Some content on this page was moved to Operation Unified Response on 05 February 2010. |
|
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories was copied or moved into Antisemitic canard with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on November 6, 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
can everbody say why your want deleten this page? censorship it badly think... -- Fredy.00 ( talk) 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone removed this page from WikiProject Earthquakes, calling it "irrelevant". I disagree; since this article is directly related to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, how in any way could it be "irrelevant" to a discussion about earthquakes? Stonemason89 ( talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What about Danny Glover's theory that global warming caused it, and blamed it on the failure of Copenhagen? 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's an ref courtesy of the Telegraph: [1]
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be included as a conspiracy theory? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this section belongs in this article, as it's not really a conspiracy theory, but a concern raised by a number of national governments about use of US military power. Perhaps it might be better of in Humanitarian response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake if only that were renamed Response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake! However I feel the section is too long to fit in 2010 Haiti earthquake though it might merit a sentence or two there. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the New York Daily News, relations between US and Cuba are improving. [2] - this would be a counterpoint to the Fidel announcement... Raul seems to disagree. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 08:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
He did not accuse the USA of using a seismic weapon to cause the earthquake. The video is a fake, combining a talk Chávez gave on December 30th 2009, 13 days before the earthquake, and the voice of a Russian "journalist" providing a "translation" that has absolutely no link with what he actually says. I am updating the article, with a source, obviously. Oyp ( talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
www.venezuelanalysis.com also have an article saying that neither Chavez, nor ViVe, really made this claim:
Truth over delusion: Hugo Chavez did not accuse the U.S. of causing the Haitian earthquake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.205 ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we not include claims referenced only by the claimant's own website. I have removed four of these already. If Mr Smith says the earthquake was caused by lizards, just including a link to Mr Smith's website is not sufficient - a reference to an article in the New York Times reporting his claims would be more appropriate. See WP:SOURCES, in particular WP:SELFPUB. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This guy didn't say anything about God's retribution. He could have been refering to the devil's punishment or something. Full transcript here. Given his spokesman also stated "Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath" we can't make these unsubstantiated claims in the article so I have adjusted it accordingly. I also replaced one ref that misquoted him with a more suitable one. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced these claims have significant coverage in reliable sources. We have an Iranian state TV website, and a press release from the Anti-Defamation League. I can't find anything in unbiased or general news sources. I these claims are notable I'd expect coverage in other Israeli or Iranian news sources for a start, but there doesn't seem to be any out there. If further unbiased sources can't be found I would be minded to remove this section. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 11:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should incorporate the criticism of the US military involvement to Operation Unified Response. The latter article is pretty sketchy and only includes a timeline of the operations. Pichpich ( talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Satan merrily killing Haitians is not a conspiracy theory, because one devil does not a conspiracy make. If he had thousands of imps helping, perhaps, but first you have to prove devils communicate by talking and don't just all know what each other are thinking.
Besides, "conspiracy theory" is a much overused term that seems to express an extra POV beyond simple skepticism.
How about 2010 Haiti earthquake mythology? Wnt ( talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:2010 Haiti earthquake and the history Template:2010 Haiti earthquake ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is a disagreement between whether to have the article on the navtemplate or not.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 04:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is defined by a dubious distinction of "conspiracy theories" from other content, which people have tried to phrase otherwise as "alternative views", or (as I did) "mythology". But in fact there's no article for plain vanilla political reactions. For example, the Venezuelan media did not just allege a HAARP conspiracy - they alleged that the U.S. was planning to send Haitian migrants to Guantanamo Bay [3] (now confirmed by Fox News [4]) and that the U.S. was using the earthquake to launch a military occupation (now formally alleged by the head of UNASUR [5]). The article on Operation Unified Response cites some other more mainstream reactions, which could be expanded in summary style in such an article.
