Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:48, 17 January 2013

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This probably passes WP:GNG, but it totally fails WP:NOT. It's an unnecessary, non-neutral content fork that gives undue weight to conspiracy theories of dubious accuracy. p b p 02:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment on nominator Per this diff it seems even the nominator agrees this should not be deleted due to sourcing. A merge was specifically rejected by consensus of the article editors as THAT would violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, and WP:ONEWAY seems to advocate for exactly the solution we are in right now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I said that I was unsure of the outcome of an AfD, not the necessity of the AfD. The comment you link is a comment on how I expected you/Dream et. al to vote, not a comment on whether I personally believed that it should be deleted. I have never (on my talk page, in this AfD or anywhere else) asserted that this was non-notable. This nomination is based on considerations other than notability; as are every single one of the delete votes. Had I not believed that this should be deleted, I would not have nominated it. And while we're questioning my nominating rationale, I'd like to add WP:NOTNEWS as another important guideline to consider. p b p 07:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep the theories themselves are reprehensible, but they pass WP:GNG beyond a doubt. The conspiracies are being discussed and debunked internationally, by very reliable sources. Discussing a notable fringe theory is not a POV or UNDUE problem. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be enough notability here to draw a keep !vote. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind people that GNG isn't the only policy to consider here. Passing GNG ≠ auto keep p b p 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, that is not the only policy in play. Here are items from WP:FRINGE that would seem to indicate this article is appropriate.

if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play.
To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)

Delete- virtually every major story out there is going to attract a conspiracy theorist or twenty. One aviation disaster wants to blame coronal mass ejections and Bermuda Triangle but it's really fringe stuff. If this stays, we're going to wind up with a bunch of fringe shadow articles for every major story on wikipedia. I'm sorry but at the moment, there is little real merit. Some initial confusion perhaps and some rush by journalists. I say delete and if we get a grassy knoll level or Roswell level interest or discrepancies later we can recreate.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct as to the likely origin of a number of the conspiracy theories. But once they began, they have become notable and commented on by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually anything passes WP:GNG these days. There is more to consider than just the GNG, though (see the "presumed" part of GNG), and this very clearly falls under WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE and, I dare say, the usage of common sense. --Conti|✉ 02:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per result of equivalent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Aurora shooting conspiracy theories; suggesting the government and Israel wanted to make a point, or some commentator in Cincinnati, a bunch of stuff involving LIBOR (really?) and Zionists think these hold water is just beyond WP:FRINGE. It's a tragedy that happened with real deaths, not an excuse to make up fairy tales. These articles just need to be taken to the trash on sight at this point. And just because they get commented on under the rumor effect doesn't equal notability, but an echo chamber. Nate • (chatter) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:FRINGE. This is crap despite passing WP:GNG. We don't need this nonsense. Toddst1 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about using Fringe: Can you please explain why as to "Per WP:FRINGE?" While the article is just a bunch of false theories, Fringe does state: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." Considering the publications used in the references, I think that Fringe would be more towards support of keeping the article than deleting it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If articles like this one are allowed to remain, then Wikipedia will lose credibility as a source for information. These conspiracy theories have not become notable enough to warrant consideration and this article should be deleted. Andrew³²⁷ 04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I agree with PurpleBackpack on this one as this article seems very bias in nature and as stated above it fails WP:NOT.TJD2 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it gets to the same level as JFK assassination conspiracies or 9/11 Conspiracies, sure. But every big event in America, especially if it has any political consequences will generate fringe conspiracy claims. We don't have to document them all, and should just document those that have become significantly prominent. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we remove the qualifier of GNG, we might as well remove all conspiracy theory portions from the Holocaust and 9/11, as we spend less time "covering" those nowadays than we do these. Agree with Hari, but unless there are rules regarding the level of coverage necessary for fringe psychos to be considered legitimate, I think we've already reached it (i.e. AC360 recent coverage) --Brinlong (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nate. This also appears to fail WP:FRINGE. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 04:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:COMMONSENSE - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my delete opinion to Neutral due to new things unfolding. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - conspiracy formulation has become a cultural phenomenon to the point where they, by themselves, no longer seem all that notable. This is just another predictable rehashing of fringe crap. Against the current (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not notable as a fringe theory. Apteva (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leave the Wikipedia:Fringe theories in the asylum with the creators. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE, these theories are so marginal that even covering them in a separate article is too much weight. Passing the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. Hut 8.5 12:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's better here than on the main article. Also, the merge was opposed. --Auric talk 14:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I hate conspiracy theories and generally oppose giving them unnecessary credence, but in this case these theories now appear to have moved off web pages and into actual harassment of individuals i.e. have taken on a life of their own ^[1] and are not simply wind. Mrwhoohoo (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator and per Mrwhoohoo. The topic easily passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure how editors are basing their claims that it's "marginal" or "fringe" when they're attracting significant coverage in reliable sources around the world. I've tried to avoid undue weight to these admittedly crazy theories, generally by only mentioning each in a sentence or two. The comparison with the Aurora shootings is weak—these conspiracy theories have received much more attention. Finally, I think extended coverage in the main article would be WP:UNDUE, so restricting the conspiracy theories to a standalone article is better in line with policy. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT TO CLOSER - Its pretty obvious which way consensus is leaning, but IMO its mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Everyone is linking to WP:FRINGE and WP:NOT with zero explanation of what they think applies. I have quoted FRINGE extensively in a comment above, and I think its clear that the FRINGE guideline says this article should stay. It should be incumbent on the delete !votes to say what part of FRINGE they think this article fails. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search for "Sandy Hook conspiracy" has 17,500 hits under News and 103,000,000 under Web. The subject is notable and sourced. USchick (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to do a google search you have to take out the blogs and unreliable sources per WP:GOOGLEHITS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personally, I don't think this sort of thing is independently notable enough to be covered in a separate article from the event, but until its contents can be merged into the article on the shooting this will suffice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Justanonymous there are conspiracy theories for everything but that doesn't mean we should have an article about every conspiracy theory. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In looking at the references, several are not about how these theories hold water but about how they are false or "hoaxes", like:

Reference 16...Talking Points Memo, which said the LIBOR rumor was "false" and a "fiction" and that any connection alleged between the murderer's father was "100 % without evidence".
Reference 2/14...The Atlantic Wire which states that the "conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook massacre-...would be laughable if they weren't so offensive." and whose title is Newtown Conspiracy Theories, Debunked.
Reference 13...Is Conspiracy Cafe really considered a reliable source?
References 10 & 3... Consider the Press TV allegations. Washington Post calls it an "outlandish theory" and has "obvious logical fallacies" Daily Beast says about the PressTV statements that "it isn’t a real conspiracy until someone invokes Jews. Enter the anti-Semites at Press TV" and that Alex Jones is "unencumbered by facts".
Reference 1...InfoSalvo which proclaims in its masthead "Treading on the New World Order". Is this also a reliable source?
Reference 4...Salon.Com, Reference 5...Huffington Post, and Reference 6...TIME (quoting the TIME article) all talk about how the man who sheltered some children (and a bus driver who escaped the carnage) is being harassed and whose wife is worried for their safety.
Reference 28...LiveScience states in its title "Contradictions Don't Deter Conspiracy Theorists"
Reference 29...Washington Times's story has a subtitle of "Turning to bizarre theories is a way to avoid an unpleasant truth".
Reference 19 directly links to a YouTube video which is discussed in Reference

So, at least thirteen of the references have a common thread....they are either about how the conspiracy enthusiasts' arguments are false, they debunk the theories, they call them outlandish or they invoke WP:BLP concerns about how a Good Samaritan is being harassed and whose family is fearful for their safety... Perhaps if the article is kept a more-fitting title would be something like Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting fringe theories or use the Westboro Baptist Church article as a model, where the vast majority of the content consists of reactions in opposition to that organization's core beliefs and actions.

I do think that some editorial judgement is called-for in this situation. We make judgements every day about what to include and what not to include on these electronic pages. As the 'What Wikipedia is not' policy states:

"not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" & "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming the conspiracy theories are TRUE. WP:FRINGE specifically addresses sites which are discussing the conspiracies and debunking them are a sufficient signal of notability to be covered in wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy enthusiasts themselves are certainly claiming that their theories are true. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources are being added.USchick (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the additional sources talking about how these theories have been rejected by what Wikipedia regards as reliable? Every single reliable source I have seen states that these various theories are either fringe, or that they are false, or that they are anti-Semitic, that they are unverified, that they are unsupported by the facts, that they are rumors and so on... If the reliable sources are stating that these theories are false/unverified/rumor, then why do unverified falsehoods get an article? And now we have the added fillip that these theories have real-life consequences to the man who sheltered survivors... he is being harassed via phone-calls & emails, his spouse is fearful for their safety, and he has talked to police about his situation. Shearonink (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources, more and more are coming online every day. USchick (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused as to what the criteria for an article are. Wikipedia is not claiming they are true. We are claiming they are notable. The fact that multiple major outlets are commenting on the conspiracy theories is itself notable and should be documented. We are actively debunking the conspiracy theories as well in our article. Many conspiracy theories have articles on wikipedia. If your worries were true, we would be one of the most lunatic fringe sites on the entire internet. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are addressing my thoughts posted above, I have no confusion about the issues or what the criteria are, neither do I have any worries, as an aside I was addressing what was previously posted, that 'Nobody is claiming the conspiracy theories are TRUE', that is all. I think it is inherently self-evident that the conspiracy enthusiasts have an almost-religious faith and fervour that their claims are indeed true. The major outlets' commentary characterizing and even proving the various theories as false/rumor/patently anti-Semitic/unverified is what makes the theories notable, not the conspiracy enthusiasts' various assertions.Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "nobody" I was referring to was "nobody commenting here", as your original comments seemed to be arguing against. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't we wait a bit anyways before creating this article? It's likely just a small spike of interest. Once the next big American tragedy hits, the conspiracy scaremonger will just flock to that one. I don't think WP should be covering every single minor little controversy or fringe theory. I think we should strengthen general notability guidelines as they might be too lax. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - We should wait until somebody can't take it any longer and commits suicide. Or someone gets arrested or sued. Or some kid gets suspended for a truther hate poem and the parents take the school district to court. We should certainly not be swayed by a think piece a reporter throws out there on a slow news day.Cybersecurityczar (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The theories themselves are notable as reactions to the shootings, and they have received media attention. I don't really see why the info can't be condensed into a section in the parent article. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the page about Australia's Port Arthur massacre has a small section about conspiracy theories, I think that is still too much. Maybe one sentence on the main article is enough, but this article up for deletion is just a page of WP:Fringe, even if it is sourced. Paris1127 (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What one person might call a conspiracy theory, someone else may call a pretext by thrill-seekers for wanton infliction of emotional distress. There is something depraved and sadistic about those on the social media who relentlessly taunt and humiliate the Sandy Hook community, and when they are criticized, they say, Oh, we have unanswered questions and therefore we can accuse the families of being fake. If you follow closely the social media, you will find that the most hurtful outcome has been that, even when so-called truther theories were debunked, there would be crowds of followers who would continue to insist that they were not debunked and they would attack the Sandy Hook families again with renewed vigor. I don't mean to get into details here, but this was just a quick example of what kind of editing this piece would require. Would you accept original research on the matter? No. And so, would you go ahead and dignify as theories these pretexts for causing deep emotional pain -- without acknowledging that online groups would spontaneously form to ambush the Sandy Hook community? The title alone of this article would be a topic of endless debate, since the FBI for example has published a 7-stage model for hate group activity, and it makes a clear distinction between the irrational rhetoric of conspiracy theorists and the irrational hatred expressed by thrill-seekers. So, would this article incorporate both of these somehow, or would this article put aside the irrational hate piece and treat the conspiracy theories as legitimate efforts at critical thinking? Remember, the basic narrative is that Obama and the media staged a fake massacre in Newtown with crisis actors and that these grieving families are faking their tears as part of an effort to deceive the nation. As we attempt to formulate this article we will find that in the eyes of the insolent, the most ludicrous accusations will never be debunked. This topic is so convoluted that just publishing it will assure long-term unresolved grief for those who have been attacked. And for what? It's an absurdity inside a delusion inside a lunacy. Cybersecurityczar (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question that might give me some intellectual clarity: The Internet is rife with taunting attacks falsely announcing that someone has died. For example, RIP Megan Fox -- retweeted thousands of times, with bystanders laughingly noting that the Twitterverse has killed more celebrities than The Hunger Games. So, would an article on this phenomenon be automatically rejected on Wikipedia? Thank you for your consideration. Cybersecurityczar (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's death hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If international media covered the story over a period of several weeks, possibly. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it gives undue weight to what is (at best) a fringe theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting appeared almost immediately after the event was reported. There's conspiracy media dating back to three days after the shooting, and the volume of the false information has been growing ever since. It's useful to collect and debunk all those rumors in one place. --Mr. Billion (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This meets WP:GNG. Newsworthy, even if I totally disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Plus, this article would be able to keep some pressure off the main article with regards to conspiracies and allegations. WarwulfX (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529522-grandfather-who-comforted-sandy-hook-elementary-kids-says-truthers-are-targeting-him

[1] ttp://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/15/16529522-grandfather-who-comforted-sandy-hook-elementary-kids-says-truthers-are-targeting-him

[1]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 *'''Delete''' - it gives undue weight to what is (at best) a fringe theory. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 12:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Strong Keep''' - Conspiracy theories about the Sandy Hook shooting appeared almost immediately after the event was reported.  There's conspiracy media dating back to three days after the shooting, and the volume of the false information has been growing ever since.  It's useful to collect and debunk all those rumors in one place. --[[User:Mr. Billion|Mr. Billion]] ([[User talk:Mr. Billion|talk]]) 16:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Keep''' - This meets [[WP:GNG]]. Newsworthy, even if I totally disagree with the conspiracy theorists. Plus, this article would be able to keep some pressure off the main article with regards to conspiracies and allegations. [[User:WarwulfX|WarwulfX]] ([[User talk:WarwulfX|talk]]) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)