Template talk:Conspiracy theories

I removed the link to smart meter because that article doesn't mention conspiracy theories. It gives some examples of the meters being used for surveillance which appear specific, adequately-sourced, and legitimate (and hence not conspiracy theories). But there's nothing about wider theories of the meters being used for more general surveillance. I see a few results online, but not much well-sourced information on theories. I'm not sure if the topic is quite notable and I've not investigated in detail to see if there was coverage that has been deleted. I'd be pleased to see the link reinstated when there is anything to point it to. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've added a link to Conspiracy Encyclopedia, recently promoted to Good Article quality status rating.

Have a great day,

— Cirt (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think this template should include only something that is explicitly labeled a "conspiracy theory" in the title of the page. For example, I believe that something like Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. is not a conspiracy theory (and therefore should not be here), even though there are a few conspiracy theories related to this actual event. If we had a separate page about these theories (rather than about the actual event), then it could be linked here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would disagree, I Think anything which has prominent accusations of being a conspiracy should also probably apply. There are quite a few on here which have been labelled conspiracy theories by popular audiences and experts (moon landing hoax) which have motivated in-universe cranks around to try and dispute the "conspiracy theory" label in the article text. I think it would be a disservice if such things were removed from the template. Granted, I agree Assassination of MLK does not have that, and should also be removed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

To my unpracticed eye, mental illness denial can be a reasonable opinion, but is also a conspiracy theory. Rather than simply reverting @Slatersteven and @Lau737's edits, let's discuss.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

ANd there you have my issue, it is not A Conspiracy theory, at best it can be. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

My reasoning is that mental illness denial is often linked to conspiracy theories involving crazy doctors, crazy intellectuals, the government, or in some way all three. After all, there has to be some explanation for all those mentions of "depression," "ADHD," or "shell shock," if those aren't real things.

Best regards Lau737 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then would this not be a link to Mental illness? Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply