Talk:False flag/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

This article is doesn't cover much of the examples.

This article lacks the following events: 

 - September 11 2001
 - Boston Marathon 2013
 - Sandy Hook 
 - Batman Shooting
 - Gulf Of Tonkin
 - Remember The Maine
 - USS Liberty
 - Pearl Harbor
 - War on Terror
 - War on Drugs
 - Oklahoma City Bombing  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xowets (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That's because scholarly and mainstream journalistic sources, which are what Wikipedia use to establish such things, do not accept them as such. Only undisputed events noted in scholarly research should be included, not conspiracy theories. You've been around long enough to know that. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about the historic events and what was thought about them at the time, but isn't it significant that conspiracy theorists are claiming that events like Sandy Hook and the Batman shooting and now the Emmanuel Church shooting are being caused by government agents to change popular sentiment on gun control legislation? There's a whole article on Wikipedia about 9-11 truthers. I know they aren't speaking truth, but shouldn't the fact that they are speaking be noted? TychaBrahe (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
No. This article is about genuine events as reliably discussed in mainstream scholarship. Fringe theories are not appropriate. They are legion, and they have their own articles in most cases that clearly reflect the credibility, or lack thereof, that scholarship assigns. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on False flag. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Can we start deleting the stuff labelled Citation Needed since sufficient evidence hasn't actually been provided in the substantial time the claims have been present on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.197.114 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on False flag. 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) 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False flag. 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) 21:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

many more false flag entries?

I just found this article, 42 FALSE-FLAG ATTACKS OFFICIALY ADMITTED TO http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/42falseflags.php#axzz4961J3Hhc which would really expand this article if legit. Moscowamerican (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not even close to a reliable source. Not everything people write on the Internet is credible, you know ... Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What about the Gulf of Tonkin? Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers to reveal that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War ?
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone ?
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ?
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony) ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.66.232 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Add Lee Rigby to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Man1000 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

For items to be included in the list, we need citations to reliable secondary sources. -Location (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Crisis actor

Crisis actor article is a very short POV-ish mess with poor sourcing, I don't see the need for 2 articles Tornado chaser (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support merge as a new section of this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer of the merge, does it even need to be a new section? couldn't ti just say that someone who carries out a false flag is a crisis actor?Oppose given the use of crisis actors in disaster training, I no longer support the merge (the crisis actor article still needs rewriting) Tornado chaser (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. LuckyLouie has raised a good point on the WP:FTN about crisis actors being used in disaster and emergency training. With that in mind, I'm not sure there should be a merge and/or redirect. -Location (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, at FTN, I wrote that crisis actors aka "simulated victims" employed to take part in federal and state disaster training drills are a real thing and have been for many years. Unfortunately conspiracy theorists have co-opted this term in the last decade to promote their nutty claims. Any article on the topic should first give the legitimate context, and then explain how the term is used by conspiracy theorists. There might also be a pointer at simulated patient to the term. I would rework the Crisis actor article myself using the above sources, but no time today. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Solution @Location:, we keep "Crisis actors" as the real thing User:LuckyLouie mentions - I forgot I've had experience with them but not under that name), make [[Crisis actor {conspiracy theory} a redirect and a hatnote at Crisis actor. Ok? Doug Weller talk 16:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • See above, I'm 100% on board with Doug Weller's solution. Leave unmerged, change focus to be about the non CS subject and create new redirect at Crisis actor (conspiracy theory). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • But why create the redirect if the conspiracy theory will be addressed in the crisis actor article? Pandeist (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support DougWeller's solution — and add a See also link to the redirect. An alternative would be to create a disambiguation page linking to both Crisis actor (conspiracy theory) and Crisis actor (emergency training)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the disambiguation page linking to both Crisis actor (conspiracy theory) and Crisis actor (emergency training) Is the better solution, they are such different concepts. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that Doug was advocating for two separate articles. I thought he was recommending that [[Crisis actor (conspiracy theory)]] link to False flag. My preference is for one article that first discusses the people used in emergency training, then (within the same article) discusses how conspiracy theorists think those people are used for some nefarious purpose by the government. -Location (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Location: They aren't the same people at are. Basically I'm suggesting merging this worth False Flag and rewriting this to the real ones. But I'm having second thoughts as I can't find the sources calling these emergency training actors "crisis actors" other than a conspiracy site. @LuckyLouie:? Doug Weller talk 06:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
crisisactors.org and crisiscast.com. It appears that actual crisis actors now use other identifiers since the fringe hijacked the term. I see this site (although it's usergen and not citeable) does a fairly good job at explaining the term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@LuckieLouie: Thanks, but I don't think that helps the problem with notability of the term for emergency workers. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie: Evidently I can't spell. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. As noted above, 'crisis actor' has a legitimate meaning all its own and it includes the government or agency hiring as well as political organizations. Also, you're jumping the gun if you think the use of crisis actors in staged events should be labeled a 'conspiracy theory.' You don't know that this isn't true. It would be naive to think that organizations with a lot to gain, especially those with funding from persons who want to change a political narrative, don't hire people to, for example, hold signs up at a rally, or create a disturbance, all in the name of their opponent. Of course they do. Look at the concentration camp where Hitler had Jews pretending to be at a resort. I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory. Bodding (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
People who might try to create disturbances at rallies or concentration camp victims are not "crisis actors", so I doubt they would be mentioned in [[Crisis actor (conspiracy theory)]]. -Location (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed they are crisis actors. Anybody who shows up and pretends to support an opponent and then creates a disturbance in order to give that political opponent a bad name is a crisis actor, and often they are paid well for their trouble. They are often professional agitators. In the case of Paradise Camp, the Jews had no choice but to go along with the script. They were very much acting and they were indeed in an crisis. The Nazis claimed anybody who questioned it was simply a conspiracy theorist. That claims was often used by the Nazis to discredit those who questioned incongruities between their propaganda and reality. Bodding (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Reliable sources refer to agitators, infiltrators, or agent provocateurs of political rallies as "agitators", "infiltrators", or "agent provocateurs" and they refer to the prisoners in concentration camps as "prisoners". You can f*** around with all the equivocations you want, but the "crisis" in "crisis actor" refers to a particular context (i.e. natural disaster or emergency event) that you are choosing to ignore. -Location (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, absolutely not! two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT operandi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.187.202.33 (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Dougweller's proposal. Crisis actor should be an article on simulated victims in disaster exercises. I'm not convinced the conspiracy theorist meaning of the term is even notable (and have just tagged the article accordingly), but it certainly isn't the primary topic; at most, a hatnote or see also link to List of conspiracy theories might be appropriate. Robofish (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    Assuming it's notable enough to have an article to be worthy of inclusion in the list —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Crisis actor" is distinct and notable enough as its own concept, related but separate to "false flag". Aoa8212 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Time to revisit "crisis actor"

