This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clee5635.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I found this article on the Wayback Machine site; and it was AWESOME. Comprehensive, factual, sourced, and balanced. I'm sure it was deleted amid a lot of election year partisanship. Can an admin please help me restore it. Thanks. The Bad Hombre ( talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Prinsgezinde, care to discuss why Pizzagate is relevant to an article about the Clinton Body Count? Neither Marina Abramovic nor Comet Ping Pong are pertinent to conspiracy theories surrounding Seth Rich's murder. If you are adamant about this inclusion, it belongs in a different section. As it stands, the section is incoherent and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I've seen some people suggest that the Clintons had a hand in the assassination of Jovenel Moïse. What kind of information and sources would be needed to add him to the supposed body count? Maximajorian Viridio ( talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Clinton Body Count has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In fact, the DNC emails were stolen by Russian-linked hacker Guccifer 2.0.[14]
In fact no evidence of Russian hacking was ever proven as the DNC refused to allow the failure access to their email servers during the "investigation". 199.188.142.6 ( talk) 03:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Jasper0333: You replaced the factually correct previous sentence, which said that the theory was debunked, with one that is not supported by the sources, stating in your edit summary that you "cleaned up some phrasing." The cited source doesn't mention who stole the emails, merely that WikiLeaks dumped them. Adding unsourced material is not a clean-up. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Oh, not my intention. I replaced "the theory has been debunked" with HOW it got debunked. Feel free to change it to make it more clear.
Jasper0333 ( talk) 20:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't she qualify? 174.247.250.224 ( talk) 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Coming here to discuss per WP:BRD. I think all of the content after the lead section should be removed. Why? First of all, there is no adequate way to determine who exactly should be on this list and who should not. Clinton "victim" lists can include literally a hundred or more names. Why are we singling out seven names under "Alleged victims" and six+ more under Others? Why the separation there and why are many others left off entirely? I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a reasonable criteria to include some people and exclude others.
Second of all, including any "victims" in the article suggests that there is some level of veracity to the claim that they were killed by Clinton. Wikipedia should not be including the claims of fringe figures as though they are actually relevant. No reliable sources have ever connected any of these people's deaths to Bill or Hillary Clinton. This is a case of due and undue weight. Fringe theories shouldn't be given space on the page. The article is simpler and better by just explaining what the theory is and where it came from rather than listing a select subset of cases in detail, which has no benefit to the reader. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not the place or purpose of Wikipedia to state whether a conspiracy theory is "debunked" or whether allegations are baseless. The closest appropriate action would be to detail organizations who provide or claim discrediting. Saying "these articles have proved the Clintons have never murdered anyone" is not only trying to prove a negative, its also contrary to form and function.
Suggest redraft of opening paragraph to change phrases like "baseless claims" to instead reflect the absence of "evidenced considered actionable by a relevant legal authority" or "to be considered factual by most of the general public". Also, removed "discredited" as source is not definitive authority on credibility of claim, and author is not authority on how convincing the source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Azeranth, stop everything. Your last three changes were reverted, and on my phone I could only do it by reverting with no option to add an edit summary. Now comes the explanation. Your POV editorializing must stop.
We do not cater to "proponents of the theory" because they deem something suspicious. Their thinking is not based on evidence described by RS as evidence for their conspiracy theories.
Your addition of WaPo doesn't help you. It never mentions the Clintons or any conspiracy theory related to them. You have misused a RS and engaged in WP:OR.
You need to discuss any proposed changes and get a consensus before you act. You have done this on several articles, so a pattern of disruptive editing is emerging.
User:Muboshgu, something needs to be done. It appears that User:Sandstein's old warning on another article hasn't helped. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
There were a series of changes made to improve the neutrality of the article, to remove editorialization, and present a more coherent explanation of the CLAIMS which the article is about, rather than the actual sequence of events which are generally accepted. These changes were reverted.
I would like to know what specifically about the changes made them less neutral, why the standardization of the usage of the phrase "allege" and its variations is not an improvement, why the changing of phrasing like "Such baseless allegations" is not blatantly opinionated, as well as "This conspiracy theory has been discredited by..." is also obviously an opinion.
