands now, there are approximately 46 entries on the list.  I don't believe that this is a large or unmaintainable number.  I have personally edited and looked at ~30% of the entries, and had to link most of those to their respective articles.  Generally, within the parent articles, the event on the list is undisputed (a.k.a. proven or generally accepted).  There are a few exceptions.  The Lincoln Assassination is currently unsourced.  The Federal Reserve Act is highly disputed in its article (see also Federal Reserve System, esp. this diff where it is clearly disputed).  The Video Poker section doesn't reference an article at all, and should be excluded from the list.  Actually, any element of the list that doesn't refer to an existing article should be removed.
 * As to the question of "Who must consider a conspiracy proven for it to be included?", this answer is partially discussed above. If the topic is not generally disputed in the main article it refers to, that should qualify for inclusion in the list.  General dispute should automatically categorize the topic back into conspiracy theory, not conspiracy (proven, accepted, or undisputed), thereby disqualifying it from inclusion to this list.
 * As to this argument here, "Besides, once a conspiracy theory is proved wouldn't it no longer be a theory?", I absolutely agree, and that is the purpose of this list. It puzzles me that such insight sits behind a vote for deletion.
 * Another argument in this discussion is, "A conspiracy cannot be proven. That verb does not go with that noun. One can prove specific conspiracy theories, or specific allegations of conspiracy, or that a certain group conspired to do something." These sentences seem to contradict themselves.  They seem to imply that one a "conspiracy theory" is proven, we "dare not call it a conspiracy".  Perhaps the common vernacular sublimely precludes such grammatical correctness.  Also, we need not worry whether or not a conspiracy can be proven.  Doing so would technically be original research.
 * The argument "Soapboxing, original research by selective synthesis" may be closer to valid. Since there is not a category setup for this, it is inherently difficult to peruse the mass of articles in wikipedia for qualifying entries to the list.  I would propose that the selectiveness of the list, currently, is the result of the difficulty and time involved in scouring the whole of wikipedia to find items to include.  This effort is further impeded by my above argument to the "dare not call it a conspiracy" response, that seems to remove the "conspiracy" classification from those entities, preferring to call them plots, scandals, cabals, operations, etc.  We must remember that bias, and POV are not always very clear cut, and are not always to be confused with soapboxing.  Indeed, a television newscast has a fundamental bias that cannot be avoided.  This fundamental bias is to consider what news is newsworthy enough to be reported in the limited timespan that they have to report the news in.  This natural bias can be more clearly seen on a local TV station's broadcast, rather than a 24hr cable news channel's production.  I would go so far as to say that wikipedia's natural bias is a reflection of the accumulation of fundamental bias in the media.  I would like to emphasize that this is not always a conscious bias, just a product of "the way things work."
 * As to the name of the list, I personally don't prefer "proven" conspiracies. I would be more inclined to agree with either the term "undisputed", "accepted", "actual", or some reasonable combination like "generally accepted" or "actual undisputed" would be OK.
 * As for the argument that the list is based of confusing two homonyms, I would first point out that the two homonyms referred to were "legal conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory". As I have noted above, that which is theory should not be included on the list.  That which is on the list and is still disputed as theory in the article that entry refers to should be removed.  The homonym argument would probably hold more weight if it tried to make a distinction between general conspiracy and legal conspiracy.  So, I'll take up that argument too.  It should be noted that legal definitions are more watertight and restictive than the common vernacular definition.  As far as I know the only definitions that are meant to be more watertight that a legal definition is a mathematical definition.  I believe that the unnecessary constriction of the list to fix the more narrow definition of legal conspiracy to be inappropriate for this list, although it would be appropriate for a sublist.
 * The next argument, is one I'm slightly closer to agreeing with. And that is the argument of, vague inclusion parameters.  I would like to direct your attention to Candy bar.  Please note that Reese Peanut Butter Cups  is on that list.  Is it really a candy bar?  For POV inclusion in a list, take a look at this list.