It was merged to this article in December, but in light of recent events I think it should be unmerged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See Crisis actor, which still exists as a stub documenting the real phenomenon. Maybe adding a section to that article about the conspiracy theories? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I think a separate article would work better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I know there is a lot of buzz about crisis actor Conspiracy Theories related to the Florida School Shooting this week. I would hope any new section would not be overburdened by focus on that one incident (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS), but rather be able to describe a number of various "crisis actor" CTs that were attached to tragedies of the past couple years. Of course there are individual sources describing the CTs for each incident. But so far the only RS I've seen that discusses the bigger picture is Snopes.com. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm having quite a bit of trouble finding sources discussing the conspiracy theory claims about crisis actors in a general sense. Everything is about one specific conspiracy theory or another. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree, the closest I found was this paragraph in a Snopes article:
One of the common conspiracy themes that gained traction after the Newtown shooting involved “crisis actors,” individuals who had (to that point) been primarily known to populate disaster drills. As the notion of gun grabbing conspiracies became more commonplace, the term was appropriated by folks who believed the faces of those grieving at (staged) shooting scenes or subsequent vigils were in fact paid government operatives assigned to fabricate the appearance of mourning. A common iteration of the rumor involved photographs taken at crime scenes or vigils in Newtown (Connecticut), Aurora (Colorado), Boston...
More analysis in reliable sources of conspiracy theory claims about crisis actors in a general sense may arise in the near future, given the recent concentration of news stories like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That is exactly the same "best" result I found.
I tend to agree. It's frustrating because I agree wholeheartedly with VM that WP should have an article on their use in CSes. But finding the RSes to support it is pretty difficult. I'm declaring a new drinking game: every time one of us uses an initialism that doesn't need to be used, we all drink a shot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, lately Crisis actor got a big jump in pageviews [1] but only half of them followed the link to this page. So it would be good to have something definitive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So what do you think of adding a line near the top that makes a statement based on the snopes source and wikilinks to this page? I'm going to cross-post this message to that page's talk, as well, since we're talking about changing that article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think it's time for either a "Conspiracy theories" section at Crisis actor...or a new Crisis actor (conspiracy theory) article. I found this Guardian article with an explicit overview that starts in the 4th or so paragraph. And here's a section in a Vox article called "Crisis actors, explained" that gives a shorter, but explicit overview. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Those look good. Gentlemen, shall we take this over there? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I agree a section there is the best and most logical place to start. Of course if it expands it can break off into its own separate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Added a paragraph about October 2016 car bomb incident in Baghdad

Hi Wikipedians. I added a paragraph about a sectarian incident from Baghdad. Here is a video of the incident published by the Iraqi Network Press that launched the investigation from Bellingcat. https://twitter.com/INP_PLUS/status/793408734508834817

This is my first major(ish) edit on Wikipedia and incidents of this lot are likely contentious. However I hope this is well sourced to your liking. The information was collected from the Bellingcat analysis and the MEMO report. I chose not to cite the original video published over Twitter because I don't consider a good enough source. I probably still need to add citations for the AP and RT reports of the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 03:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It's true, WP's policies are difficult for newcomers to fathom. I commented on your edits in general, here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Syria and the west

Please add another section about the western false flag (by west-backed terrorists and militias) in Syria, such as chemical attacks--62.68.51.223 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonkin Incident

The section about the Gulf of Tonkin incident cites as a source an article by William C. Plouffe Jr. on page 170 of The Central Intelligence Agency: An Encyclopedia of Covert Ops, Intelligence Gathering, and Spies (2015), which is available on Google Books. The article itself does not cite sources, only further reading. In it the author makes this claim: "From the information now available, a number of authorities accept the proposition that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was what is considered to be a false-flag operation." Yet none of these authorities are listed. Also all of the "further reading" material was published prior to the 2005 NSA revelations.

