Talk:Clinton body count conspiracy theory

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

Change 'Ian Stuart Spiro is a commodities broker' to 'Ian Stuart Spiro was a commodities broker', as person mentioned is no longer alive MsCloud83 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The error is in section 'Alleged victims' under sub-heading 'Ian Spiro' MsCloud83 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2025

In the mark middleton section, his reason & cause of death have been curiously not written prosperly. Mark's death was ruled a suicide. He was found hanging on a tree, with a GUNSHOT WOUND ON HIS CHEST. ( This data is available on wikipedia's page of mark middleton.) Why is this information hidden here ?. Request you to add this info. 2405:201:4016:205A:5587:4D41:9BA2:6282 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As you say: This data is available on wikipedia's page of mark middleton and there is a link to that page. It is not hidden here. You would need to explain what you mean by curiously and not written prosperly.O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Question: As above twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Title and preamble does not satisfy NPOV principle

"Conspiracy theory" is a culturally pejorative term most often used to dismiss the validity of a claim or set of claims as fringe, unpopular, implausible, and/or reputationally or epistemically toxic.

It is uncontroversial to assert that the use of this term implies incredulity for any claims to which it is applied.

Many rational, reasonable readers would likely associate the term "conspiracy theory" with a lower presupposition of truth and validity.

One may argue that the term, as it is used in the title of this article, carries descriptive value and is not merely a propagandistic device. However, the efficiency of this term's descriptive power in the face of its epistemically corruptive nature is not unique, and the tradeoff is not obviously favorable for the ultimate goal of neutrally reporting the available facts.

Stripping "conspiracy" from the title, leaving only "Clinton body count theory", would not only be more accurate and descriptive, but it would also nullify the biasing and epistemic destabilization of the reader. This distinction and proposed alternative is especially important in the context of an article's title, which necessarily frames and shapes the reader's experience of all information that comes after it.

Given the core principle of Wikipedia to omit editorial or subjective claims, the title of this article is misaligned with the core principles of Wikipedia. The title infers an a priori dismissal of the veracity of the theory and necessarily injects an opinionated bias into any subsequent reading of the facts. The title, if left as is, is subversive at best and willfully misleading at worst.

This is not a credibly neutral title and it does not satisfy the core tenets of Wikipedia's stated mission. It should be changed immediately lest it further corrupt the ability of the public to think critically about a politically sensitive topic - one way or the other. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

AI slop is unconvincing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I wrote every word of this - it is well reasoned and precise. Just because I displayed forensic abilities that outpace your own does not mean my response is the product of generative AI. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for not assuming good faith there. I disagree that taking out that it is a conspiracy theory is helpful. As I said below, it is WP:FALSEBALANCE to not make explicitly clear that these allegations are bogus. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It implies a level of certainty that is terminal by nature. This may not even be a matter which can have that characteristic. Since it is an approach to a subject that has a wide variance of opinion involved and for which there is credible evidence both to the affirmative and to the contrary, using a pejorative to describe it is inappropriate.

The average person (you and I included) cannot be certain or identify any reliable proxy for certainty to confirm or deny the statistical oddity of the sheer number of public persons associated with the Clintons who have died, the degree to which these deaths are suspicious or the degree to which those suspicions are reasonable, the Clinton's involvement or foreknowledge of these deaths, or any other aspect of the theory.

The theory, in its modern variation, is divorced from its introduction into the public lexicon - modern proponents of the theory do not introduce names of people who are still alive, for example.

There are more than just a few people who find the number of deaths surrounding this particular politically noteworthy family (as opposed to, say, the Obamas, the Bush Family, the Regan family, etc.) to be odd. There is not any scientifically or epistemically rigorous investigation into these collection of deaths and the likelihood of their most benign explanations. There is no consensus about these deaths as a collection, and many of them have dubious counterfactuals to their official story (which, itself, is not the product of any rigorous investigation in most cases).

To be clear, I am not personally saying these deaths are suspicious, nor am I implying that the Clinton's had anything to do with these deaths.

I am simply pointing out that it is inappropriate to dismiss one body of thought and privilege another in the context of an article that is intended to be editorially neutral.

Calling the theory a "conspiracy theory" is a matter of opinion, and titling the article thusly is a form of editorialization, plain and simple. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Further, while WP:FALSEBALANCE is necessary to avoid placing a constraint on encyclopedic neutrality which would require equal weighting of fringe views, and while I agree that is an infeasible and/or undesirable constraint to place on all of Wikipedia, I am not calling for equal weighting of arguments for and against the "Clinton body count theory". I am calling for encyclopedic neutrality in the title of the article, which effectively and unilaterally weights the reader's interpretation of the facts with respects to the article's subject matter.

