Talk:Bielefeld conspiracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening heading[edit]

To everyone who is confused, I'm trying to translate the first sentence of the German article: The Bielefeld conspiracy is part of a satirical conspiracy that doubts the existence of the city of Bielefeld in order to expose the self contained and unattackable argumentation structure of conspiracy theories in a humorous way. (hope that made sense and excuse my poor english :)


I'm confused...based on this article, it looks as though the conspiracy is to hide Bielefeld's existence, but the Bielefeld article seems to indicate that the conspiracy is to promote a non-existent Bielefeld's existence. I'm even confusing myself. Anyone know which one it is? Jwrosenzweig 23:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The conspiracy is to promote the existance of Bielefeld. Of course, as with most conspiracy theories, people deny the existance of the conspiracy. The consensus in the german wikipedia is that Bielefeld exists and the claim of a the existance of the conspiracy called Bielefeldverschwörung is just a joke. This complies with the claim of the majority of non-usenet-influenced ordinary people. If you want to put it this way you can say that there is a conspiracy to claim a conspiracy. The later of the two is called Bielefeld-Verschwörung. – 80.110.189.185 15:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I too was confused by the article at first. On a second reading it does actually make sense, but I think someone should edit it so it makes the "direction" of the conspiracy clearer... Teutanic 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the conspiracy is that THEY want us to believe that Bielefeld exists. But in real there is no city called Bielefeld, and everyone who claims he has been there, or even has relatives there is part of THEM. So the impression you got from the Bielefeld article is right, but I cannot see how this article can lead to the other interpretation. But I am already very familiar with this theory, so feel free to fix it if it is misleading. andy 08:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. The fact that when I click on the Bielefeld article the map showing the town's location fails to load must indicate that it really doesn't exist! Arwel 20:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do we need an entry about every possible hoax? Get-back-world-respect 22:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The difference between the Bielefeld conspiracy and other hoaxes is that everyone knows this conspiracy is a joke, but the others do have their believers. But this joke is an important part of the german internet folklore, so if you ask a random person on german usenet about Bielefeld there are good chances he will know about the conspiracy. There are much less relevant articles on wikipedia. andy 13:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting that there is a similar "conspiracy" in Israel - a running gag that the city of Petah Tikwa does not exist. A website on that topic should be going up soon, I'll link to it. So far it's been a popular meme in many blogs.

This article in the Wikipedia store[edit]

I've made some merchandise for the Wikipedia store based on this article: [www.cafepress.com/wikipedia/2585710 Bielefeld conspiracy] section. Let me know what you think on the meta page. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging[edit]

This article should really be permanently tagged ;-)


MadMaxDog 11:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that tag go on the Bielefeld page? ;) - Alltat (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

local dialect[edit]

  • The local 'dialect' in and around Bielefeld is Standard German,[citation needed] which makes it impossible to recognize anyone from Bielefeld by their dialect (Something that Germans are used to doing since almost all areas of Germany have easily distinguishable dialects, which usually are even recognizable when someone attempts to speak High German.)

This is not quite correct. The local Dialect is rather Low German - but the Standard German spoken in Bielefeld (and most people don't speak dialect in Bielefeld anymore) has almost no dialect -like-properties (like in most other areas of germany). --85.178.213.228 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roots in "Garfield"?[edit]

A similar joke ran on American television in 1989, on the Garfield and Friends episode "It Must Be True!"; in this sketch, it was the state of Wyoming that did not exist, complete with one of the three Bielefeld proofs: "Think about it - have you ever met anyone from Wyoming?" Coincidence? Common root somewhere? "Garfield" actually being creative? ShaleZero (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Garfield" was actually creative. From the history section of the article:

The conspiracy theory was first made public in a posting to the newsgroup de.talk.bizarre on May 16, 1994,. Since the cartoon was in 1989, it could be claimed that the conspiracy was copying Garfield. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Garfield air in Germany? Or if not, how many Americans (or other non-native German-speakers) were hanging around in this particular German-language newsgroup at that time? It's possible they came up with the same idea independantly. It doesn't necessarily strike me as a show with much international appeal, but I don't know. Plus, the use of Wyoming in this case would have far less cultural meaning to people outside the US, just like the Bielfeld version probably doesn't mean much to non-Germans. Lurlock (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Garfield was aired in Germany beginning of the 90th (at least the first season, don't know when they showed the 2nd), but this story does not have its root in it. It's already a bit older, and was just published in 1994. The idea for it itself is from sometime in the 80th and is a parody on the typical cold-war conspiracy theories which where common back then (Kennedy was shot by KGB, and stuff like that). -- 83.145.211.117 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bielefeld Conspiracy → Bielefeld conspiracy – No need for capitalisation here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Conspiracy is part of the name as such not just the title, imho similar to Loch Ness Monster.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the article title of that monster either, but it's not the matter here. This article really is a (satirical) conspiracy about Bielefeld, not a conspiracy that would justify a proper noun. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure by what measure you want to decide, whether a term "deserves" to be proper noun and when not. To me at first glance it clearly looks like one. The fact that it is satirical term, doesn't mean it is not a proper noun. It is not an adhoc satiric construction anymore, but rather something that is known by exactly this name for decades now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oppose for the reason stated in the discussion above--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In German, there is no such debate because compound nouns are always written with one word like Bielefeldverschwörung. --2.245.194.8 (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added picture[edit]

I thought it might be good to have a picture. To match the subject topic, I chose one with a very even, plain blue background, so it looks like a model being photographed in front of a studio backcloth. Blythwood (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like Legoland and it's wonderfully unconvincing. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No-one gets off at North Warnborough"[edit]

Are you sure this isn't meant to say Wanborough, as opposed to North Warnborough? This village does actually have a railway station named after it. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As North Warnborough's not on the railway, Wanborough seems more likely. It was originally built in 1891 just for Sir Algernon West MP, Gladstone's principal private secretary (and a director of the South Eastern Railway), who lived at Wanborough Manor. Which is why it's called Wanborough even though it's in the next village, Normandy. The line was there anyway and the new station saved West and his important visitors the bother of hiring a coach from Guildford. In 1918, near the end of West's life, there was a station staff of five (with smart uniforms and moustaches) but only five trains each way on weekdays and none on Sundays. Then the suburban movement got going and new houses sprang up and by 1939 there were 36 weekday trains each way and 16-17 on Sundays. The station, though now unmanned, still handles hundreds of passengers a day, most of them commuters, with trains half-hourly. If there really is a local saying that no one gets on or off at Wanborough, it must be based on a pretty ancient folk-memory of the days when it was Sir Algernon's personal station. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian version?[edit]

Right now, the list of other versions lists: "In the Palestinian Territories, there is a similar concept in which the town of Oświęcim is a fiction."

I'm having some trouble believing that. There are no sources for it, to begin with. Now, I'm not the kind of Wikipedia user that would normally delete something just for that reason, but this one doesn't sit right with me.

For those who don't know, Oświęcim is the original Polish name for the Polish town that the (Nazi) Germans call / called Auschwitz, the town where the infamous (to say the least) Nazi concentration camp was built; one of the main murder sites in the Holocaust where an estimated 1.1 million people (mainly jews and a smaller number of other victims from the Nazi regime) were killed. Also, in the above sentence, Oświęcim is being Wiki linked to the article about the Hamas–UNRWA Holocaust dispute, where I can find nothing about a 'joking' conspiracy like the Bielefeld one, or about Auschwitz/Oświęcim at all. So unless someone has any sources, I am going to assume that even if the existence of Oświęcim is indeed a 'thing' in Palestine, it's probably nothing like the good-natured innocent joke that the Bielefeld conspiracy is. And in the worst case, this story is totally made up and a case of vandalism. Therefor I am deleting the passage; consider this my explanation for that. If someone has credible sources, he can add those, and the passage, again of course. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other versions[edit]

I deleted the whole section, here is the list at the time I deleted it:

Similar satire conspiracy theories exists in other countries.