I would like to remind you that this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism and as such it is not the place or purpose of this article to convince the reader of the correct or commonly accepted perspective, but rather to detail what the subject of the article it is, an in the case where it relies upon conclusion or beliefs which are not largely held, to explain what they are and why they are held.
Obviously a description of the accepted convention is needed to do this. In the article as I wrote it there is not a single allusion or phrasing which is ambiguous about the "alleged" status of the official conclusions of the investigation. The two conclusions are not presented as being of equal probability, and the tone, tense, and context of all language describing the events were written accordingly. All references to spurious beliefs about motivations, all speculative endeavors, and unclear or ambiguous claims are clearly labelled as such.
Even if you do not see fit to reinstate my changes, feedback on this subject is very important.
Footnote for @ Muboshgu 'actual examples of corruption or fraud" and what follows is a completely unacceptable BLP violation' is not a violation of BLP, the articles mentioned Jeffrey Epstein and Death of Jeffrey Epstein are both well sourced articles. In those articles they provide explicit evidence from numerous RS, including testimony from relevant officials that both corruption and fraud did take place, including the forgery of official records and the defrauding of the US Government for which two persons were convicted following a plea bargain. If copying these sources from the original article to be cited here as well would be more appropriate, please indicate as much
Azeranth ( talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
However, conspiracy theorists believe Mohane was killed on the orders of the Clintons., while adding a very large amount of detailed text not relevant. The article would be massive if every case was completely documented here. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
However, conspiracy theorists believe Mohane was killed on the orders of the Clintons.
I am going to clean up and consolidate as much as I can from all this into something coherent and I would like your help to do so. Whether this is some form of archiving or subpaging the many concurrent conversations about the same topic to replace with something more useful than this argument. Important things I think should come out of this discussion are
1.) The article is about the claims about events, not the events themselves.
2.) An opinion or editorialization form an RS is still an opinion or editorialization and we must tailor the RS to not convey that tone or form in the article
3.) It doesn't matter how much you agree with one opinion or how absurd you find another belief, its not appropriate to apply negative characterizations except in references to an RS which intentionally employs it for meaning or clarity.
4.) The purpose of the article is not to convince people it is to explain what the belief is and why some people hold it. It is neither designed convince people that the belief is wrong or correct.
5.) A statement is not in violation of the above tenant simply because it presents the uncommon beliefs or conclusions is such a way that they don't sound like the totally unfounded and absurd scrawling of a schizophrenic ignoramus.
Please add details about other important information from the discussion so that they can be archived, as a lot of the arguing has very little to do with the article itself. Then the less coherent sections can be removed.
To that end, please give feedback on my more condensed update for the Mary Mohane section.
> Azeranth ( talk) 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I am stating the existence of two related but distinct sets of facts, which are not in any way exclusive or contradictory, and sourcing them from two separate places.One of those sets of facts has nothing to do with the Clintons (i.e. the facts relayed in the Washington Post piece) and yet you are insisting on synthesizing this set of facts with statements about what Clinton conspiracy theorists believe. You are attempting to put these sets of facts together in a way that no independent reliable source has done and publish that original synthesis on Wikipedia. If you still can't wrap your head around why this is a violation of our policy against original synthesis then I'm afraid I can't help you, other than to point you toward the advice given in the essay WP:1AM. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.I hope that's helpful. Show us what the reliable, third-party, independent sources say about these conspiracy theories and we can begin to have a productive conversation. For the record, I'm not buying that the New Zealand Herald is any better as a source than something like the Daily Mail or the New York Post –– i.e. unusable. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved to suggested lowercase title ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 09:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Clinton Body Count → Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory – This article should be renamed Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory. This would not involve any change of content, as the content backs that title. The current title is a plain, unnuanced, false implication that such a body count is a real thing about real murders. We can't allow such a fringe statement to be an article title. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Conspiracies linking the Clintons to various deaths are longstanding and unsubstantiated. We’ve debunked a number of them.
