Talk:Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories

History of Claim?

Does anyone have any idea where the idea came from, who started the conspiracy hypothesis that this was actually a "military takeover"? Identifying who started the claim could either merit or completely discredit the concern. For example: if the source can be proven to have first originated from a military insider source, it might give the conspiracy hypothesis some merit. If the claim started with Alex Jones or his kind, then we can almost surely discredit the claim as being nonsense. Anyone who can d0x the conspiracy hypothesis effectively would be a hero, as you will have prevented yet another (sure to fail) end-of-the-world concern that hardcore conservatives (and probably Tea Party) are likely to propagate in the coming months, to rile up their sheep. Knowledgebattle (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's our goal to d0x the folks involved, but rather to stick with the known reliable reporting on this and to aggregate it into a neutral article. It seems that Alex Jones in March was the most prominent person who highlighted it, who himself might have picked up on it from other fringe sources. But that's kind of where our trail goes cold, unless a RS goes and documents that back story. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The first person is obviously subjective by saying that only if it's anyone on the inside then it is "credible" anyone else is not. It was started by Alex Jones, howerver he made no such claims as reported by the media, he was debating the issue of the exercise using real names of the states as well as the "hostile" moniker that was not previously seen to be used in such a direct manner by the military, such exercies usually have made up names and and other properties which are to simulate but not imitate a real scenario. The increased state of concern was thanks to the federal government itself, for example weeks before jade helm exercise was a national sotry the FBI as well as other local law enforcement special forces raided a peaceful assembly of a secession group in Texas that had a conference, all footage of the raid itself was siezed and probably deleted. Xowets (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of Ubiquitous Russian/Soviet Political Warfare

With the article pretty much looking like it was written by the Kremlin, someone should add some content about how many of the conspiracy theories and theorists push Russian Political Warfare talking points and contribute to Russian Rumor Campaigns. Considering that Alex Jones is a Russian asset and probably a communist, his words on this either don't belong here or should be followed by the equally-valid theory that this conspiracy theory, like most others, is just another piece of Kremlin propaganda. These conspiracy theories reek of Active Measures and vodka and its hard not to notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.215.99 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how you think the article, which is mostly parroting mainstream reporting on the issue, has anything to do with Kremlin-compatible purposes. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that is a real conspiracy theory, alex jones being a russian agent is a classic one, that is how various interest attacks a healthy debate by making such accusatory claims without research, trying to divert the discussion away from the main topic. Xowets (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2015

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

The result of the move request was: Moved by User:Cwobeel, not me. Red Slash 01:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Jade Helm 15 → Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory – This article is almost entirely dedicated to the conspiracy theory surrounding Jade Helm 15. There is little to no mention of the details of the exercise itself beyond that it's happening and that it's big, and all of that is in the lead; the body contains no discussion of the exercise at all. While the proposed title is arguably non-neutral, similar topics also include the phrase "conspiracy theory" (e.g., Chemtrail conspiracy theory, New World Order (conspiracy theory), 9/11 conspiracy theories). Additionally, the subject matter of the article is non-notable separate from the conspiracy theory and reactions to it. Dyrnych (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, per proposal above. Dyrnych (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this is an article about the factual basis of the exercise and the reactions, and not to deep dive into all the aspects of a conspiracy theory, which even folks like Alex Jones are backing off of somewhat. I am not even a supporter of retitling that section to have "Conspiracy" because it editorializes too much. We should basically be neutrally documenting the reactions of people (which now include Chuck Norris!) and not over-dramatically portraying it as a nest of conspiracies. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - clearly a conspiracy theory, which is really not a biased term--there are people theorizing that it's a conspiracy. And the war games exercise itself will probably eventually be notable, so this also clears up the current title for that article. Red Slash 02:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support -- There are many people going around making YouTube videos, commenting on Disqus, and other forums spreading it as a conspiracy theory, and it's been gaining some momentum. It's likely to gain some more, since people don't look for truth and facts. If not, then it can just be deleted, later. Knowledgebattle (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support — Any article called Jade Helm 15 should cover only the topic with reliable credible sources. Conspiracy theories and other notable bat guano belong in a separate article. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - the conspiracy theory is what's interesting and in the news. The actual military exercise is not what's going to draw readers. Ratemonth (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oooops, sorry. Did not see the RM. Feel free to undo the move. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't actually undo the move, so I've just moved the page to "Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory" per the move request. It seems to be the consensus that the page be moved. Dyrnych (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. Sorry again for the haste. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@Fuzheado: - If the article's about the factual aspects of the exercise, why is there no discussion of the factual aspects of the exercise in the body of the article? The purported reactions in the article seem to comprise (1) the conspiracy theory itself and (2) reactions to the conspiracy theory. Dyrnych (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dyrnych: - I agree, let's do that then. Right now, the only details I've seen were some references to 60 soldiers, two Humvees and a water buffalo. But as we get closer to the exercise date, I'm sure more details will come out. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with doing that is that outside of the conspiracy theory, the exercise is non-notable. There is literally no source beyond the press release that concerns itself primarily with discussing the details of the exercise. Dyrnych (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not include some facts about the actual exercise in the article so it's not just covering the conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.10 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there would be any utility in doing so. It doesn't seem notable apart from the conspiracy theories. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It probably isn't notable now, and probably shouldn't be an article yet. Once it actually happens, I doubt anyone would contest it being created, but now, it probably violates WP:CRYSTAL. Red Slash 02:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Fringe tag