 * I do think that this article could use a lot of work. There obviously a couple items that don't belong.  I feel that the only things that should be on the list should be articles in wikipedia.  This means either their own article, or a section of a larger article that the item on the list brings attention to.  The items should also be undisputed or generally accepted on those main articles.  I think that this is merely an editing problem and does not warrant deletion of the list. Umeboshi 23:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. There is still hope out there! I'm glad to see a real effort to see the issues. --Striver 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to vote the other night, when I left the joking comment above. After some thought, I felt it would be better to put forward an argument that more clearly refuted the deletion claims, rather than just a quick "keep it" comment.  I was only halfway (maybe 3/4) done when I realized that the darned thing was getting too long!  Umeboshi 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, plus the article is missing the Cain vs. Abel conspiracy and the massive cover-up that followed the murder. --Dual Freq 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who conspired? --Striver 03:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cain, the Illuminati, Free masons, the usual suspects. --Dual Freq 03:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some say Cain's wife was in on it too. Tom Harrison Talk 03:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please try to be serious, this is an afd. --Striver 03:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you're not in the mood to be serious, you may want to look at this Articles for deletion/Luca Brasi. After that, you can come back when you're ready for a real discussion.  And to think I just spent the last 30 minutes looking around to find a wikipedia policy on citing the bible as historic fact, to try and engage this thread seriously.  Anyway the link should provide a good chuckle so you can get it out of you system.  Umeboshi 04:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to take a 23k list spanning from the first century BC to present yet predominantly including only examples of "American Imperialism".(using wording from the list) Come on, the article lists Jack Abramoff and Enron, but does not list the Conspiracy to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Any coup or overthrow of any government will have an associated conspiracy, none of those are listed except the ones that can be blamed on the US. The list has no historical context and has an impossibly wide inclusion criteria. --Dual Freq 12:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty interesting. In my high school history class, we learned about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.  This was presented as a "lone assassin" acting under the pressure in an increasing environment of nationalism over many European states.  We never went such detail over the assassination itself.  The notion that this was a conspiracy seems both well supported in the article and undisputed.  You are encouraged to add it to the list.  Umeboshi 15:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per above. I think this article needs to be rewritten, but has potential. How many of us here have worked to improve this article? I know I haven't, have you? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic, what is with all the articles based soley on opinions, further the PoV angle of the article cannot be avoided and worst, this is most likely going to turn into a dumping group of things people "think were proven." We should avoid entire articles based on editors opinions. The worst part is its clearly meant to make the US look bad, as Dual Freq pointed out the article contains mainly conspiracies involving the US, showing the bias of it. --Nuclear Zer0 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I found this AfD through Travb's contribution list. --Nuclear Zer0 13:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (moved above) Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope this is not an implication that there is a conspiracy afoot to delete this list of conspiracies.--Dmz5 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would that mean we can add it to the list of conspiracies, however not this list of proven ones? Travb please try to assume good faith, its quite sad when you start maknig accusations. Oddly I do nto see you giving a history in other AfD's involving deletion noticeboards. --Nuclear Zer0 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything I wrote was factually accurate. Gentlemen, WP:AGF and please do not read anything more into my posting. Have a great day. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. Beit Or 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NPOV issues. As others have pointed out, the list is heavily biased towards post-World War Two U.S. history. Major conspiracies and trivial ones are lumped in together. There is also a distinct lack of references. --Folantin 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GabrielF--MONGO 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mikeeilbache r 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have noticed that shortly after I made my vote above, a couple of users who voted for deletion have been doing many edits to the article.  These have been generally constructive edits.  Much of the removals are ones that I would've done anyway, so they have been saving me the trouble of doing so.  There are only a couple (maybe three) removals that I would disagree with, but for the most part their work seems right in tune with what I think should be done.  There has been a decent bit of removal of text that didn't belong in the items, but the proper parts of those items remained.  I can agree completely with those particular edits.  To me, this seems to suggest that there has been a place for this list on wikipedia and that the real problems with it could be fixed by editing.  I would like to spend the rest of this comment proposing better guidlines for determining what should be on the list.
 * 1) An item on the list implies that there is an article about this item, or a section in an article about this item.  i => (article(i) or article#section(i))
 * This requirement helps keep both notability in the list and original research off of it.


 * 1) Citations, references and external links are strongly discouraged from being on the list, including embeddedHTML links.
 * Those types of things should already be present in the main articles referred to by the list items, so there is no need for them on the list.


