Talk:Conspiracy theory

Archives
May 2003 May 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 August 2003 – November 2003 October 2005 October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 – December 2006 January 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – December 2008 January 2009 – December 2009

Conspiracy theorists section guideline

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. We must remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person." Therefore, we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an 'official' link for above must statement, and for the conclusive 'therefore' statement. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Loremaster (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of mainstream there. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

it does seem wikipedia is becoming a mainstream encyclopedia. last time i was checking that policy (early 2008), there was no mention of mainstream in it. very unfortunate development -- encyclopedia that is going to mirror what mainstream corporate mass media owned by a few are repeating all the time -- beats the purpose of encyclopedia. luckily, wikipedia is an evolving system, so future editors may change this nonsense. 93.87.231.231 (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at the current list of conspiracy theorists. It's random, many of the names listed lack bios, the bios of the people who are listed are poorly researched and in some cases inaccurate, sensationalized and lacking in documentation. Putting the list in a table and adding birth years does not constitute unbiased research. The criteria being used appears to be "someone once said something somewhere that sounded like it could have been a conspiracy theory therefore I feel it's acceptable to list this person as a conspiracy theorist in wikipedia." This is clearly not in keeping with even basic wikipedia standards.

The intent to smear specific individuals like politician Lyndon Larouche (by highlighting his criminal conviction) or Dave Emory and Mae Brussel (by presenting a characature of their research and writings on the survival of fascism in the post-war era) is blatant and obvious. It's become especially obvious when accurate, documented and verifiable information has been added about these individuals and others and it has been removed and replaced with patently inferior and biased writing. These activiies constitutes a not-so-subtle form of vandalism of the article. I think it's blatant enough that the matter needs to be looked at by the larger wikipedia community for an opinion.

If there is to be a list of "conspiracy theorists," serious standards for inclusion need to created. It can't just be a matter of one persistent person's whim or opinion.

What has already been suggested is not a bad place to start: "we need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that a person is believed to be a conspiracy theorist." It's a place to start, but it's still pretty thin criteria. Since conspiracy theorist is a derogatpry term and is a commentary on an individuals intelligence, integrity, and even sanity, this designation should be applied carefully only if the preponderance of references characterize the person this way. Even then, special care should be taken in the case of living persons.

I think the list needs to be removed in its entirety pending the creation of serious and standardized criterial for adding people to it. The rationale for including any individual living or dead needs to be open for discussion pro and con with serious data and documentation being presented. Nolatime (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Nolatime

Although I personally think that Lyndon Larouche, Dave Emory, and Mae Brussel are conspiracy theorists, I've never contributed to the list and I actually agree it should be removed from the article until each entry can be sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It’s pretty easy for anybody who’s willing to spare even a few minutes a day. A lot of these people have their own articles here. Just visit them and use any good sources they have. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You might be confused. We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess you’re right – even if we have plenty of good sources saying that Person A believes in Concept B and that Concept B is a conspiracy theory, it’s only acceptable for us to list him as a conspiracy theorist if a good source explicitly says so. It sounds totally fucking ridiculous on the face of it, but I suppose BLP can be like that sometimes. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken McCarthy

I removed the entry for Ken McCarthy from the list of 'Conspiracy Theorists' as it is inaccurate and misleading so to describe him. While a case can be made out that a small proportion of the video clip reprints on the brasschecktv.com site might qualify as conspiracy theories, much of the material comes from reputable mainstream news sources, comedy programs etc. In any case the site makes it clear that the views expressed in the contents are those of their respective originators and not necessarily endorsed by the site's proprietors. DaveApter (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Even assuming that he no longer runs the site, he is still responsible for the selection, and is therefore a promoter of conspiracy theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, whether hosting a site which contains - among much other material - reprints of clips that you judge to be 'conspiracy theories' justifies labelling the site owner a 'Conspiracy Theorist'. This is a term that should be used with discrimination in view of its pejorative implications (as the introduction to this article says: "The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe."

