Talk:Vast right-wing conspiracy

message: Echo chamber links here. Why? 195.7.54.2 16:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Echo Chamber 

message: This article is badly misguided.  "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is not a real thing, but rather a famous phrase uttered by someone.  It's worthy of an article, but the article should just discuss the phrase,
who said, reactions to it regarding its appropriateness and validity, and its use in the media and language and popular culture.  But in addition to this, the article delves into the details of various Clinton administration controversies, duplicating and sometimes even going into greater detail than the actual articles on those controversies - Whitewater (controversy), Troopergate, Paula Jones, etc.  Then the article debates some of these controversies - also inappropriate.  And the article misses some basic facts about later reactions to the phrase, most importantly from Hillary (she later said that the word 'conspiracy' was poorly chosen, since all that went on was pretty above ground, but she stands by the rest of it).
So, all the explanatory detail should be moved and merged into the individual controversy articles where it belongs.  The debate about the controversies needs to be removed; the debate about the phrase can stay.  Models of what this article should be like include I did not have sexual relations with that woman and Mission Accomplished.  
Unless there are objections, I intend to modify the article accordingly.   Wasted Time R 01:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So done.  Article definitely needs further improvement, however.   Wasted Time R 23:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your approach sounds sensible. I agree that the article should focus on the phrase and not go into excessive detail about debates over the various controversies. All that's really needed is an overview of background material to give context to the phrase. As you say, those controversies are covered in detail at their own pages, and readers who are interested in learning more can go to those articles.--Eloil 21:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is badly misguided

message: Such sections as the absurdly-titled "Validity, or the lack thereof" and the plugging of "In 2005, professional conservative author Byron York played on the phrase with his book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time." make this article POV and basically an apologetic section for conservatives and critics of the Clintons.--Folksong 05:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  "Validity, or the lack thereof" tries to examine the accuracy of the phrase, which even Hillary Clinton agrees was somewhat inaccurate.  If you want to improve the section, go ahead.  The following section shows some usages of, and references to, the phrase in popular culture.  Nothing wrong with that.  The York title, as with many books by professional conservatives, is so hyperbolic that it undermines its own argument all by itself.   Wasted Time R 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has serious issues in terms of NPOV; it looks like it was written by a Republican. The reality is that there was a coordinated smear campaign against Clinton organized by the Republican party, and they attempted to impeach Clinton over a blow job, and this has more or less been shown - Republicans pushed for investigation after investigation, continued to produce anti-Clinton smear literature, ect. The article makes it sound like this was not the result of the Republican party attacking President Clinton, which it was, though I think most intelligent people would agree it was obviously not a well-kept secret. Titanium Dragon 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was a coordinated campaign against Clinton from the earliest days.  It was organized by professional Clinton-haters, who had some overlap with the Republican Party but in many cases were out there in their own universe.  And some of the Clinton would-be scandals, such as Mena Airport, Troopergate, and Paula Jones, came out of this campaign.  But other Clinton scandals came from elsewhere, such as Whitewater, which was driven by The New York Times, and Lewinsky/impeachment, which was brought on by Clinton himself when he foolishly decided to lie in front of a grand jury, rather than admit a truth which would not have surprised anyone or done him much harm.  The article needs to make these distinctions.   Wasted Time R 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very true, though the latter impeachment thing was pretty much the Republicans attacking Bill Clinton and the Democratic party. It didn't work and everyone thought it was stupid, which was why it failed in the end. Titanium Dragon 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hit piece on the Clintons and apologetics for conservatives 

message: This phrase is entirely biased. First of all, it purports that Rush Limbaugh is a comedian, which is an OPINION, not a FACT. He is admittedly a "right-wing water carrier", not a comedian. Second, it attempts to delve the depths of Rush Limbaugh's mind and ASSumes he is being ironic when, for all we know, he is being, for once, blatantly honest. RARoth 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this post even related to the article? J.Rly (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  With Rush's typical tongue in cheek 

message: Rush Limbaugh is not even talked about in this article! so i recommend that the previous post be cut as it has nothing to do with the article and this is not a talk page to debate your Polictial ideas FYI no one here cares.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Right

message: The article mentions the attacks on Clinton but not the many more on Obama. And i belive that David Brock said that it is not a "conspiracy" but that it is all in plain view.99.13.118.232 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: further comment

message: wow, someone please move this to a forum and delete this article. Mantion (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vast right-wing conspiracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100407220527/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS.html? to http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Vast right-wing conspiracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608130352/http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php to http://www.mediatransparency.org/scaifeaggregate.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This should be added: 
"Kellyanne Conway says Kavanaugh allegations feel like "a vast left-wing conspiracy""
(https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kellyanne-conway-says-kavanaugh-allegations-feel-like-a-vast-left-wing-conspiracy/ar-AAAzvGw?li=BBnb7Kz)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.236.29 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vast left-wing conspiracy 

message: Hey. We all know about Project 2025 by now, which is just the most recent fruit that grew out of this conspiracy. Others being the no-abortion policy which was in the works for 50 years, renewed attempts to establish a state religion, the plans to process migrants in concentration camps, etc. This article is ill-defined and reduces the topic (of the existing reactionary movement in the US) into a laughing stock (of allegations by Clinton who mentioned that movement in the context of the Levinsky affair). --Enyavar (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ill-defined and outdated