 * 1)  Summaries on the list should follow, as closely as possible, the summary of the corresponding article.  If the element on the list refers to a section in the article, the summary of that element should be an encyclopaedic summary of that section, or the conspiracy part of that section.
 * This guidline will help keep soapboxing and original research out of the summaries in the list.
 * It is obvious that this will be a bigger problem for the elements of the list that refer to a section of an article. In this case, it may be a good idea if the primary editors of the article in question approve or actually create those particular summaries.
 * I think that many of the summaries could follow this pattern:
 * main article: bold title ... rest of summary
 * list item: bold title ... rest of summary
 * It would be nice if a template could be made to help automate this.
 * Having such a template would be an very valuable tool that could be used to protect from soapboxing or original research attacks.
 * A potential side effect is that it might encourage attacks on the summaries of the respective articles.


 * 1)  Qualifications for inclusion of an article or article section
 * This is probably the most contentious part of the problem.


 * 1)  Conspiracy theories are not allowed on the list.
 * This requirement should be self explanatory, as they would invalidate the list.


 * 1)  The conspiracy should not be disputed in the main article.
 * A good example of this the the conspiracy theory section of the Federal Reserve System. It is clearly not stated that there was a conspiracy behind the formation of the Fed.  It is also pretty clearly disputed in the article by being under the heading of conspiracy theory.
 * This guidline not be construed as an excuse to start disputing it in the article, merely because it got included into the list.


 * 1)  By this I mean:  unpopular item gets put on list, meeting guidelines
 * 2)  Editors that oppose its addition on the list start dispute in main article.
 * 3)  List item now becomes disputed according to these guidelines.
 * 4)  Item is subsequently removed from the list.
 * 5)  Main editors of article finally settle dispute, and article forms back into its former state (or a state that would still allow for inclusion here).
 * 6)  Main editors of article may not know what originally caused dispute, so they don't place item on list.
 * 7)  Editor that added item to list doesn't keep track of what is going on because they have better things to do, or many months pass while item is in dispute in main article.
 * 8)  unpopular item is now successfully removed from list.  If it comes back, loop again.
 * This guideline is also not to be construed to keep genuine disputes about the validity of information in the article from occuring.


 * 1)  If there is dispute in the article over the conspiracy, the conspiracy must be more generally accepted over the dispute.
 * By this, I am referring to the subjects in the article, and not the editors of the article. I'm having a hard time wording this succintly, so ask me later for clarification, if necessary.


 * 1)  Lack of use of the word "conspiracy" should not preclude inclusion into the list.
 * Plots, plans, and operations that match the description should be included.
 * This includes intelligence operations and military campaigns where it is clear there was a plan shared among "allies" but not "enemies".
 * When, or if, the list starts getting too big because of these inclusions, it would be time to start categorizing and breaking off into sublists. I still think that this is manageable.


 * 1)  Conspiracy or plan which is undisputed, or generally accepted, yet not carried out should not preclude inclusion.
 * There is still more particulars that should be discussed, but I think this is a pretty good set of guidelines to start with. I think that with this comment and set of guidelines, I have successfully taken care of most of the arguments raised here.  For the argument of what constitutes a conspiracy, as I noted above, this will be the argument that cannot be easily solved.  Even so, that argument should not be sufficient for the deletion of this list.  I do think that the page should be renamed, as proven is a pretty strong term.  I think just the simple list of conspiracies is sufficient.  Umeboshi 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i was thinking of suggesting list of conspiracies, since many seem to object to the word "proven". --Striver 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort you're putting into this Umeboshi, but I really think its a lost cause. Take for example, your qualification regarding military operations, this would include every military campaign conducted by two or more allies in the history of the world. (Or any campaign conducted on the soil of a consenting third country, or any peacetime war plan), etc. And how is it that you come to define a conspiracy as an act coordinated between allies? Wouldn't it be equally "conspiratorial" for a team of individuals to plan an invasion? Does it really make sense to call the Peninsular Campaign a conspiracy? The only way I can see to salvage this list is to do something like List of major conspiracy cases and only include cases where people were accused of conspiracy in court, but even then the list is enormous and completely unfocused as you are combining say, Enron, with a case where a guy shoots someone and then another guy helps him cover it up (conspiracy after the fact). I would accept something like List of convictions under the RICO act, but clearly legal convictions are not the point of this list. Clearly, this list is about showing that historically, massive governmental or corporate conspiracies have happened in order to lend weight to the nutty conspiracy theories that Striver loves for one reason or another. That's POV pushing and its unacceptable. GabrielF 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My purpose in advocating the inclusion of military campaigns was specifically to keep away from pushing POV. I will agree that it would make the list cumbersome.  