It is clearly entirely appropriate for this section to list individuals such as David Icke and Kent Hovind, and completely absurd to include people like Ken McCarthy alongside them. For this reason, I have removed him again.DaveApter (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, your position is absurd. I'll have to check whether you've completed the whitewash of McCarthy's article, removing the sourced information that he (at least used to) solicit conspiracies, but that is adequate, even if he didn't contribute or host. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin. --Loremaster (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Loremaster, and thanks for your ongoing attempts to bring some sanity to this article. However I'm confused by your endorsement of Arthur Rubin's position here as it seems completely at odds with what you say yourself in the section above:

"We need to cite either a work of scholarship or an article from a mainstream news organization, which makes it clear that the person we want to add to this list is believed to be a conspiracy theorist."

Where are the works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist? DaveApter (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to cite works of scholarship or mainstream news articles which identify Ken McCarthy as a conspiracy theorist. However, I was simply expressing my personal opinion that McCarthy is a conspiracy theorist even if we can't cite such works and articles. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, in order to comply with the BLP guideline you quote above, we should remove him from the list until such time as one of these reliable sources can be found and cited? DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entire list should moved here to the archives until it is completely sourced. --Loremaster (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I went ahead and did that. DaveApter (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I note that Ken McCarthy, who has hundreds of Internet references and over one dozen book references as an Internet pioneer, entrepreneur and educator, has now been designated a "conspiracy journalist" in the External Links section of this article. This inspired a look at the dictionary.

The phrases "conspiracy journalist" and "conspiracy journalism" do not exist in any English dictionary I was able to find, online or offline. A Google search turns up three uses total - one in wikipedia, one in something called wapedia and one on a site that republishes wikipedia articles. The wikipedia article on "conspiracy journalism" has been entirely inactive since it was posted and contains only posts made by a single individual.

For these reasons, I'm removing this link. I have also proposed in the Discussion area for the "conspiracy journalism" article that the article "conspiracy journalism" be removed and would welcome the assistance of more experienced wikipedia users in making this proposal to the wikipedia community. Thanks.Nolatime (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

List of alleged conspiracy theorists

Here is the list from the article, so that adequate sources may be sought DaveApter (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists

The following people are known to have proposed conspiracy theories:

James Jesus Angleton (1917 - 1987)	American Cold War spymaster whose paranoid excesses as the CIA's counter-intelligence czar, arising from false information provided by his KGB defector friend Anatoliy Golitsyn, had adverse effects on the Agency.
Art Bell (born 1945)	American founder and longtime host of the paranormal-themed radio program Coast to Coast AM.
Peter Beter (1921 - 1987)	American lawyer and author who claimed that world events were being controlled by three factions, the Rockefeller family, the "Bolshevik-Zionist axis," and the Kremlin.
Mae Brussell (1922 - 1988)	American conspiracy theorist and radio personality, focusing on the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
William Guy Carr (1895 - 1959)	Canadian naval officer and author responsible for creating the American Illuminati demonology.
Jack T. Chick (born 1924)	American publisher of comic book-style tracts, known as Chick Tracts, often depicting conspiracy theories featuring Satan, the Catholic Church, Communists, Muslims, rock musicians, scientists, and politicians, as well as other groups and subjects behind popular entertainment, role-playing games, and other perceived ills of modern culture.
Jerome Corsi (born 1946)	American author who theorizes about a potential North American Union, advances 9/11 conspiracy theories, believes in abiogenic petroleum origin and theorizes a conspiracy between oil companies and politicians to maintain pricing.
Francis E. Dec (1926 - 1996)	Disbarred American lawyer from Hempstead, New York who is today known for having in the 1970s and 80s mass-mailed various rambling flyers and rants to randomly selected addressees all across the US, in which he purported to warn the public of an omnipotent machine-entity he referred to as the "World-wide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God."
James Shelby Downard (1913 - 1998)	American author who perceived occult symbolism, twilight language and synchronicity behind historical events in the 20th century.
David Emory (born 1949)	American talk radio host who asserts that an obscure, sinister, organization called the "Underground Reich" maintains the interests of the German industry, banking and finance, which survived World War II as a major part of the global capital elite. Based in the San Francisco Bay area.
Myron C. Fagan (1887 - 1972)	American writer, producer and director for film and theatre, who wrote and produced plays and pamphlets claiming the United Nations was a Communist front for one world government.
Anatoliy Golitsyn (1926 - ?)	Soviet KGB defector who provided the CIA with false information and later wrote a book claiming that the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was a hoax.
Des Griffin	American author espousing a right-wing Christian view of global conspiracies and the New World Order.
G. Edward Griffin
Zaid Hamid
Patrick Haseldine (born 1942)	Former British diplomat, dismissed in 1989 by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988. His subsequent conspiracy theory seeking to incriminate apartheid South Africa over the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing alleged that the aircraft was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson, UN Commissioner for Namibia.
Stanley Hilton	American lawyer who filed a subsequently dismissed $7-billion lawsuit against Bush Administration officials, accusing them of complicity in the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Richard Hoagland (born 1945)	American author whose books claim that advanced civilizations exist or once existed on the Moon and Mars, and NASA and the United States government are conspiring to keep this secret. Latest theories of this nature include the Jovian satellite Europa and what he claims killed the Columbia shuttle astronauts.
Michael A. Hoffman II (born 1954)	American historian who posits conspiracies about Jewish control of the United States and about the Holocaust.
Leonard G. Horowitz	American author, former dentist, who claimed in a book, Emerging Viruses, that HIV/AIDS was engineered by the U.S. as a biological warfare agent. Reportedly inspired Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to caution against vaccinating children; mentioned by Rev. Jeremiah Wright in support of Wright's similar claim.
Kent E. Hovind (born 1953)	Young-earth creationist speaking on Creation, Evolution, and Dinosaurs.
David Icke (born 1952)	British writer and public speaker who claims that the world is ruled by a secret group called the "Global Elite" or "Illuminati," which he has linked to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Alex Jones (born 1974)	Syndicated radio host, film maker and web site publisher. Has been referred to as a "conspiracy theorist." Considers himself a libertarian and a patriot. Based in Austin, TX.
Timothy F. LaHaye (born 1926)	Joint author, with Jerry F. Jenkins, of the Left Behind novels.
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. (born 1922)	American activist and self-styled politician whose publications rail against what he calls "Synarchism" and who, in spite of having received a felony conviction for mail fraud, has repeatedly sought election—thus far, without success—to the office of President of the United States.
Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde
William S. Lind	Paleoconservative activist and director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, Lind claims "Political Correctness is cultural Marxism." and that scholars associated with the Institute for Social Research at University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the ) determined to overthrow Western Christian culture and have turned college campuses into "small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble." Lind's theory has been embraced by conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan and by Michael Minnicino who is associated with Lyndon Larouche's Schiller Institute.
Jim Marrs (born 1943)	American author who has written such books as: Rule by Secrecy, Alien Agenda, Crossfire, and The Rise of the Fourth Reich.
Texe Marrs
Ken McCarthy (born 1959)	Owns and operates BrasscheckTV via his AMACORD consulting business. Massive provider of conspiracy content, videos and alternative news stories. Site named for Upton Sinclair's book The Brass Check, an early analysis of the significance and impact of ownership patterns of US news sources
Thierry Meyssan
Gary North
Roberto Pinotti
Jeff Rense	American radio show host and web site producer, mostly UFO and 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Lew Rockwell
Christopher W. Ruddy
Ben Stein (born 1944)	former Nixon speechwriter turned actor/game show host, whose movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" alleges a vast conspiracy among modern scientists to squelch evidence for creationism in order to promote atheism.
Oliver Stone	Academy award-winning film director and screenwriter
John A. Stormer
Webster Tarpley

Any non english speaking authors on the list? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

o.k. few have been added... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Project Censored

It might be helpful and instructive for contributors and editors of this article to familiarize themselves with the work of Project Censored, a project based out of Sonoma State University.