The amount of weight uncritically given to the views of people who support the conspiracy theory is far out of proportion to its acceptance. Some politicians, conspiracy theorists, and an actor believe it or are showing some level of support for it. Fine. Are there any independent sources that treat the conspiracy angle as a serious possibility? Dyrnych (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How is documenting the reactions to this "uncritical?" All the quotes from notable people have been verifiable, and there are responses from military spokespeople and others. Please feel free to add more from the rational fact-based side, but otherwise the article reflects largely what is seen in the news media. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that including more background on Jade Helm itself would be nice, rather than launching right into the allegations of a takeover. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The balance seems pretty okay to me, as it is now. There are numerous references to op-eds and articles from the rational side, reacting to the conspiracy theories. It's natural that there is not too much serious coverage of the theories, because most reputable sources won't want to be seen acknowledging them by reacting with earnest commentary. What's been found so far nonetheless seems okay. It's also in the nature of military operations that there won't be a lot of official, verifiable information about the actual exercise, so I don't think that there'll be a lot to flesh the article out with; at least not before the exercise is well underway, or over. 188.63.148.228 (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that the article is entitled "Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory," I agree that the fringe tag is unnecessary. My comment above dates from when the article was entitled "Jade Helm 15." Dyrnych (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Jade Helm itself is NOT a "conspiracy theory." It's a bona fide DoD exercise. Get rid of the "conspiracy theory" extension and just report the conspiratorial part in section, the same as all the other Wikipedia entries out there with a "controversy" section.75.70.164.249 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll note that this was discussed above in the move request and consensus was to move the page to "Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theory." Dyrnych (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If that's all there is to it, the article should be deleted. There is no point to covering the conspiracy theory as a standalone with no reference to the military exercise itself. It *is* notable because: (1) It is the largest geographic area ever used for a military exercise, (2) It is the first military exercise used to practice "Mastering the human domain", that is, practicing covert operations as dispersed tiny cells of operatives, and (3) The first in which the press has not been invited (and have so far been excluded) to cover. Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Original Article