Personally, I would prefer to keep most them out of the list, but I would not want to be accused of pushing POV.  It may be a better idea to resurrect the Conspiracy article and make it a real article that explains how military campaigns, plans and operations could be considered conspiracy and preclude their mention from the list.  The article could then direct the reader to the appropriate categories and lists.   One can hardly doubt that the Attack on Pearl Harbor or Operation Overlord were conspiracies, at minimum from the viewpoint of people who plan the suprise attack.  The conspiracy article at the moment is nothing more than a disambiguation page.  It used to a little better, it wasn't great but it was a decent stub.  It seems what happened is that early on, it detailed criminal conspiracy, got a legal template, then split from the main article.  I'm not disagreeing with the split, but after that it went downhill to nothing more than a definition and some links to other articles.  When you take a look at the other articles like Conspiracy (crime) or Conspiracy (civil) there are only a couple of examples of specific cases mentioned in each article, and there is no direction to a list of events which would fall into  those categories.  The Conspiracy (political) article is even more pathetic, and could probably be merged into a good Conspiracy article.  I do understand that the concept of conspiracy is a vague concept covering a lot of territory.  I also understand that it is a human construct.  I invite you to take a look at other vague, but simple, concepts that cover a lot of territory and have better articles:
 * Respect
 * Law
 * Plan
 * Art
 * Crime
 * Religion
 * Truth
 * Lie
 * Slavery
 * These are all vague (to various degrees) human constructs that seem to require a larger explanation than just a quick definition and pointers to disambiguation links. Rather they try to discuss the topic with a small amount of detail without delving into a whole systematic exposition.  While I agree that the conspiracy list seems to focus on massive government and coporate conspiracies, I don't believe that deleting the list is the appropriate answer to that focus.  I have tried to create some guidlines to remove that particular focus and stay true to the general meaning of conspiracy.  While the list might give a slight amount of weight some of the conspiracy theories out there, I would like to point out that deletion of the list might actually give more weight to them.  This might seem counter-intuitive at first.  If it can be shown that there is a history of shoving actual conspiracy in the corner, or displaying its vigorous dismissal, and if it can be shown that conspiracy theory is actively advanced in means and methods that help ridicule it, then it becomes much easier to add weight to the conspiracist view of events.  A good list may help support the idea that conspiracy, while pervasive in the course of history, is full of mundane unconnected events, rather than a "topdown plan guided by the elite for generations to enslave humanity."  The deletion of the list could be seen in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists as evidence that there are those that are too fearful of the list because it would clearly reveal such a plan.  Personally, I doubt that any list of events in the wikipedia, conspiracy or otherwise, would ever reveal such a "master plan", as there is too much disconnect between notable events.  It's part of the reason I use other methods in my own personal research on the topic.  Now as far as being a lost cause, I would like to direct you to look at Tom Harrison's remarks on last years afd.  He discusses the motivation that inspired it in the first place and warns that removing it would just have the effect of it popping up again in another form.  I'll try to draw an analogy for you.  Close by, in a small town, young teenagers used to meet up on Friday and Saturday nights in a parking lot on the edge of town.  This had been the tradition for many years.  One day, the chief of police got the "bright idea" to stop this, possibly because it made the town look bad or something.  The result of this is that the teens just found other places to meet up, some of them outside the city limits.  This made it more difficult for the police to keep their eye on the kids and keep them out of trouble.  I think that policy has since changed and the old tradition is in full swing again, but I haven't been back to verify that in a while.  Please don't take this as some sort of vague threat from me to force the list to pop up again if it's deleted.  I'm not interested in causing trouble or disrupting the process of making a better encyclopedia.  I'm just trying to impart some words of wisdom, "build a field and set the boundaries" and things will be easier to maintain in the long run.  I am, however, interested in building a better Conspiracy article, as I described above.  I may seek to do that later once I come up with a good plan to make it viable.  Umeboshi 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm sorry the mixture of bullets and numbers don't look very good but I didn't know what else to do.  