This is a quote from one its supporters. Their site is here: http://www.projectcensored.org/

"Project censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcast outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." — Walter Cronkite

The organization was started in 1976, publishes an annual yearbook and has sponsored numerous conferences.

"Through a partnership of faculty, students, and the community, Project Censored conducts research on important national news stories that are underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media. Each year, Project Censored publishes a ranking of the top 25 most censored nationally important news stories in the yearbook, Censored: Media Democracy in Action, which is released in September. Recent Censored books have been published in Spanish, Italian and Arabic."

What's the point?

The point is that there appears to be significant confusion by some contributors to this article over what constitutes "conspiracy theory" and what constitutes critical evaluation of the news media and its output.

Are false stories sometimes planted or spring up from no traceable source that spread and become "urban myths?" Of course. Are there occasions when stories (or theories) are constructed out of falsehoods with malicious intent? Again, of course.

Setting that aside, there are numerous news stories of importance that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US corporate media." So many so that a university has given over its resources to create a permanent center to study the phenomenon.

Interest in the failings of the news media and specifically in stories that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored" does not make one a "conspiracy theorist" in the way it is used in this article.Nolatime (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Nolatime

Academics Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman elaborated the propaganda model 20 years ago so interest in the failings of the news media and specifically in stories that are "underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored" does not make one a "conspiracy theorist". However, conspiracy theorists often misinterpret same failings of the news media that Project Censored will document as part of a grand conspiracy of the Illuminati to secretly rule over the world or whatever hysteria is currently popular in their circles. That's the crucial difference the article is trying to explain. You need to get it through your head that this article isn't about critical evaluation of the news media and its output. It's about conspiracy theory! --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Posner: a scholar or not?

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on regarding mention of Gerald Posner in a list of "leading scholars of conspiracism". I'm surprised no one thought to bring the dispute to the talk page before now.

So, should Posner be included in this list? Can he be considered an academic with a focus in studying conspiracy theories? Can others in the list? Please discuss here before going back to the talk page to revert so we can avoid any more edit warring. --clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Posner is an investigative journalist and an author but, as far as I know, he isn't a scholar. However, I think the paragraph can be modified to include him if someone thinks he absolutely should be. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservative sources

The article quotes heavily from neoconservative critics of conspiracy theories, such as Michael Kelly, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Hofstadter and Daniel Pipes. Conspiracy theorists would typically respond to this by arguing that these very sources might be part of a conspiracy to hide the truth on the part of neoconservative organizations on the World Wide Web. ADM (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is obviously B.S. Just because someone is a neoconservative it doesn't mean they can't offer a relatively objective and accurate critique of conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to be rude. Anyhow, ADM suggested that majority of critics in WP article are neoconservatives. Is that true? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not true. Some of them are. Some of them are not. Noam Chomsky is a libertarian socialist. So what? --Loremaster (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the example you just provided is a much better answer than the previous "B.S." thing. anyhow, editor expressed a concern that article might be biased towards a point of view of a specific ideology. that's all. i guess most useful would be if (s)he provided a list of non-neoconservative critics... 77.46.171.76 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As a self-identified left-wing progressive, I can assure you that this article is not biased towards a neoconservative point of view. I was the one who included the mention of some of these critics not because of ideology but simply because they provide a relatively objective and accurate critique of conspiracy theories despite their personal ideological bias. That being said, the article could benefit from mentioning more non-neoconservative critics of conspiracy theories to neutralize any accusation of bias. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ontology

After reading Hakim Bey's essay The Ontological Status of Conspiracy Theory, I am wondering how best to incorporate some of his analysis. Any thoughts? --Loremaster (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

who is he? 77.46.171.76 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hakim Bey is the pen name of Peter Lamborn Wilson, an American political writer, essayist, and poet. --Loremaster (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

honestly, i find that essay very hard to read, and i think it is really hard to sum up in a sentence his main point.  :( 77.46.171.76 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's what I'm working on. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over the use of the "Machiavellian"