The original article was not about the conspiracy theory, and a place on Wiki for information about Jade Helm itself no longer exists, so I created a stub for it ("the planned"). If there is no objection, I will move sections of this article to the new page. Dscotese (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dscotese: The Jade Helm 15 is only notable because of the conspiracy theories, but if you find material about the exercise itself to warrant a full article, by all means go ahead. Instead of moving content from here, per WP:SUMMARY we should have a summary of that article here. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The original article was almost 100% about the conspiracy theory, as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theory&diff=660195458&oldid=660195431 Ratemonth (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you calling it a theory and the actors involved theorists, do you realize that this is a subjective derogatory term used almost exclusively by certain media organizations, government agencies and politicians. Xowets (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: In the original article, paragraph 1 describes the exercise. The section called "concerns" mentions "commentators, conspiracy theorists and politicians" in the first paragraph. In the second, it quotes a radio host and the governor of Texas. In the third, it quotes a newspaper and the press secretary of the White House neither of which mentioned any conspiracy theory. Even if you want to characterize all these supposedly reliable sources as conspiracy theorists, there ought to be a page for the exercise itself so that Wiki readers don't have trouble separating the fact from the the theories. For example, Jade Helm 15 is described in this page, but the map which is now part of the theory is represented in the "Conspiracy Theory" section. I will fill out the stub a little now and see how it goes. Feel free to contribute to it. Dscotese (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about this exercise, besides the conspiracy theories. In fact, all reliable sources about the exercise are related to the conspiracy theory. Added merge tags to both articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree on this point. There have been city hall type meetings at all of the cities where this exercise takes place. Many local citizen turned up to voice logical and reasonable questions. This exercise is a form of SERE training and will involve special forces role playing that they are in a hostile country. It is hard to see the legitimate news story here for all the name calling and fear mongering, but look at the facts. This is important and it will affect many people. Also, my edit to remove the detail section was reverted based on consensus. Can someone kindly point me to what shows consensus? Is it the above vote? FreedomYeahRight (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the above (closed) discussion contains the rationale for keeping the page about the theory itself. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You're free to believe that the concerns about the exercise are warranted/logical/reasonable, but Wikipedia isn't about validating those concerns. It's about reporting what reliable sources have said, and those sources uniformly devote almost all of their discussion to the conspiracy theories surrounding the exercise rather than the details of the exercise itself. As to whether this will "affect many people," that's a bit WP:CRYSTAL: we have no idea if the exercise will proceed completely unobtrusively or will be extremely disruptive, and we shouldn't try to figure that out now. Dyrnych (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is WP:POV. There are press releases from the military about the exercise, concerns expressed by citizens based on that, a response by the Governor of Texas, and then there are some fringe actors weighing in with speculation. The article really only covers the speculation, which is not really notable. If Jade Helm 15 is not worthy of being covered in an article, then neither are "conspiracy theories" about it. Calling any concerns about a military exercise "conspiracy theory" is a WP:POV way to denigrate anyone with concerns about an unprecedented military exercise, the largest ever, being conducted on U.S. soil. How can this be seen as WP:NPOV? Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What the heck

Since when is this a theory ?

Nobody ever said anything's going to happen, it was all a misrepresentation by the mainstream media, why does this deserve a derogatory denominator coined by the CIA and US Govt, a "controversy" term could be used instead.

If you get up in the morning and you question the local weather report wether it will stay dry this afternoon is that a conspiracy THEORY ? Xowets (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it is what the sources say about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That'd be a theory, but not a conspiracy theory. Unless you figured it wasn't raining because the clouds and the TV station were in cahoots with the Saudis (or someone). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, the "mainstream media" is how Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced, per WP:NEWSORG. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Snopes

Snopes is NOT a valid source of validating claims. The article actually loses all credibility by siting snopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussions at WP:RSN in the past have concluded that it generally is (not the forum pages though).[1] Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That tells me this is a sad time for wiki when the only source for info is a site ran by a husband and wife team who have no training or any credentials and half the time not all the facts. I came here to find out what all the talk was about as I thought I could trust wiki to give me an unbiased and well researched article. You give me SNOPES. If snopes is the only source one can gather to prove a point than they have no point at all. Can someone at least find other official sources. Instead of listing a site that is the joke of the internet. Here is the problem citing snopes in this case. They are not following the military and infiltrating the military to prove 100 percent beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is said is 100 percent true. They are going on official stories and this is where the problem is. It is best to source official government articles in this case. As they are not spies and anything they can come up with would be based in official stories. Hence they are not a reliable source and should only use official government reports for this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