The news that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was injured in his Manhattan jail cell has revived a decades-old conspiracy theory that baselessly links Hillary Clinton to a number of “suspicious” deaths.
The death of Seth Rich in 2016 was the next major event fueling Clinton Body Count conspiracies.
Still, though, Foster is one in a string of people who have died and become part of what is often referred to as the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, a long-circulating theory which baselessly alleges that the Clintons have killed many people to cover up alleged crimes.
The names featured on the dress in the modified image are ones Clinton is often tied to on social media as part of the baseless Clinton body count conspiracy theory: the idea that the Clintons secretly killed their political enemies.
Jeffrey Epstein’s injury immediately tied to Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory
Epstein's relationship with Clinton led to the revival of the Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory following his death.
The aides, this official noted, began casually discussing and joking about what to do if Trump started going hard at the Clinton body-count conspiracy-theory-mongering.
The “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory extends so widely that Washington State University Vancouver researcher Mike Caulfield cites it as an example of “trope-field fit.”
Decades after Foster’s death, the right-wing media still rely on the “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory to suggest Bill and Hillary Clinton target their enemies for murder.
The meme has sticking power in part because “it functions like a game,” said Mike Caulfield, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public who has written about the so-called “Clinton Body Count” conspiracy theory.
Thank you, folks. This is much better. We also need to be careful how this is mentioned elsewhere. It should always be clear that this is a maliciously false conspiracy theory. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The fact that we have two sections for alleged victims creates a bit of an issue on all counts, and they all relate to noticeability (due weight). I think we should only have one list (Some alleged victims) in the format of the "Others" section. Just one alphabetical list is needed. What think ye? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Arkansas police rule suicide in death of Clinton aide linked to Epstein: report [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B609:3900:B45C:D829:A9F8:2028 ( talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
References
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GovInfo_1994
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
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. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clee5635.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I found this article on the Wayback Machine site; and it was AWESOME. Comprehensive, factual, sourced, and balanced. I'm sure it was deleted amid a lot of election year partisanship. Can an admin please help me restore it. Thanks. The Bad Hombre ( talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Prinsgezinde, care to discuss why Pizzagate is relevant to an article about the Clinton Body Count? Neither Marina Abramovic nor Comet Ping Pong are pertinent to conspiracy theories surrounding Seth Rich's murder. If you are adamant about this inclusion, it belongs in a different section. As it stands, the section is incoherent and does not meet Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I've seen some people suggest that the Clintons had a hand in the assassination of Jovenel Moïse. What kind of information and sources would be needed to add him to the supposed body count? Maximajorian Viridio ( talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Clinton Body Count has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In fact, the DNC emails were stolen by Russian-linked hacker Guccifer 2.0.[14]
In fact no evidence of Russian hacking was ever proven as the DNC refused to allow the failure access to their email servers during the "investigation". 199.188.142.6 ( talk) 03:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Jasper0333: You replaced the factually correct previous sentence, which said that the theory was debunked, with one that is not supported by the sources, stating in your edit summary that you "cleaned up some phrasing." The cited source doesn't mention who stole the emails, merely that WikiLeaks dumped them. Adding unsourced material is not a clean-up. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 16:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Space4Time3Continuum2x: Oh, not my intention. I replaced "the theory has been debunked" with HOW it got debunked. Feel free to change it to make it more clear.
Jasper0333 ( talk) 20:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't she qualify? 174.247.250.224 ( talk) 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Coming here to discuss per WP:BRD. I think all of the content after the lead section should be removed. Why? First of all, there is no adequate way to determine who exactly should be on this list and who should not. Clinton "victim" lists can include literally a hundred or more names. Why are we singling out seven names under "Alleged victims" and six+ more under Others? Why the separation there and why are many others left off entirely? I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a reasonable criteria to include some people and exclude others.