Accusations

i think editor user:Arthur_Rubin should choose his words more carefully. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

instead of calling my edit a WP:Vandalism, you should try to find a source for your claim. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It is vandalism; or at least "repeated edits against a clear consensus" and not supported by policy. If you want to remove the word, seek an RfC, but it's unlikely the result will be different than last time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

interesting. clear consensus? search thought archives reveals this. great fu***** consensus you are talking about. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

and not supported by policy part is even more interesting... 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page before this dispute gets out of hand. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Should a word Machiavellian be added without a source being provided? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As clpo13 explained on 19 August 2009:

“ The Wikipedia entry on Machiavellianism provides a succinct definition straight from the Oxford English Dictionary, saying that it is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct". Seems to fit the conspiracy bill perfectly, actually. In this situation, "Machiavellian" is simply an adjective, and a fitting one, at that. No need for a source. To clarify, someone who is described as Machiavellian uses deceit and exploitation to stay in a position of power over others. Is that not what conspirators in shadowy organizations such as the New World Order are said to do? ”

That being said, in an interview for the New Internationalist magazine, Micheal Barkun, a political scientist specializing in the study of conspiracism in American culture, states:

“ The appeal of conspiracism is threefold. First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what others can't. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Finally, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions. ”

So I chose the word "Machiavellian" to summarize Barkun's notion that conspirators in most conspiracy theories are portrayed as cunning, duplicitous, and even evil. So this isn't a case of original research. Regardless, I don't understand your obsession with opposing the use of the word "Machiavellian". Can you explain it? --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

we should cite sources, not other wikipedia articles. i have no obsession with the word, but it seems you do, and you are projecting that obsession to me. i only ask you find a source for it, which you didn't do so far. why? i don't know. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

in addition, what has UFO conspiracy theory to do with "Machiavellian" thing? "Machiavellian" conspiracies are a subset of all conspiracies. is that so hard to understand for you? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:93.86.164.168, you seem terribly confused.

1. Wikipedia does not require we cite a source for one word, especially an abjective, unless it radically distorts the commonly accepted meaning of a concept.

2. We only cited the Wikipedia article on Machiavellianism to make you understand that the word "Machiavellian" simply means that the conduct of an individual or a group is marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.

3. I'm not obsessed with using the word "Machiavellian" but, as User:Clpo13 explained in the quote above, it simply the best word to descrive conspirators. I describes you as obsessed because for weeks now you insist on deleting this word without explaining why you think it needs to be sourced.

4. All conspiracies are Machiavellian. The conduct of conspirators is by definition marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith. For example, most UFO conspiracy theories imply that malevolent space aliens are in cahoots with shadowy government agencies who cover-up their mutual existence. This obviously requires Machiavellian conduct.

--Loremaster (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we add a bunch of other unsourced adjectives, like: egoistic, narcissistic, antisocial, untrustworthy, malevolent, immoral, etc. After all, they all describe as well those guys, don't they? I guess you won't mind me adding some of these adjectives, do you? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All conspiracies are Machiavellian. give me a source for that one. i think it is b.s. if an advanced UFO is malevolent, why would it need to be in cohoots with primitive human agencies? sounds ridiculous to me. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda Triangle conspiracy theory is Machiavellian? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Bermuda Triangle" myth isn't a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy requires conspirators, by their nature. Please stop your disruptive editing. Verbal chat 07:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, allknowing, that link is on this article's 'see also' list. and please stop posting misleading messages on my talk page, and lying that i left no edit summary. thanks. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• No problem It's a perfectly cromulent word being used correctly. Verbal chat 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yes Reasons given at Verbal 20:02 20 Sept and Loremaster 17:47 20 Sept. Machiavellian is a descriptive and characterising adjective, more than appropriate to characterise here. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)