Umeboshi 05:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - big POV magnet with no practical value. --MarsRover 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - inherently POV. The definition of a conspiracy is that it's almost impossible to prove that it really was a conspiracy. How do you know that there isn't a fully-fledged real Deletionist Cabal that holds closed meetings over articles like this on Skype or something? You just can't prove it either way. Moreschi Deletion! 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. When theoretically completed, this list will be so large as to be unmanageable and would fail in its purpose as a useful linking/navigation tool. The selection criteria are far too broad to keep the number of entries to a reasonable level.  Zun aid  © Please rate me at Editor Review!  13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me how a list of notble conspiracies is to big for wikipedia, while a List of notable persons is not? --Striver 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As has been said before, can you please stop using Lists of people as an argument for keeping the article? It is obviously not meant to be an indiscriminate list of the 110 billion people who have ever lived, whereas this list includes an enormous variety of things that fit the vague category of 'conspiracy'.  Hut   8.5   14:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have still not understood why list of people is supposed to be be subjected to the notability guidline, while this is not. Could you explain to me this double standard? What makes this article not subjected to notability standards? --Striver 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Striver, List of people is a kind of meta article, its not a list of all the people in the universe, its a list of biographical wikipedia articles intended as a convenience to help users find information in a 1.5+ million article encyclopedia. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case. GabrielF 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, i keep telling that! The argument "this will be to big" is voided by the simple fact that we already have a list sooo big that it has turned into a list OF lists. --Striver 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename/merge with a proper title. This is undoubtedly encyclopedic, and I doubt even the most hardcore deletionist can disagree with that.  The problem is that this needs to be flushed out a bit, and needs to be renamed to something more neutral and useful.  "Proven conspiracies" sounds rather silly, but a list that links people to the gunpowder plot or the like is quite useful and easy to source. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps it would be best to limit the list to conspiracies to overthrow states. (Directly overthrow, anyway, so we don't have people arguing, e.g., that there was a conspiracy by FDR to let the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor, go to war with Japan, and thus overthrow the Japanese state.) Focusing on that category strikes me as reasonably encyclopedic; but I don't think there's sufficient commonality between the Catilinian conspiracy, the Black Sox scandal, the Gulf of Tonkin incident (how is this a "conspiracy", BTW?) and DRAM price fixing to create any sort of meaningful article or list, per GabrielF's original remarks. Choess 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have a List of coups d'état and coup attempts. It isn't perfect, but it is both far more extensive and less POV than this article. GabrielF 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*A suggestion I think the only way you could save this list and stop it from expanding uncontrollably is to include only historical events generally known by the term "conspiracy" or "plot" (thus avoiding most POV issues), e.g. the Catiline conspiracy, the Pisonian conspiracy, the Cato Street conspiracy, the Watergate conspiracy, the Gunpowder plot, the Rye House plot etc.. --Folantin 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Problem is that quite a few would say that there wasn't much of Catilinarian conspiracy and that Cicero stitched Catiline up! Moreschi Deletion! 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like this list is unsalvageable. Especially if, as it now seems, every clandestine military alliance is going to be added to it. --Folantin 10:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete a magnet for POV pushers.--Jersey Devil 02:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So's George W. Bush. How is that a deletion reason? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Proven conspiracies? Proven by whom? Some Wiki editor who decided these items belong in the article. This article will nver get any better, and never be anything but somebodys opinion.EnabledDanger 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is absurd compilation of absolutely unrelated events with a dubious label plastered on them. It is, however, a perfect example of structural weakness of Wikipedia - failure to deal with content not based on anything outside Wikipedia (original research is misnomer, 'reserarch' is well defined activity). Pavel Vozenilek 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per user:Striver. ThanksRaveenS 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bloody Hell, what a palaver about such a silly `article'.  