SNOPES is a reliable source for urban legends and is particularly useful for current rumors which have not yet been catalogued by social scientists. Indeed they do rely on official sources which is only a problem if you think that the military's claim that they are not in league with the New World Order is suspect. Bear in mind too that the story is about the conspiracy theory not the actual military exercise, hence we do not need any more details about it than what is generally known. It's a bit like saying that an article in a reliable source about astrology can only be written by an astronomer because how would a layman know what effect Jupiter aligning with Mars has. TFD (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No snopes is not a reliable source the official government source is the reliable source in this instance. They are not spies and have not infiltrated the military to be an authority on the military. Until said day when they do use official government sources. Is this a site for truth and facts or using parody sites for main source of information? This is utterly ridiculous. Use to you could pretty much rely on this site for facts. Now instead of listing official government sources we list parody sites not qualified to report on anything. It is seriously time someone comes up with an alternative that list FACTS from OFFICIAL sources like the government. If it is regarding the military and it is not the military telling it than it is not to be trusted. Period. It is all just guess work otherwise. No site is qualified for guesswork. In regards to the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about the military exercise but about the conspiracy theory about it. To use my example, one need not be an astronomer to write about people who believed that when "Jupiter aligns with Mars/Then peace will guide the planets/And love will steer the stars." They do not need to know the mass of Jupiter or Mars, their orbits, etc., just that none of this has any effect on Earth. Similarly, we would not expect journals of astronomy to have articles about the subject. TFD (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And since the exercise is judged (by someone, it seems), not notable, then any fringe actors speculating about it is not notable, either, and this article should be deleted. Squ1rr3l (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Separate Article for the Facts

Since this page is about a conspiracy theory, there should be a page about the facts. I suppose that's up to Cwobeel(talk) to fix since he screwed it up. The vote was about renaming this article because at the time, it mostly described theories instead of facts. The conspiracy theories came about only because the exercise itself is notable. Without a separate article about the facts, Wikipedia looks very much to be falling victim to censorship. Do we want that to continue? Also, Red Slash's support and Gilgamesh's support both appeared to assume that a separate article is appropriate. I renamed "Exercise Details" to indicate that it is the section where the facts can be found, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to have the facts embedded inside an article about theories. By the way, does anyone know of any efforts to identify editors who are working to censor certain factual information on WP? Dscotese (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you I second this. Read my problem above with scopes. I came here to find out actual information on Jade Helm. Instead I am land based with theories and citing snopes as an authority in the matter. I am trying to find out when snopes became spies and infiltrated the military to get the credentials needed to be an authority on JH. If not than I want to see all official sources as those would be more reliable. I want to know officially what is happening. Not this rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything even notable about Jade Helm 15 other than the conspiracy theorist madness surrounding it? I'd like to see sources showing its notability outside of the conspiracy theories to support a second article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I gather it is the first large scale training exercise using the states as hostile areas. Hard to tell I heard about it came here and got land based with misinformation. Which really upset me as I wanted facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We'll need sources to establish that the exercises are notable outside of the conspiracy theories, you are welcome to start one in draft space. The article adequately covers the actual events already in the background section, but you are welcome to add to it. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not a writer be any stretch of the word. I have found some clips on youtube from officials but even with that it is really hard to tell what is chopped. Or if something has been edited which is why media outlets are not even trustworthy. I have looked for official government announcements but outside the media can not find a thing. I get my info here and I am beginning to wonder if I can even trust wiki now. I use wiki as a source to back up some of my ideas based on official facts and when wiki get's it source from parody sites and entertains conspiracy theories just hard to take this as a trusted source of information anymore. This really made me sick. This is the third instance in the space of a year I have looked up real information and been stonewalled from official accounts and low and behold the main source for those articles too was snopes. If you ask me snopes and other parody sites should be banned as sources for articles. I want and need facts. Not crud from a husband and wife team who think they are an expert in every subject known to man. I also do not want to see conspiracy crud when looking up news worthy historical events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to take it to WP:RSN if you believe they are not reliable in this context. Though you will find many other sources, such as the Washington Post are also verifying what snopes says. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability is what created the conspiracy theory