I propose removing this section for failing WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aginwald (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What I have heard is that the incident was real, but it was exploited by the American government as justification to expand the war effort. Thus it is not a "false flag" attack at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Harizotoh9 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

USS Maine

Why isn't the USS Maine explosion in Havana harbor in this article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)#False_flag_conspiracy_theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.224.171 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If not, a separate page with that format, listing false flag attack examples, and then having people weighing in listing their own, would be great I think.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.169.125.32 (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps under False flag#Conspiracy theories, but it's fringe speculation, so not an example. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

9/11

Edit that was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=False_flag&oldid=prev&diff=887095235

9/11 could be an example of a false flag, according to some conspiracy theories.

Worth mentioning as it is a high profile example.

Stefek99 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't a linkfarm for conspiracy theories. Don't promote conspiracy theories. We already have a very limited selection of debunked conspiracy theories in articles. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fake story

"Russian Federal Security Service agents were caught by police for planting one of the bombs in the Russian apartment bombings, which killed 293 and led to the Second Chechen War."

This was never happened. Russian Federal Security Service agents were caught by police, but there was no explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.73.106.25 (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted that line because the "Examples" section is not the place to present new controversial statements without context. If we were to use this incident as an example, wording like the following might be more accurate:
but, again, if it's worth being in this article at all, it should be described in greater depth and not just as a bullet point. Wikiacc () 04:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Tonkin Incident which led to vietnam war

Should be mentioned? Even though there were actual hostilities in the first incident a second inciden t was completely fabricated to bolster the push to war Trefalcon (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources? -LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


What about the maine incident? All the best Wikirictor 23:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Both are not described as false flag in reliable sources. Even the circumstances surrounding them are controversial and better dealt at their own articles. These clearly do not belong here. Gotitbro (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Tainting of the rest of the article

The second sentence in this article casts doubt upon the rest of the article. Your average reader is going to think: "aha, false flag = conspiracy theory" Why is that even there?

As a military contractor for 24 years, I can tell you that the U.S. military (especially the cyberwarfare groups) take false flag attacks seriously. Yes, that sort of information occurs later in the article, but why later? That weakens the overall objectivity of the article by tainting the readers mind from continuing to read the article. It also forms a classic "poisoning the well" fallacy.

I would respectfully request that the sentence be either stricken from the article or at least moved down to the Conspiracy theories section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronhmatthews (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Origin

Of WordPress bloggers, who is more reliable, “grammarist” or “grammar phobia”? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove Reichstag fire

The Reichstag fire is a bad example as it is most likely not a false flag. To quote the Reichstag fire article: According to historian Ian Kershaw, by 1998, nearly all historians agreed that Van der Lubbe had set the Reichstag on fire, that he had acted alone, and that the incident was merely a stroke of good luck for the Nazis

While some say the fire was a false flag perpetrated by the National Socialists, this is a fringe opinion without any real proof. Hence the Reichstag fire should be removed as an example in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.94.33 (talk) 15:30, July 29, 2021 (UTC)

I just looked through some of the sourcing, and it seems you are correct. I will remove the entire section, as it no-where makes clear that this was a suspected false flag, not a real one, and the sourcing for the claim that Van der Lubbe's sole guilt is disputed among historians is only barely confirmed by one of the two sources (the DW one says that, but then it quotes only a historian who disagrees with it). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Since it's notable as part of conspiracy theory stories (it allows to justify the lack of evidence for extraordinary claims with secrecy, plausible deniability and the point that if it existed in history it must also be true there), black op and this article would benefit from some related information. There were previous unsatisfactory attempts like the use of original research or undue prominence. At current time no mention remains. Some of the sources in previous mentions appear usable, others not... —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding: I don't propose listing particular conspiracy theories, but having a short summary of a reliable source that stresses the fact that it's a common justifying feature of conspiracy theory narratives. —PaleoNeonate – 23:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is sorely needed. The following text has been multiply deleted without a proper discussion of consensus. It is well sourced:
"The term is popular amongst conspiracy theory promoters in referring to covert operations of various governments and cabals.[1] DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The sentence wasn't deleted, it was moved to the "Civilian usage" section. Rauisuchian (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I hadn't seen that. It's an odd heading, isn't it? "Civilian usage". Some editors seem to want this page to be about a naval/military phrase, when the term is currently mostly used by political commentators. I would propose changing that heading to "Popularity amongst conspiracy theorists" DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Usckinski, Joseph (27 October 2018). "Five things to know about 'false flag' conspiracy theories". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 June 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:False_flag/Archive_2&oldid=1221488070"