Second of all, including any "victims" in the article suggests that there is some level of veracity to the claim that they were killed by Clinton. Wikipedia should not be including the claims of fringe figures as though they are actually relevant. No reliable sources have ever connected any of these people's deaths to Bill or Hillary Clinton. This is a case of due and undue weight. Fringe theories shouldn't be given space on the page. The article is simpler and better by just explaining what the theory is and where it came from rather than listing a select subset of cases in detail, which has no benefit to the reader. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 11:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not the place or purpose of Wikipedia to state whether a conspiracy theory is "debunked" or whether allegations are baseless. The closest appropriate action would be to detail organizations who provide or claim discrediting. Saying "these articles have proved the Clintons have never murdered anyone" is not only trying to prove a negative, its also contrary to form and function.
Suggest redraft of opening paragraph to change phrases like "baseless claims" to instead reflect the absence of "evidenced considered actionable by a relevant legal authority" or "to be considered factual by most of the general public". Also, removed "discredited" as source is not definitive authority on credibility of claim, and author is not authority on how convincing the source is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeranth ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Azeranth, stop everything. Your last three changes were reverted, and on my phone I could only do it by reverting with no option to add an edit summary. Now comes the explanation. Your POV editorializing must stop.
We do not cater to "proponents of the theory" because they deem something suspicious. Their thinking is not based on evidence described by RS as evidence for their conspiracy theories.
Your addition of WaPo doesn't help you. It never mentions the Clintons or any conspiracy theory related to them. You have misused a RS and engaged in WP:OR.
You need to discuss any proposed changes and get a consensus before you act. You have done this on several articles, so a pattern of disruptive editing is emerging.
User:Muboshgu, something needs to be done. It appears that User:Sandstein's old warning on another article hasn't helped. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
There were a series of changes made to improve the neutrality of the article, to remove editorialization, and present a more coherent explanation of the CLAIMS which the article is about, rather than the actual sequence of events which are generally accepted. These changes were reverted.
I would like to know what specifically about the changes made them less neutral, why the standardization of the usage of the phrase "allege" and its variations is not an improvement, why the changing of phrasing like "Such baseless allegations" is not blatantly opinionated, as well as "This conspiracy theory has been discredited by..." is also obviously an opinion.
I would like to remind you that this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism and as such it is not the place or purpose of this article to convince the reader of the correct or commonly accepted perspective, but rather to detail what the subject of the article it is, an in the case where it relies upon conclusion or beliefs which are not largely held, to explain what they are and why they are held.
Obviously a description of the accepted convention is needed to do this. In the article as I wrote it there is not a single allusion or phrasing which is ambiguous about the "alleged" status of the official conclusions of the investigation. The two conclusions are not presented as being of equal probability, and the tone, tense, and context of all language describing the events were written accordingly. All references to spurious beliefs about motivations, all speculative endeavors, and unclear or ambiguous claims are clearly labelled as such.
Even if you do not see fit to reinstate my changes, feedback on this subject is very important.
Footnote for @ Muboshgu 'actual examples of corruption or fraud" and what follows is a completely unacceptable BLP violation' is not a violation of BLP, the articles mentioned Jeffrey Epstein and Death of Jeffrey Epstein are both well sourced articles. In those articles they provide explicit evidence from numerous RS, including testimony from relevant officials that both corruption and fraud did take place, including the forgery of official records and the defrauding of the US Government for which two persons were convicted following a plea bargain. If copying these sources from the original article to be cited here as well would be more appropriate, please indicate as much
Azeranth ( talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
However, conspiracy theorists believe Mohane was killed on the orders of the Clintons., while adding a very large amount of detailed text not relevant. The article would be massive if every case was completely documented here. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 21:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
However, conspiracy theorists believe Mohane was killed on the orders of the Clintons.
I am going to clean up and consolidate as much as I can from all this into something coherent and I would like your help to do so. Whether this is some form of archiving or subpaging the many concurrent conversations about the same topic to replace with something more useful than this argument. Important things I think should come out of this discussion are
1.) The article is about the claims about events, not the events themselves.