• "The mission is vast both geographically and strategically" - existing source, Washington Post.
• "Operation Jade Helm will bring a coalition of forces, including the Green Berets, SEALS, and special operations commands from the Air Force and Marines to Texas for two months of "realistic military training" in a simulated "hostile" territory between July and September this summer." - existing source, Houston Chronicle.
• " the size and scope of Jade Helm sets this one apart." - existing source USASOC.
• "During the exercise some of the troops will be in civilian clothes, move in civilians vehicles and carry weapons with blank ammunition." - existing source CNN.
• [Bastrop resident Mr. Ducloux said] “So to me, to see what’s going on and why they’re here, maybe that’s not the reason, but I think it’s our duty as Americans to ask those kinds of questions.” - existing source KXAN. Sure, he may have been motivated by the conspiracy theory, but that's because it was about a military exercise which was apparently notable since "Pape said they were not well prepared for the amount of people that showed up [at the meeting about the exercise]." (from the same source)
• "Abbott's proclamation that he was going to keep his eye on these Navy SEAL and Green Beret boys did rub some of our leaders the wrong way." - existing source, NPR. This should be under the "reaction" section in the article about the facts.
• "The Texas Board of Directors, with the Texas Sheriff’s Association met with officials from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command on May 6th, 2015." - existing source, Cleveland Advocate.
• "Lt. Thomas Eisman of the Victoria County sheriff's office said Thursday evening he was informed "earlier this week" Jade Helm 15 had been canceled in the county on the coastal plain." - existing source, Texas Tribune.

Many of the existing sources provide strong evidence of the exercise's notability, even if only because it sparked such controversy. They could point to the conspiracy theory article, if there is still even a reason for such propaganda. Whether we determine any particular piece of information to be part of a conspiracy theory or to be a notable fact, even having an article about any conspiracy theory on Wikipedia means we are in some sense promoting the conspiracy theory. The least we can do is maintain an article that is not about any conspiracy theory.

In fact, the article doesn't describe any coherent conspiracy theory other than "Military takeover of Texas" which has no details (except those that are accurate facts about the real operation). In fact, after reading through WP:Notability, it seems to me that what isn't notable is the conspiracy theory itself, while the exercise is notable, as evidenced specifically by the fact that it raised so many alarms.

In any case, when Dyrnych requested the title change, he wrote "There is little to no mention of the details of the exercise itself beyond that it's happening and that it's big." I fixed this problem for the article that 24.96.69.3 is looking for, opening the door for more facts (which is what people come to Wiki for), but Cwobeel has made my work ineffective. Dscotese (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, can we drop the battleground attitude please. Cwobeel isn't working against you, you are both working together for the good of Wikipedia. All those articles which you point to are primarily about the conspiracy theories surrounding Jade 15, except for USASOC which is a press release. We need sources about Jade 15 which do not discuss or focus on the theories for it to merit an independent article. Remember WP:TRUTH. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples: Louisiana Maneuvers, Red Flag – Alaska. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is about asinine. Okay look how about a compromise. We drop conspiracy theory from the title and give conspiracy a section like it does after so many people battle out an event after a while it will change anyway. This opens it up so REAL information can get in without it looking like the whole thing is made up in someones head and never happened. This is gonna happen anyway. Every time the snopes spammers hijack an event it eventually just goes into a section of the main event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know why you have such a problem with Snopes, but to my knowledge there's no issue with "snopes spammers" on this article. There are a lot of secondary sources that primarily cover the conspiracy theories and few (possibly none) that primarily cover the exercise. This might just be because the exercise hasn't happened yet. If that's the case, then presumably there will be sources that concern themselves with the details of the exercise (rather than the conspiracy theories) after the exercise begins. Until that's the case, though, we're going to go with the reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy 3 times this year I went to look for facts on an event and it would be Hijacked with conspiracy and one of the sites ALWAYS listed is snopes. This leaves me to believe that the real conspiracy here is Snopes. These people are not military. They have not infiltrated the military. They are not spies in the military. They have no spies in the military. Yet they are always listed on major events when it first comes out and hijack the event on wiki by having the event name conspiracy. This tells me that there is someone that is working in wiki to give these people traffic. This whole thing is actually stifling the flow of new information. THREE times this past year this has happened. Yet everyone is okay with this and turns a blind eye and defends this. This is a disgrace. 24.96.69.3 (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is not really the place for determining whether Snopes is a reliable source or for venting your frustrations about Snopes. Dyrnych (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Does not matter. I am done. I have concluded that wiki can no longer be a trusted source of information. They would rather push conspiracy theories to promote websites other than trying to get facts on real current events. Today is the day I am truly disappointed in not only wiki but the wikipedia community.I have used this site since 2007 as a source of information. I have always enjoyed it. I love reading. I never said so much as a peep. Here this past year. I just got tired of biting my tongue. Good luck with this mess and your promotion of parody sites. 05:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.69.3 (talk)