While it is perfectly reasonable for an encyclopedia to dismiss fringe theories through presentation of available evidence and primary sources, and, it is similarly reasonable to weight critical information more heavily than affirmative content, it is inappropriate to make up a reader's mind for them in the title of an encyclopedia entry. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Partially agree - "Conspiracy theory" is an accurate description, despite the pejorative implication in pop culture. However, in line with WP:CONSISE, the article title should be Clinton body count, as the phrase itself refers to the conspiracy theory and no other disambig is necessary. -User:WoodElf 15:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That would imply that there is such a thing as a "Clinton body count" outside of conspiracy theories, and I oppose it on WP:FALSEBALANCE grounds. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory", while literally meaning "a theory involving a conspiracy", does not conjure the literal definition in the minds of modern readers. There is significant cultural weight to the term, and the term is more likely than not to impress upon the reader something more than just the literal definition.

To give an example: while the term "radical Christian" may literally mean "a Christian who expresses a desire for (or represents) a fundamental ideological departure from Christian orthodoxy", the more likely culturally-weighted interpretation may be more like "Christian extremist" or even "Christian terrorist". Given this complication of the term, it would be in appropriated to use this term for it's literal definition in a credibly-neutral academic article, especially in the title or pre-amble of such a work. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a theory about a conspiracy without proofs and most of which is preposterous. Seems like a good title. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the same spec of "Clinton body count theory", different people would resolve different expanded definitions. Is this referring to a full theory with concrete assertions that purports mechanistic explanation? Or is this simply referring to the recognition that there are a disordinate number of suspicious deaths associated with William and Hillary Clinton? Or somewhere inbetween? It's not clear. Depending on which meaning you resolve to, "conspiracy theory" may be a less or more appropriate title, both as the literal definition and as the culturally-repurposed pejorative.

Given this uncertainty, the space of concepts implied by the words "Clinton body count" cannot be neatly wrapped up in the restrictive title "Clinton body count conspiracy theory". One may want to learn what is meant by "Clinton body count" but walk away assuming that this is entirely in reference to some preposterous conspiracy theory which, itself, is a restrictively specific member of the space of concepts associated with the term. If you search Google for "Clinton body count", most of what you will find has nothing to do with Linda Thompson or her list.

Given that there is a lineage of discourse that is categorized under "Clinton body count", but the article restrictively limits its scope to a specific historical instance of this larger idea being recognized, a reader may walk away both less curious and less informed than when they sought to learn about it in the first place.

While it may be important to dispel notions that promote inappropriately descriptive theories for which there is not sufficient evidence, it is similarly important to preserve at least some semblance of due consideration of the facts. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph describes exactly what the article is about. It goes on to say that various other people have expanded on this by adding additional conspiracies without evidence. Hence the junk you find with a Google search. I don't know why you think there are a disordinate number of suspicious deaths associated with William and Hillary Clinton. These are just wild, conspiratorial claims sans evidence. That does not make them suspicious. As for preserve at least some semblance of due consideration of the facts., that is done in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

<redact egregious BLP violations>

Readers seeking encyclopedic knowledge should have access to these facts, and they should consider them on their own merit. They should not be a priori dissuaded from further consideration by a leading title that includes "conspiracy theory".

There exist multiple conspiracy theories built on top of this collection of cases known as the "Clinton body count". Most of them are ridiculously presumptive, overreaching, and lack any explanatory power that is grounded in concrete evidence. That does not in any way diminish the significance of the phenomena, which deserves consideration and objective presentation under the standard of encyclopedic neutrality. TheWashingtonToast (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources to support any of this? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I presented a smattering of some of the largest news organizations that exist, all or almost all of which are acceptable sources for use in Wikipedia. What, pray tell, could you possibly mean by "reliable" if not that? 108.214.88.75 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Log in, bearing in mind my warning about the biographies of living persons policy and contentious topics restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The Clintons, by virtue of the offices they have held, have connections of one type or another with a vast number of people. As Joni Ernst reminds us: “We are all going to die”. There are people well known for pushing nonsensical conspiracy theories who hate the Clintons. As you say (well shout in bold): Most of them are ridiculously presumptive, overreaching, and lack any explanatory power that is grounded in concrete evidence. That does not in any way diminish the significance of the phenomena, which deserves consideration and objective presentation under the standard of encyclopedic neutrality. Well, that’s what we have done here. And we don’t weasel it by suggesting that somehow the Clintons somehow managed to murder all these well known folks without any evidence. And clearly this would be a “conspiracy” because how could they have possibly murdered all of these folks in person and not get caught. So we do what an encyclopedia should do. We present what is claimed and rightly refer to it as a conspiracy theory.

Now, you have just posted here a large amount of text suggesting that the Clintons are murderers without a single reference. This is one of the grossest violation of WP:BLP I have seen. I invite you to delete this. I suggest that you do this quickly before someone uninvolved sees it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)