Provided this article is not outright deleted in the next few days, I think we should move it to such a neutral title, and discard the requirement for assertions to be labelled as "conspiracy theories" or "alternative views" to be included. That way we can include reactions from any country or group without having to decide what we think about them. Wnt ( talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This entry:
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez personally claimed that the "gringos" (United States)[16] were merely using the earthquake as an excuse to "invade and militarily occupy Haiti". Chavez also said that "The empire (U.S.) is taking Haiti over the bodies and tears of its people."[4][17][18][19]
Hasn't this information been "debunked"? Wikipedia should not be a tabloid with "undisclosed sources report" type references. I would like to see this deleted unless someone can support it with good references. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, could you please place the references with the statements in this section rather than bunch them up at the end? It is hard to verify a statement when one has to look through 4 or 5 references. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
All right, I don't understand how the AfD was closed as no consensus but I guess this means we have to fix the article now so that it stops being such an embarrassment. Things to decide:
I've tried to rewrite it. It still needs work though and I feel as though it currently suggests that there really is something to these accusations and this is the last thing we need to convey. I even left out this CNN report in which the Haitian Prime Minister states that organ trafficking is happening. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean to say that the IDF is involved so I don't know how to integrate that reference into the article. Pichpich ( talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone recently added a Syrian TV report supporting the allegations (through a reporter who's actually shameless enough to pretend that T.West's miserable YouTube documents the organ theft!). I've shortened the account to avoid giving it undue importance but if the list continues to grow we might have to summarize the whole thing as "mentioned numerous times". Pichpich ( talk) 03:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the New Life Children’s Refuge a conspiracy to kidnap children? And if so, should it get a section here? 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be covered better in Pat Robertson controversies#Remarks about 2010 Haiti Earthquake as well as in Pat Robertson#Controversies and criticisms. Should we retain it here as well? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of buzz in Europe and on Christian (especially Catholic) sources about the Scientologist invasion of Haiti and their ulterior motives of their "aid mission". 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What Elizi Danto said about what caused the Haitian earthquake... Does that qualify as a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 ( talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know if anyone here already proposed deleting this page. If so , why was it allowed to stay, and if not then I would like to propose the deletion of it. Thanks-- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
There are several German-language articles which pertain to this topic. Since I can't read German, I can't tell what they say exactly, or if they are reliable. Can someone who reads German help out?
Stonemason89 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am requesting input regarding this article. For some reasons the article has managed to survive deletion. I believe however there has been manipulation of the time frames on the deletion requests and reviews by adding speeding keeps. I believe this article is very detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia. IMO it lacks notability except for some yellow journalism websites that blatantly said Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez said the earthquake was a product of an American attack. This was later debunked by several sources. However it sprung a number of stories over the internet and mostly on non-reliable sources that there were a number of conspiracy theories. I believe if we are intending Wikipedia to have some level of quality pseudo-scientific stories like this and especially when they are the product of some attention needed websites, should be filter out. Although it is true some news programs mentioned Hugo Chavez's supposedly statement, the number of different theories included in the article are all not related in a different way beyond the term conspiracy.
I added a deletion review here for the ones interested in voice their opinion there too. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti for deletion. You can view the Afd here. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC
I do not understand why sourced references to past Israeli organ theft have been removed from the article- without this context it is impossible to understand the theory's origin. I have reinstated them. Please discuss here. 93.96.148.42 ( talk)
To explain his concern, West stated that "the IDF [had] participated in the past in stealing organ transplants [sic] of Palestinians and others", a reference to the Aftonbladet Israel controversy in which the head of an Israeli forensic institute admitted to harvesting organs of autopsy patients in the 1990s.