Wikipedia follows weight, which means that it presents views in accordance with their acceptance in mainstream sources. If you disagree with that approach, then argue about it on the policy pages. While it may be that the New World Order is closing Walmart stores to turn them into detention centers, until that is reported in mainstream media, this article cannot present that view as factual or even plausible. TFD (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a theory, it's a bunch of them.

Not all are cobbled together well enough to even count as conspiracy theories, but they're there, and even the dumbest ones are getting more attention than the actual unprecedented military operation.

So, this should be retitled Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. And, in 75 years or whenever it's officially safe to tell the truth, someone should start an article on the actual thing. Sounds spiffy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

A little sorry for not waiting for arguments/agreement, but it seemed too obvious for that. Though yeah, if you feel you have a strong case for a grand unified theory, you might be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

They are all variations of the same theory. It is typical of conspiracy theories anyway that adherents differ over details and their own beliefs are often contradictory. Each conspiracy theory however has some key element, in this case that the exercise is a cover for a U.S. government assault on civil liberties of patriotic Americans. TFD (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I hear that. But that common thread is also common through most of them. Same basic reason Johnson (allegedly) killed Kennedy, Bush (allegedly) made 9/11 and Obama (allegedly) did Sandy Hook. (Also note the common plural titles.) If "they" aren't trying to screw "us" out of some freedom or another, these things just don't gain traction.

And as things gain traction, there'll always be those who hop on board with their own spin, and some online news outlet to cover them. We're just at the tip of the iceberg today. As this draws closer, and especially after it begins, they'll keep getting more various. Oil, aliens, Allah, earthquakes, the whole usual nine yards. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Critical Thinking

I suggested that we have an article about the facts. Put on your thinking cap and decide what Winner 42 is trying to accomplish with the following input.

• "First off, can we drop the battleground attitude please." -- User:Winner 42.
• "All those articles which you point to are primarily about the conspiracy theories surrounding Jade 15" -- User:Winner 42.
• "We need sources about Jade 15 which do not discuss or focus on the theories" -- User:Winner 42.

If you feel that a factual article regarding this military exercise should be in Wikipedia, please explain why, as I have. If you feel that an article on a conspiracy theory should be here, please explain why. As it is now, folks looking for the facts can't rely on WP to provide them because the only article we have is on the conspiracy theory.Dscotese (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There are extensive reliable sources about the conspiracy theory, hence it meets notability, while there are no sources about the exercise itself, except as it relates to the conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, since nothing's actually happened yet, beyond planning. If the military starts sharing its national security plans with the press, that itself would be the bigger story. After it starts, it'll be news, even if it's only mysterious helicopters, closed roads and locals describing strange noises. That'll be the time to start an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dscotese: Are you accusing me of something? Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Winner 42: I am not accusing you of anything. I don't really understand how you got that impression. Perhaps there is some subconscious process in myself that I can't see. If you explain how you interpret my remark as an accusation, I might be able to see it.

@The Four Deuces: Can you explain why it matters what a source is about when it happens to contain relevant facts that are useful both to show notability and to help people understand a topic? I like to encourage the development of knowledge from disparate sources, which means basically ignoring the corral into which a writer tries to direct his audience so that the helpful information he provides can be used in relation to topics that he didn't intend to discuss. In order to enrich WP readers' knowledge, we ought not to concern ourselves with the subject of a source, but rather with what of its contents proves useful to our task.