Rosenkreuz 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The only way this article could be made useful and interesting is if WP:NPOV and WP:V were both rescinded. There are two real questions here. The first is "conspiracies." We are fooling ourselves if we defend this article under the pretense that "conspiracy," as used here, can be defined neutrally. If a conspiracy, for the purpose of this article, was defined neutrally, it could theoretically contain all coordinated human activity in all of history, with the only criteria for entry being the old saws "notability" and "significance." Meanwhile, the convenience of the list format is that it allows for an absolute definition of an event in precisely the same way an article's title does: the article title "Boston Massacre" states, conclusively, that the event in question was a massacre, no matter how much of the article itself is devoted to criticism of this view or if the article's description itself is more nuanced. The reality is that the structual flaw (intentional or not) of this list is that it inevitably uses the common understanding of conspiracy as a nefarious plot to do harm or evil to undermine WP:NPOV by allowing an editor to state CONCLUSIVELY and without in-article criticism that an act or event is an act of violence or other deliberate harm. The second question is over the issue of 'proof.' The same analysis applies: the list enables an editor to make a conclusive claim as to whether or not an act was undertaken by a conspiracy or that a group was conspiratorial. By the nature of the list, debate over the substance of this claim must be made on the talk page of the list rather than on the article page, where the complexity of opinions on the question would be made apperant to the end-user. The assumption that the end-user will appreciate the complexity of the issue upon viewing the main article on the subject is inappropriate. In summary, there is no reason why we should create more circumstances where WP:NPOV must be bent for the sake of brevity or convenience. AlexeiSeptimus 03:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with very much of what you say. I have put a great deal of thought into this, and tried to find a way to keep POV out of the list.  This is problematic due, like you say, to the nature of being able to define conspiracy neutrally.  My solution was to keep the list from being able to make that definition in the first place, primarily by only allowing all entries to be articles.  For the other issue you raise of proof, I tried to make a way to determine this, not proof but lack of dispute, by forcing compliance that it not be disputed in the main article.  This helps keep the editors of the list from determining "proof".  The more I keep thinking about this, the more ready I am to get rid of the list.  This does not mean I'm ready to dispose of the issue that I feel is important, which is basically categorical navigation.  The problem is that there is currently no way to navigate through the many commonly accepted conspiracies that have taken place in history.  I would agree that including military campaigns, intelligence operations, assassination plots, and terrorist attacks to the list would make the list very large and unmanageable, keeping them off of the list is equivalent to pushing POV.  Even selecting a smaller list of well known and generally accepted conspiracies also serves to help push POV.  Umeboshi 06:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentThe more I think about it the more I feel that the list should be removed. Categories may be a better approach.  The Conspiracy article really needs to be worked on to help explain the concept in greater detail, then direct the reader to the various forms that it occurs in.  I can agree that lumping anything that falls under the definition of conspiracy into a "hodgepoged" list is unwieldy.  I can't agree with the idea that there is no better way to go about this, and that the problem will just go away with the deletion of the list.  The activity I've witnessed in the 911 conspiracy articles seems to confirm this.  There are quite a few people who have voted to keep because they felt the information had encyclopaedic value.  It may not be the majority, but I don't believe that the are the "wacky fringe" types, and there should exist some solution that would help satisfy this value.  Many who have voted for deletion have provided examples of known conspiracy, so there is little doubt that they exist.  This means we're not talking about conspiracy theories here, yet conspiracy theories are well categorized.  Why is it that conspiracies are not categorized?  All it takes is not being disputed as ocurring and not being disputed as a conspiracy.  This doesn't seem to be that difficult.  Having them all on one list may be a mess, categorizing them by type doesn't seem all that difficult.  Why are Category:CIA operations, Category:FBI operations, and Category:NSA operations not split between known and alleged?  Does a reader have to browse through every article to determine whether they are known or whether they are alleged?  A student doing a paper on a synopsis of intelligence operations would have to sift through the entire category to determine whether the op was real or not.  The inertia that exists to keep vague the distinction between real and fairy-tale ultimately does a disservice to the end users of the project and help keep wikipedia from being taken seriously when people want to look stuff up along these lines.  I mean it might be great for lining the presidents up by height, or listing every Gundam suit known, but it seems to be really hurting in this area.  I don't believe that this is an Impossible Mission, it just seems that no real effort has been put forth to make a solution for it.  The ability of some to call spades, spades and ducks, ducks when they recognize a conspiracy theory seems to be inexplicably handicapped when it's time to cross the theory barrier into actuality.  Umeboshi 06:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.