Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

why ?

can everbody say why your want deleten this page? censorship it badly think... --Fredy.00 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Irrelevant"???

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)

That would be me. I personally am against giving any air at all to such totally wacky ideas, but I'm not going to fight about it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not about earthquakes though is it? It's about international relations, the HAARP conspiracy theory, and Pat Robertson. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Danny Glover

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)

Be Bold! Stonemason89 (talk) 15:42, 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)

It's already been added to the end of the Danny Glover article, and it's also not a conspiracy theory because he is not claiming that the climate conspired with other parties to cause the earthquake.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And for that matter, it's not even clear that he meant to say global warming caused the quake, although this is what many media outlets reported. The transcript very much suggests that he simply compared the scale of devastation in Haiti to what he considers as the looming threat of a global rise in sea levels. Pichpich (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Military Occupation of Haiti

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)

Cuba-US

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)

Chávez

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)

A better source would be nice. The reference in French is not from a particularly well-established news/analysis source. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done French source again, but this one is from Acrimed, a very well-established web site that specializes in criticizing media, e.g. exposing fakes, defending freedom of speach, and so on. Oyp (talk) 11:46, 2 February 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)

Thanks, I updated the article to reflect this.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

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)

Pat Robertson

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)

Notability of organ harvesting claims

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)

Iranian state TV is notable in Iran, and Wikipedia seeks to include all perspectives. While the ADL (like the Iran outlet) is not at all neutral, I think that it has some aspects of a "reliable source" (i.e. many eyes look over the press release) and that it also would establish notability. How many news outlets in the U.S. really pretend to be neutral nowadays anyway? And pretend is all they ever did - perhaps all any author is capable of. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Iranian state TV might be notable, but we need significant coverage in reliable sources. The rest of the Iranian media (and Iranian overseas media), or Israeli media do not have anything to say about this at all. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This should be recognized for what it is: a recurrent accusation which recently resulted in the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. It has little to do with Haiti. Pichpich (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Operation Unified Response

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)

I agree that the criticism section in the operation needs to add info found here. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone onbject if I moved that section to Operation Unified Response?--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

go ahead. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. The mere notion that this "criticism" is included in anything to do with "Conspiracies theories about the Haiti earthquake" is laughable at best. I'm surprised that such an article exists to be honest considering the lack of verifiable associations with the article title. Feudonym (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Section moved to Operation Unified Response--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename

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)

Given the various uses of the word "mythology" that would be a no from me.

The problem is lumping all these unrelated items into one article, when there are already exisiting articles that could accommodate them much more readily. As has been said above and elsewhere, HAARP conspiracy theory, Pat Robertson, Operation Unified Response, United States – Venezuela relations and Iran–Israel relations would all benefit from the inclusion of this material. That is why there isn't a suitable name for this article, because it's not about anything other than Stuff about the 2010 Haiti earthquake that was rejected for inclusion in the 2010 Haiti earthquake article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with Pontificalibus. The problem is not the title... Pichpich (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You two should both change your AFD votes from delete to merge, then. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think some of this deserves to be in this article, and some of it doesn't. Things that are actually conspiracy theories, like the Israeli organ harvesting claim, or the US earthquake-causing weapon claim (assuming the debate about that statement can be worked out credibly), merit an article, because you might want to look them up, and you're going to have a hard time finding this information under blood libel. The HAARP thing seems to merit a main article link, but falls cleanly under the label of conspiracy theory. This article is well-researched, and interesting. I found it reading about conspiracy theories, so I think it merits its own article, along with 9/11 conspiracies. As a side note, I think that this scare quotes usage here is stylistically hideous, and completely unnecessary.69.94.192.147 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy article and the navtemplate

See Template talk:2010 Haiti earthquake and the history Template:2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | 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)

An article Political reactions to the 2010 Haiti earthquake is needed

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)

I agree. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the contents wouldn't come under "Political reactions" either. The HAARP claim and the Pat Robertson claim don't involve politicians at all. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson was a Republican presidential candidate, a founder of the Christian Coalition and a champion financial supporter of Liberian war criminal Charles Taylor. The Venezuelan state media has been in a fairly open war of rhetoric with the U.S. Both are fully political in nature. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a political reaction. That's like saying that Obama rooting for the Saints at the Super Bowl is a political endorsement. Pichpich (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This will not work, the humanitarian response to the quake are also political reactions. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Improve references or remove? (US military occupation of Haiti section)

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)

so what now?