@InedibleHulk: Can you elaborate on your point about the plans (which have been made and have been shared through the USASOC News Service) and the events that are planned (which have not yet taken place, and some of which have been canceled) in regards to the former not being news (despite the release from the USASOC News Service) and therefore failing to justify representation on Wikipedia? Doesn't WP rightfully contain a lot of factual information that might not be news, but is still useful, especially regarding items that cause controversy? Isn't one of the roles of WP to help people avoid the hype and get to the facts?

Dscotese (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs secondary source coverage, as in an outside observer discussing or analyzing something. A press release is primary, straight from the horse's mouth. Anyone can release one, but if the subject isn't covered (opposed to just reprinted) by the news, it's not news.

Doesn't have to be news, but it does need to be secondary and not www.infowars.com/the-truth-about-jade-helm-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} clearly "kooky".] Books, magazine articles, academic papers, all good. Here, we have facts about the theories, and a little about the exercise, but not enough for a standalone article. Yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is not enough information to justify a WP:NPOV article about "Jade Helm 15 Conspiracy Theories" unless the Jade Helm 15 plan and exercise is, itself, a notable event. There is a planned exercise, some concerns from citizens, a reaction from the Governor of Texas, and then ... Alex Jones. When users come to WikiPedia to find out about Jade Helm, the only available information is a conspiracy theory article. This implies "there is nothing to see here", or "it is all made up". The talk section above, Notability details reasons why the exercise itself is notable, but was dismissed out of hand (incorrectly, IMHO), based on WP:POV that notability was not factual and all controversy was false or fringe, including the Democratically elected Governor of Texas. Readers from certain areas of the north east or west coast of the U.S. may agree with a bias toward the southern U.S. states that all citizens there are crazy conspiracy theorists, and elect representatives of the same ilk to the highest offices, but reasonable people may simply assume that WP:NPOV is simply not taken seriously. Talk to me! 02:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squ1rr3l (talk • contribs)

Current consensus is that the article's current title and subject matter are appropriate. Almost all of the current reliable sources that cover Jade Helm 15 focus on the conspiracy theory that it represents a "takeover" of Texas. There's nothing special about democratically-elected officials that makes their statements presumptively correct or non-conspiracy-theory-driven. And I'm an Alabamian, so your statement implying regionalistic bias is odd. Dyrnych (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion of "consensus" is unsupported by facts. Whether the bias is based on regionalism, nationalism, or ideology is irrelevant, as the bias is clear, and fails WP:NPOV. "Conspiracy Theory" is a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone with an unpopular speculative opinion about any event. A common technique is to conflate anyone that, for instance, questions the knowledge or inaction of officials in the lead up to the 9/11 attacks, and speculate about the classified 28 pages, with people that claim missiles were used instead of airplanes and the 747s were secreted off to some isolated locale, possibly at the behest of lizard people. It's intended to discredit anyone that questions an official narrative from a specific source. In this article, it is used to smear the governor of Texas and anyone that questions the activities of the US military. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 15:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see the survey above. My "assertion of 'consensus'" is supported by the fact that, when surveyed, Wikipedia editors were generally in agreement that the article should be moved. That's the way Wikipedia works. And I'll let your statements about 9/11 above speak for themselves as to your own POV. Dyrnych (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This personal attack is uncalled-for. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a personal attack to suggest that—like any other editor—you have a point of view? Keep in mind that many of your comments above are about the bias of other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop it. You (in so many words) labeled me a "conspiracy theorist" because of an example I used to describe how it's used. The same technique used in the article to associate fringe (delusional) speculation with any questioning of an authority. It's a smear. And you have incorrectly (though intentionally) attributed that example as my POV. It doesn't belong here (and neither does this, and my apologies to everyone else for posting it). My comments were about issues with the article, not any editor. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 15:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. So either this article is a "regionalist" smear on those who actually believe the theory, or it's a WP:NPOV violation that lends the WP:FRINGE theory undue credence. It can't be both. GAB (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of examples of media reports today from Boston[2] and the UK[3]. Doug Weller (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's this confusion that is the problem with the article as a standalone "conspiracy theory" article. There is no information on Wikipedia regarding the exercise. Instead, it's about a conspiracy theory. This is akin to an article titled "JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories", with no article about the JFK assassination. The original article did discuss Jade Helm 15, but it was moved to a conspiracy theory only article, based on the claim that the exercise is not notable (discussed above), but somehow a conspiracy theory about it is. Jumbled together under the heading of "conspiracy theory" are issues surrounding the exercise, the unprecedented size and secrecy surrounding it, and the actions by the Texas governor. None of these are conspiracy theories, but they are covered here as if they are. Hence the confusion. IMHO, if Jade Helm 15 is not notable, this article is a candidate for deletion. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the vast majority of reliable sources discussing Jade Helm 15 cover the conspiracy theory. There have been numerous, prominent stories from multiple high-quality sources discussing the conspiracy theory. The details of the exercise have been a footnote to the conspiracy theory. Sure, at some point the exercise may warrant an article. But I have no doubt that, like other training exercises (e.g., Ice Exercise 2009), whatever article we eventually have for the exercise would be swallowed up by the conspiracy theory without a separate page for the conspiracy theory. Dyrnych (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering the secretive nature of the exercise, and the list of unknowns about it, saying an article about it would be swallowed up by conspiracy theory seems highly speculative, and premature. If it's all about conspiracy theory, let's delete it. The actual conspiracy theory material (a couple of paragraphs would probably cover it) can go into List_of_conspiracy_theories, and it's in the right place. And the rest can go into topics about Texas, Greg Abbott, or wherever. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 23:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Logo and Source Documents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JADE_HELM_LOGO.png is the correct logo.