You munged the url: [10]... which says exactly the same thing as Aftonbladet! How are you asserting a different incident from this? — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
According to this al-Jazeera article [11] quoting something by a former editor for The Guardian, ... there's something of an implication that depending on how paranoid you are may represent a conspiracy. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I am so ashamed this article made two AfDs and my Request for Comment was deleted. The funny thing is that the article remains with the poor quality it was started with. So where are all the people that were commenting and defending the article from being deleted?? If they care so much for the article then why is not it improved? Why are not they working into making this "article" more encyclopedic and not the shameful collection of gossip and links to conspiracy oriented websites? Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Rush's comments have been widely described as conspiracy theories elsewhere, so I expanded the article with information about them. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion here. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Some content on this page was moved to Operation Unified Response on 05 February 2010. |
|
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories was copied or moved into Antisemitic canard with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on November 6, 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
can everbody say why your want deleten this page? censorship it badly think... -- Fredy.00 ( talk) 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone removed this page from WikiProject Earthquakes, calling it "irrelevant". I disagree; since this article is directly related to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, how in any way could it be "irrelevant" to a discussion about earthquakes? Stonemason89 ( talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
What about Danny Glover's theory that global warming caused it, and blamed it on the failure of Copenhagen? 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's an ref courtesy of the Telegraph: [1]
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be included as a conspiracy theory? If not, why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure this section belongs in this article, as it's not really a conspiracy theory, but a concern raised by a number of national governments about use of US military power. Perhaps it might be better of in Humanitarian response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake if only that were renamed Response by national governments to the 2010 Haiti earthquake! However I feel the section is too long to fit in 2010 Haiti earthquake though it might merit a sentence or two there. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
According to the New York Daily News, relations between US and Cuba are improving. [2] - this would be a counterpoint to the Fidel announcement... Raul seems to disagree. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 08:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
He did not accuse the USA of using a seismic weapon to cause the earthquake. The video is a fake, combining a talk Chávez gave on December 30th 2009, 13 days before the earthquake, and the voice of a Russian "journalist" providing a "translation" that has absolutely no link with what he actually says. I am updating the article, with a source, obviously. Oyp ( talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
www.venezuelanalysis.com also have an article saying that neither Chavez, nor ViVe, really made this claim:
Truth over delusion: Hugo Chavez did not accuse the U.S. of causing the Haitian earthquake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.102.205 ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we not include claims referenced only by the claimant's own website. I have removed four of these already. If Mr Smith says the earthquake was caused by lizards, just including a link to Mr Smith's website is not sufficient - a reference to an article in the New York Times reporting his claims would be more appropriate. See WP:SOURCES, in particular WP:SELFPUB. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 16:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This guy didn't say anything about God's retribution. He could have been refering to the devil's punishment or something. Full transcript here. Given his spokesman also stated "Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath" we can't make these unsubstantiated claims in the article so I have adjusted it accordingly. I also replaced one ref that misquoted him with a more suitable one. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced these claims have significant coverage in reliable sources. We have an Iranian state TV website, and a press release from the Anti-Defamation League. I can't find anything in unbiased or general news sources. I these claims are notable I'd expect coverage in other Israeli or Iranian news sources for a start, but there doesn't seem to be any out there. If further unbiased sources can't be found I would be minded to remove this section. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 11:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we should incorporate the criticism of the US military involvement to Operation Unified Response. The latter article is pretty sketchy and only includes a timeline of the operations. Pichpich ( talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Satan merrily killing Haitians is not a conspiracy theory, because one devil does not a conspiracy make. If he had thousands of imps helping, perhaps, but first you have to prove devils communicate by talking and don't just all know what each other are thinking.
Besides, "conspiracy theory" is a much overused term that seems to express an extra POV beyond simple skepticism.
How about 2010 Haiti earthquake mythology? Wnt ( talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
See Template talk:2010 Haiti earthquake and the history Template:2010 Haiti earthquake ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There is a disagreement between whether to have the article on the navtemplate or not.
70.29.210.242 ( talk) 04:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is defined by a dubious distinction of "conspiracy theories" from other content, which people have tried to phrase otherwise as "alternative views", or (as I did) "mythology". But in fact there's no article for plain vanilla political reactions. For example, the Venezuelan media did not just allege a HAARP conspiracy - they alleged that the U.S. was planning to send Haitian migrants to Guantanamo Bay [3] (now confirmed by Fox News [4]) and that the U.S. was using the earthquake to launch a military occupation (now formally alleged by the head of UNASUR [5]). The article on Operation Unified Response cites some other more mainstream reactions, which could be expanded in summary style in such an article.