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:

• Should the Robertson bit be removed since its presentation explicitly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory?
• How do we solve the complicated problem of who said what in Venezuela? Among other things, the pravda.ru piece is quite clearly a translation of the ViVe piece, although it is officially "Translated from the Portuguese version by Lisa KARPOVA"! In any case, these shouldn't be presented as distinct articles.
• The sentence below requires major fixes.

"American anti-Israel activist Theautries West of Seattle,[29] has alleged, without citing evidence, that some members of the Israeli Defense Forces have been harvesting organs from Haitians and arrived in the country "for the money"[30]."

• • First of all, that T.West clown is, quite clearly, antisemitic but that doesn't make him an anti-Israeli activist. According to the YnetNews article, he "fronts a group called AfriSynergy Productions, whose declared goal is to empower the black man."
  • More importantly, his video does not allege that IDF members are stealing organs in Haiti. That's clearly what he's hinting at but what he's basically saying is a) the IDF has done this in the past, b) nobody's monitoring things in Haiti, c) Jews like money and organs bring money (ok that last one is my own translation...). Nevertheless, he stops short of a more precise allegation and his conclusion is "the Haitian people should be careful".
• What do we do with the scare quotes?
• What should be moved to Operation Unified Response? As I've said before, none of that discussion deserves to be treated as a simple conspiracy theory. So I'd be tempted to cut and paste the whole thing (with due care about GFDL). Pichpich (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Above I proposed moving the page to Political reactions to the 2010 Haiti earthquake and broadening its focus to include other content - which would not require anything currently present to be deleted. Should I take a vote for this, or just go for it? Wnt (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can move the page to that new title. That being said, the main article on the quake should have a section (and possibly a spin-off article) on political issues both domestic and international. For now, my preferred solution is to expand Operation Unified Response to reflect the criticism voiced by Castro, Chavez, Morales, Ron Paul and an increasingly large group of observers. That should be separated completely from the present article. When something is included in a conspiracy theory article, there's an implicit indication that it's widely viewed as complete rubbish. That's only the case for the HAARP, IDF and Robertson bits of the article. Pichpich (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that will work, since humanitarian responses are also political reactions. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Fringe theories relating to the 2010 Haiti earthquake would work, and Pat Robertson, considering the press it keeps getting, should remain, because of it's high visibility. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The reactions to the US military buildup in Haiti should be moved to the US Military Operation article, since it's a reaction to the miltiary buildup. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally think we can merge a lot of the information into other articles, it makes complete sense to merge the "US military occupation of Haiti" section into Operation Unified Response under a Criticism section. It is certainly more an allegation/criticism/knee-jerk reaction than any conspiracy theory as such. As no one seems to be doing anything or coming to a consensus, unless anyone can clearly state how questioning the role of the U.S. in Haiti is a conspiracy theory (i.e. what are they conspiring to do and link it with a source which explicitly states this claim), then I will move that section there. Feudonym (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

organ theft section

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)

Just to say why I removed mention of Alex Jones: the article on his site merely www.infowarscom/activist-watch-out-for-idf-stealing-organs-in-haiti/ reports] the controversy, rather than accusing the Israelis as David Duke's does. I think it's a bit much to accuse him of being an anti-semite or anti-Israeli without a citation, as his own article does not mention this. I also removed the mention of Hamas websites relaying the claims, as I think we need a less biased ref than the ADL one for this, and I can't find any.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No complaints. Pichpich (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you did a good job conveying the fact that this isn't even an accusation, but a suggestion by one person of what might be happening given the Aftonbladet Israel controversy. I tried to also change the title to reflect this.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'll excuse the rant, I just can't believe that the only people wasting their time cleaning up this stupid article are the ones who wasted their time explaining why it had no place on wiki. Pichpich (talk) 23:25, 6 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)