2.) An opinion or editorialization form an RS is still an opinion or editorialization and we must tailor the RS to not convey that tone or form in the article
3.) It doesn't matter how much you agree with one opinion or how absurd you find another belief, its not appropriate to apply negative characterizations except in references to an RS which intentionally employs it for meaning or clarity.
4.) The purpose of the article is not to convince people it is to explain what the belief is and why some people hold it. It is neither designed convince people that the belief is wrong or correct.
5.) A statement is not in violation of the above tenant simply because it presents the uncommon beliefs or conclusions is such a way that they don't sound like the totally unfounded and absurd scrawling of a schizophrenic ignoramus.
Please add details about other important information from the discussion so that they can be archived, as a lot of the arguing has very little to do with the article itself. Then the less coherent sections can be removed.
To that end, please give feedback on my more condensed update for the Mary Mohane section.
> Azeranth ( talk) 22:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I am stating the existence of two related but distinct sets of facts, which are not in any way exclusive or contradictory, and sourcing them from two separate places.One of those sets of facts has nothing to do with the Clintons (i.e. the facts relayed in the Washington Post piece) and yet you are insisting on synthesizing this set of facts with statements about what Clinton conspiracy theorists believe. You are attempting to put these sets of facts together in a way that no independent reliable source has done and publish that original synthesis on Wikipedia. If you still can't wrap your head around why this is a violation of our policy against original synthesis then I'm afraid I can't help you, other than to point you toward the advice given in the essay WP:1AM. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context with third-party, independent sources.I hope that's helpful. Show us what the reliable, third-party, independent sources say about these conspiracy theories and we can begin to have a productive conversation. For the record, I'm not buying that the New Zealand Herald is any better as a source than something like the Daily Mail or the New York Post –– i.e. unusable. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved to suggested lowercase title ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 09:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Clinton Body Count → Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory – This article should be renamed Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory. This would not involve any change of content, as the content backs that title. The current title is a plain, unnuanced, false implication that such a body count is a real thing about real murders. We can't allow such a fringe statement to be an article title. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Conspiracies linking the Clintons to various deaths are longstanding and unsubstantiated. We’ve debunked a number of them.
The news that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was injured in his Manhattan jail cell has revived a decades-old conspiracy theory that baselessly links Hillary Clinton to a number of “suspicious” deaths.
The death of Seth Rich in 2016 was the next major event fueling Clinton Body Count conspiracies.
Still, though, Foster is one in a string of people who have died and become part of what is often referred to as the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, a long-circulating theory which baselessly alleges that the Clintons have killed many people to cover up alleged crimes.
The names featured on the dress in the modified image are ones Clinton is often tied to on social media as part of the baseless Clinton body count conspiracy theory: the idea that the Clintons secretly killed their political enemies.
Jeffrey Epstein’s injury immediately tied to Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory
Epstein's relationship with Clinton led to the revival of the Clinton Body Count conspiracy theory following his death.
The aides, this official noted, began casually discussing and joking about what to do if Trump started going hard at the Clinton body-count conspiracy-theory-mongering.
The “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory extends so widely that Washington State University Vancouver researcher Mike Caulfield cites it as an example of “trope-field fit.”
Decades after Foster’s death, the right-wing media still rely on the “Clinton body count” conspiracy theory to suggest Bill and Hillary Clinton target their enemies for murder.
The meme has sticking power in part because “it functions like a game,” said Mike Caulfield, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public who has written about the so-called “Clinton Body Count” conspiracy theory.
Thank you, folks. This is much better. We also need to be careful how this is mentioned elsewhere. It should always be clear that this is a maliciously false conspiracy theory. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The fact that we have two sections for alleged victims creates a bit of an issue on all counts, and they all relate to noticeability (due weight). I think we should only have one list (Some alleged victims) in the format of the "Others" section. Just one alphabetical list is needed. What think ye? -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Arkansas police rule suicide in death of Clinton aide linked to Epstein: report [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0B:B609:3900:B45C:D829:A9F8:2028 ( talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
References
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).GovInfo_1994
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).