Provided this article is not outright deleted in the next few days, I think we should move it to such a neutral title, and discard the requirement for assertions to be labelled as "conspiracy theories" or "alternative views" to be included. That way we can include reactions from any country or group without having to decide what we think about them. Wnt ( talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This entry:
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez personally claimed that the "gringos" (United States)[16] were merely using the earthquake as an excuse to "invade and militarily occupy Haiti". Chavez also said that "The empire (U.S.) is taking Haiti over the bodies and tears of its people."[4][17][18][19]
Hasn't this information been "debunked"? Wikipedia should not be a tabloid with "undisclosed sources report" type references. I would like to see this deleted unless someone can support it with good references. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, could you please place the references with the statements in this section rather than bunch them up at the end? It is hard to verify a statement when one has to look through 4 or 5 references. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
All right, I don't understand how the AfD was closed as no consensus but I guess this means we have to fix the article now so that it stops being such an embarrassment. Things to decide:
I've tried to rewrite it. It still needs work though and I feel as though it currently suggests that there really is something to these accusations and this is the last thing we need to convey. I even left out this CNN report in which the Haitian Prime Minister states that organ trafficking is happening. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean to say that the IDF is involved so I don't know how to integrate that reference into the article. Pichpich ( talk) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone recently added a Syrian TV report supporting the allegations (through a reporter who's actually shameless enough to pretend that T.West's miserable YouTube documents the organ theft!). I've shortened the account to avoid giving it undue importance but if the list continues to grow we might have to summarize the whole thing as "mentioned numerous times". Pichpich ( talk) 03:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the New Life Children’s Refuge a conspiracy to kidnap children? And if so, should it get a section here? 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be covered better in Pat Robertson controversies#Remarks about 2010 Haiti Earthquake as well as in Pat Robertson#Controversies and criticisms. Should we retain it here as well? -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of buzz in Europe and on Christian (especially Catholic) sources about the Scientologist invasion of Haiti and their ulterior motives of their "aid mission". 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
What Elizi Danto said about what caused the Haitian earthquake... Does that qualify as a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 ( talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know if anyone here already proposed deleting this page. If so , why was it allowed to stay, and if not then I would like to propose the deletion of it. Thanks-- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 21:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
There are several German-language articles which pertain to this topic. Since I can't read German, I can't tell what they say exactly, or if they are reliable. Can someone who reads German help out?
Stonemason89 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I am requesting input regarding this article. For some reasons the article has managed to survive deletion. I believe however there has been manipulation of the time frames on the deletion requests and reviews by adding speeding keeps. I believe this article is very detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia. IMO it lacks notability except for some yellow journalism websites that blatantly said Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez said the earthquake was a product of an American attack. This was later debunked by several sources. However it sprung a number of stories over the internet and mostly on non-reliable sources that there were a number of conspiracy theories. I believe if we are intending Wikipedia to have some level of quality pseudo-scientific stories like this and especially when they are the product of some attention needed websites, should be filter out. Although it is true some news programs mentioned Hugo Chavez's supposedly statement, the number of different theories included in the article are all not related in a different way beyond the term conspiracy.
I added a deletion review here for the ones interested in voice their opinion there too. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti for deletion. You can view the Afd here. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC
I do not understand why sourced references to past Israeli organ theft have been removed from the article- without this context it is impossible to understand the theory's origin. I have reinstated them. Please discuss here. 93.96.148.42 ( talk)
To explain his concern, West stated that "the IDF [had] participated in the past in stealing organ transplants [sic] of Palestinians and others", a reference to the Aftonbladet Israel controversy in which the head of an Israeli forensic institute admitted to harvesting organs of autopsy patients in the 1990s.
You munged the url: [10]... which says exactly the same thing as Aftonbladet! How are you asserting a different incident from this? — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 02:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
According to this al-Jazeera article [11] quoting something by a former editor for The Guardian, ... there's something of an implication that depending on how paranoid you are may represent a conspiracy. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I am so ashamed this article made two AfDs and my Request for Comment was deleted. The funny thing is that the article remains with the poor quality it was started with. So where are all the people that were commenting and defending the article from being deleted?? If they care so much for the article then why is not it improved? Why are not they working into making this "article" more encyclopedic and not the shameful collection of gossip and links to conspiracy oriented websites? Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Rush's comments have been widely described as conspiracy theories elsewhere, so I expanded the article with information about them. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see discussion here. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)