Laura Silsby

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)

Regardless of their guilt, it most certainly isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a simple criminal investigation that involves a conspiracy in the legal sense of the term. Pichpich (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pat Robertson section

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)

It never should have been included as a conspiracy theory anyways... Pichpich (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientology

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)

I can't see anything on google news to suggest such ideas are notable. If such ideas receive significant coverage in reliable sources, then we can consider including them. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, this does not constitute a conspiracy theory. No one is disputing that the scientologists are providing aid and no one is disputing that they are doing so in name of scientology. The rest is just the usual debate on missionary work versus proselytizing. This always gets more press in Europe because secularism is stronger than in the US. Moreover most EU countries consider scientology a cult. I've read a couple of pieces in French newspapers about this and both also criticized Christian missionaries and their role before and after the quake. They're not presenting this as a conspiracy but as a routine and non-covert process in which faith-based aid gets mixed up with attempts of conversion. Pichpich (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Elizi Danto

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)

I'd say yes. And it gets pretty high marks for stupidity so good entertainment value. But let's see if it gets any traction before reporting on it. Pichpich (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing some communist rags saying something like that before... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Should this be included or mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.171.182 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Ezili Danto (the correct spelling) is not this person's real name, it's a pseudonym that references a key figure in Haitian voodoo. I'm not sure what this woman's real name is, although her name seems to indicate that she is likely Haitian and/or a practitioner of voodoo. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete proposal

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)

I have added a delete proposal to this article. thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There's already been a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories and the article survive. I still think it should be deleted though. As I noted above, the people who supported keeping it have deserted the article and the people who supported deletion are here trying to preserve a semblance of respectability. In any case, I've removed the proposed deletion tag: because of the previous debate, the article can only be deleted through another run at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (Unfortunately, the result is likely to be the same) Pichpich (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do? This article is certainly a joke. Give me ideas, what are the ways to go? Can I renominate it? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop you nominating it again, especially as the content has changed substantially since the last nomination. Given the response last time, I would advise that you should be clear in your nomination why you want it deleted with reference to specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this article can no longer be deleted, due to WP:GFDL. A large section of this article was migrated to another article, so whatever happens, this article is required to exist in some form. (though it may just get moved to a subpage for history preservation) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's never a problem. There are routine methods to get around this and we don't keep articles just for the sake of GFDL. Pichpich (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They seem to end up as subpages, or redirects, instead of disappearing. Ofcourse according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia you can do a long list thing on the talk page with every single contribution to the text you copied listed. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, I am adding a 2nd proposal for the deletion of this page. I ask all of you to please give your opinion at the deletion nomination page. I really believe this page lacks the importance and seriousness of a real article. In other words, I believe this article came out as the result of some gossip given by a journal, it simply grew as a snowball, but this is really nothing. Is not fair to be creating conspiracy theories on every single event, in particular those events where science has gone to great lengths to explain the causes. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

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?

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Stonemason89 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My German isn't that great but the three references above are short enough and straightforward enough. They're based on the FoxNews piece [9] and typical of what was floating around when there was still confusion about who said what in Venezuela. Nothing new. Pichpich (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment - 14 February 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

• Comment I don't think you should have an RFC on a DRV, it looks like deletion-shopping to me. You should wait until the DRV concludes. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment It looks but it isn't. I am requesting the input from more editors because I am certain there have been violations regarding the time frame and the procedure on the deletion this article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only problem here is your forum shopping. I recommend accepting that the article was not deleted and moving on. Edward321 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clear forum-shopping. Let the DRV run its course, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I welcome your accusations. However, the tools are there to be used. thanks! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti nominated for deletion

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

Neutrality - Context -Israeli history of stealing organs

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)

The existing sentence explains the link to the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy quite succinctly. There is a wikilink at the end people can follow for more details:

To explain his concern, West stated that "the IDF [had] participated in the past in stealing organ transplants [sic] of Palestinians and others", thus echoing claims that had, two months earlier, led to the Aftonbladet Israel controversy.

