Talk:Clinton body count conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clinton body count conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 28 July 2023, see discussion.
procedural redirect, 17 July 2016, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Hillary Clinton (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hillary Clinton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hillary ClintonWikipedia:WikiProject Hillary ClintonTemplate:WikiProject Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton articles

Skepticism High‑importance

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

Alternative Views High‑importance

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

United States: Presidents High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).

Politics: American High‑importance

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Consideration of not using the word "baselessly"[edit]

Considering this article uses a list of people who seem to accuse the Clintons of these peoples death, I think it would be more wise and factual to use the word accusatory on the first line of the article as if "the Clinton Body Count Conspiracy" has an article and is believed and the Clintons have been accused of this it would only seem more impartial since these are allegations that are not baseless since the articles own page has a list of people who believe and accuse the Clintons have arranged the deaths of many people. hence this part in the articles first paragraph "Such allegations have been circulated since at least 1994, when a film called The Clinton Chronicles, produced by Larry Nichols and promoted by Rev. Jerry Falwell, accused Bill Clinton of multiple crimes including murder. Additional promulgators of the conspiracy include Newsmax publisher Christopher Ruddy, congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, and others." 2A00:23C8:3325:8901:75A4:589:8FAB:F1F8 (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed many times, as you can see in the threads above this. Reliable sources call this baseless and synonyms thereof; so we call it baseless. And yes, we know many conspiracy theorists say it's real. That's what conspiracy theorists do. They are not reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have an article about the basis of the assertion and then start the article about how the assertion is baseless? Use your big brain. 136.26.15.82 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article on fairies; does that mean they must be factual? Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baselessly Asserts[edit]

In the second sentence, it says it baselessly asserts this accusation, and then there’s an entire article dedicated to the basis of the assertion… careful your bias is showing 136.26.15.82 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would invite you to simply consolidate your responses in the section above. Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internet meme?[edit]

I thought it was an internet meme. Should we add a separate meme section? (I'm serious :V) Manasbose (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove biases[edit]

Remove words like "Disproven" baselessly, as they are extremely biased. Also, remove quotes around "Suspicious" as they remove the nuetral tone that wikipedia is supposed to have. SgtSalmon (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disproven is well cited. I don't see suspicious in the article in scare quotes. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Bias" refers to editorial (i.e., us) bias, which we avoid by sticking with the WP:RS. The three citations on "disproven" say "baseless" and "debunked". Removing the word "disproven" (other than replacing it with "baseless" or "debunked") would be adding bias by leaving out important neutral information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Where’s a place I can read these policies? Also, disproven seems to be the most neutral of those options. SgtSalmon (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stewart[edit]

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Andy_Stewart - Andy Stewart died suddenly on April 7, 2020 as Maria Farmer’s (a victim of Epstein's sex trafficing) lawyers were seeking to subpoena him for information on the Epstein case. https://holrmagazine.com/who-is-andy-stewart-jeffrey-epstein-list-leaked/ more into "conspiracy theories" site: http://abeldanger.blogspot.com/2020/05/holy-grail-of-epstein-case-did-mega.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.178.151.141 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look pretty bad, and they don't appear to connect Stewart's death to the Clintons anyway. Squeakachu (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

contribs) at 02:45, 29 January 2024.

This is the suggested change, remove "baseless": The Clinton body count is a baseless conspiracy theory centered around the belief that former U.S. to return the line to the previous version: The Clinton body count is a conspiracy theory centered around the belief that former U.S.

The Clinton body count is a baseless conspiracy theory centered around the belief that former U.S. President Bill Clinton and his wife, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have secretly had their political opponents murdered, often made to look like suicides, totaling as many as 50 or more listed victims.^[1]^[2]^[3] The Congressional Record (1994) stated that the compiler of the original list, Linda Thompson, admitted she had "'no direct evidence' of Clinton killing anyone. Indeed, she says the deaths were probably caused by 'people trying to control the president' but refuses to say who they were."^[4] 146.200.136.91 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done The wording of the lead should be discussed here and a consensus arrived at- it seems to have been in dispute. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nelson, Lars-Erik (January 4, 1999). "Conspiracy Nuts Hit New Low With The Body Count". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on September 30, 2020. Retrieved January 20, 2015.
^ Marcotte, Amanda (August 29, 2016). "The Clinton BS Files: "Lock her up" isn't really about emails – the right's been accusing the Clintons of murder for decades". Salon. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2017.
^ Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference GovInfo_1994 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1] Nelson, Lars-Erik (January 4, 1999). "Conspiracy Nuts Hit New Low With The Body Count". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on September 30, 2020. Retrieved January 20, 2015.

[2] Marcotte, Amanda (August 29, 2016). "The Clinton BS Files: "Lock her up" isn't really about emails – the right's been accusing the Clintons of murder for decades". Salon. Archived from the original on January 3, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2017.

[:1-3] Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[GovInfo_1994-4] Cite error: The named reference GovInfo_1994 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]