Here are the references, for those that have them:

  1. ^ http://desciclopedia.org/wiki/Acre
  2. ^ http://urbatorium.blogspot.cl/2010/12/el-dia-que-sacaron-combarbala-de-chile.html
  3. ^ Sanghamitra Mazumdar (2008-06-21). "Where are you going this winter? Jhumri Telaiya?". Indian Express. Retrieved 2012-01-09. Jhumri Telaiya is too quaint a name to be real—at least that's what people who tuned into Vividh Bharati thought.
  4. ^ Il Molise non esiste
  5. ^ "Teruel existe (y los croatas lo saben)". Heraldo. 2016-06-29. (in Spanish)
  6. ^ http://www.eksisozluk.com/show.asp?t=bilecik+diye+bir+yerin+asl%C4%B1nda+olmamas%C4%B1
  7. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlAZD9Xx5-Y
  8. ^ http://67.media.tumblr.com/f1ec9aedee9faec60cebca16788547ec/tumblr_inline_odplhn0DrS1rgk9un_500.png

    9. Pretty dodgy list... I'm sure almost all of these jokes are not heard of even in their own countries. If one of them actually is a well-circulated joke, feel free to just put it back. --God made the integers (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Bielefeld 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:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Bielefeld 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:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    New section? - prize for proving it doesn't exist[edit]

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49432677

    Should this be included somewhere? 141.92.67.44 (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi 141.92.67.44. The prize is already mentioned in the Official response section (" In August 2019, the council offered to give 1 million euros to any person who could provide "incontrovertible evidence" of its nonexistence in an effort to grow interest in the city.") Eddie891 Talk Work 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 11 March 2021[edit]

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 12:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Bielefeld Conspiracy → Bielefeld conspiracy – This was proposed above, back in 2011, and the analysis by the nominator then seems correct - there is little reason to think this is a proper name. Per MOS:CAPS, "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia", and I don't think that is met here. Numerous sources show it in sentence case, e.g. BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph etc. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as it looks like most English sources use the lowercase name, though I am not sure about German sources. As whether it is a proper name, I think this consideration should not take priority over wp:common name. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, only English sources are considered per WP:CRITERIA and wp:common name, so German sources can be ignored. In that case, I think the lowercase one is the right one. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 14:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    German sources would be useless anyway, because of German capitalisation rules. O.N.R. (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support - The two titles are functionally identical but the proposed one is more standard in English, while the current one seems to be based off of standard German usage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Obvious correction. In German all (German) nouns are capitalised; if in Englisch we called it the "Bielefeld Verschwörung", then the V-word would be capitalised italics. But we don't, so "conspiracy" should follow normal WP style. Or, since this is all a joke anyway, we could call it "Konspiracy" and set it in Fraktur... Imaginatorium (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as obvious correction. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Are we sure that Bielefeld exists..?[edit]

    Just asking. :) Lunare Scuderia (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, we are sure. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sie[edit]

    ""Sie" is always capitalised in German; block capitals is correct"

    "Sie" has several meanings:

    • the polite form of "you". As such, it is always capitalized as "Sie"
    • "she" - "sie". Never capitalized (except at the start of a sentence, of course)
    • "they" - "sie". Never capitalized (except at the start of a sentence, of course)

    The meaning here is the third one. In the article, it is written "SIE" ("THEY"), and "always in block capitals" seems to refer to emphasizing the word by capitalizing all the letters. "Always" probably refers to "always in the context of the Bielefeld conspiracy". I think that the part in parentheses should go, it only serves to confuse people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Boldly implemented that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. I dimly remembered afterwards that it is only one form of Sie that gets a capital; anyway I think your version is quite good, at least until someone changes it to "They", with "Correct English capitalization"... Imaginatorium (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bound to happen sooner or later :) --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Every single link to Bielefeld is broken.[edit]

    All mentions of the world "Bielefeld" is no longer redirecting to that town's Wikipedia article. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    update: every single link to Bielefeld and Bielefeld University was put as "Bielefeld University" instead of Bielefeld University or "Bielefeld University" IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit the source on this to see what I mean) IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bielefeld_conspiracy&oldid=1214827335"