However your addition makes the sentence overly cumbersome. Are we to explain all the details of the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy in the middle of a sentence in which we are trying to explain T.West's claims? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in discussion - it is what makes the wiki!

Your edit suggests that a mad man is suggesting something crazy, and links to a controversy. It is an undisputed fact that Israel has stolen organs in the past- I suspect you wish to hide this. The sentence may need re-writing, but it is balanced.93.96.148.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

Now -"In December 2009, Israel admitted there had been organ harvesting of skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from dead bodies of Palestinians, Israeli soldiers and citizens and foreign workers, without permission from relatives, in the 1990s, but that this practice no longer occurred." - would "In December 2009, Israel admitted harvesting skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from dead Palestinians, foreign workers, Israeli soldiers and citizens without permission from relatives, in the 1990s." be better?93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I assure you I am not trying to hide anything, just to improve the article. I was just going to suggest this:

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.

--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

btw I'd like to not increase the number of sentences if possible - the paragraph is long enough, and using two paragraphs to explain one simple concept would be OTT. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The admitted actual theft of organs differs from the Aftonbladet Israel controversy. They are two seperate issues - and following the references I gave will give more information. It is normal for information to be duplicated on wikipedia. I think the sentence I suggest gives a good summary of Israel's past actions, and less information is misleading. Generally conspiracy theories have a very small grain of truth to them, and it is better spelt out - "organ transplants" makes me think of hearts, kidneys etc, for example93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What "admitted actual theft" are you referring to, if not Aftonbladet? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that this user is inserting exactly the same sentence into 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, probably none. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The theft of organs from dead bodies, without consent, by Israeli Authorities in Israel, as admitted by the Israeli Health Authority. The Swedish Newspaper article is unreadable to me, and apparently disproven speculation93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The reliable source my contribution is based on is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

"Munged the url"? The reliable source describes Israeli admissions of organ theft. It mentions that the release of the interview was made as a consequence of the contraversy -but the admitted organ thefts occurred 10 years before. If you want to say that Israel was accused of killing for organs, and admitted only to harvesting them from dead people in the aftonblat contraversy that would meet npov - otherwise the continual removal of sourced relevant material from this article is unjustifiable.93.96.154.200 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Western Media "ignoring" non-Western aid

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)

That's a big reach to call that a conspiracy theory. People cheer the home team, nothing new. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

From the article - "Richard Gott, the Guardian newspaper's former foreign editor and a Latin America specialist, explains: "Western media are programmed to be indifferent to aid that comes from unexpected places. In the Haitian case, the media have ignored not just the Cuban contribution, but also the efforts made by other Latin American countries." - not sure that it isn't a "conspiracy" - and everyone is playing away!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Like HandThatFeeds said: this isn't anything remarkable. The media of the western world is going to focus on the western world more than they're going to focus on, say, the Latin American world. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. Swarm^(Talk) 05:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

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)

You shouldn't have started an RFC while the DRV was going on. Second, this isn't an instant-fix. Personally, I don't think it's worthy of an article either, but tilting at windmills doesn't help. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh expansion

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)

Another user removed the section I added, telling me to "see how talk page opinion is on this first" (whatever happened to WP: BOLD?). I just don't get it; several users who supported deletion of this page have been complaining that no one else is bothering to expand the article. Actually I've attempted to do so twice and been reverted both times. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "improve" was the word mentioned, not "expand" - they're not necessarily the same. The sources you provide do not demonstrate widespread coverage in reliable sources mentioning this as a notable conspiracy theory. We can't add in every WP:NEWS item on the chance it might achieve enduring notability. Let's wait for a week or two, and see if people are talking widely about this "conspiracy theory" then, or if it was just one guy's radio show. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see discussion here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)