Please watch the Big Spring City council meeting where this is presented, if you are unsure.

The logo is on the page immediately before the contact page for Thomas Mead et al (pg 11 of 12). https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3axduuybL0jdjZQUjhsSmJsZTA/edit

Thank you! FreedomYeahRight (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@FreedomYeahRight: Fair enough. A decent amount of hunting around didn't find any official use of it, but it's not really possible to search for images embedded in PDFs. Revent^talk 11:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I know right! That is precisely why I have been adding content to this article. You cannot get one piece of straight information about this exercise without wading through neck deep muck. FreedomYeahRight (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably pretty standard for Army exercises. In any case, the YouTube video fails WP:RS, as does the document link. See [4] which says "An unverified document circulating online includes a map purportedly labelling parts of Texas and Utah as an “insurgent pocket”. It’s titled: “US Army Special Operations Command — Request to Conduct Realistic Military Training (RMT) JADE HELM 15.”. FreedomYeahRight, User:Revent, please remove it. You can go to WP:RSN and ask if there are sources meeting WP:RS you can use. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:RS? I didn't think so. Youtube is not the source, ratherBig Spring, TX City Council Meeting 3-24-15 is. I could be wrong here, but WP:YOUTUBE states that there is no blanket ban on user submitted videos, provided you are "fairly certain that the content in the YouTube video is indeed actually from the source you are citing. Please take care to verify this". What is your line of reasoning, are you questioning the authenticity of the city council video? As for the document, the same document is presented in the video, its just a pain to browse through to find the shots where they pan to the screen. Your thoughts Mr. Weller?

That YouTube is the source, that there is no indication that this is an official video or that it can legitimately be posted there. As I said, take it to WP:RSN. It's possible you are right, it's possible this video is a hoax. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A hoax? You think? I guess we have to start an article for Conspiracy Theories about the Jade Helm Conspiracy Theories! :):):) 2602:306:80BC:2470:453D:9BA2:708E:4891 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is. But I have no evidence to verify any of this either. Doug Weller (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Now at WP:RSN#Can we use a Google doc for the log in Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. Doug Weller (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• We can't ignore that idea that just because it is used in some presentation, we can't assume that's the official logo for the exercise. Creating a visual aid to give civilians a familiar feel isn't necessarily policy. Funny, I recall on-going military exercises like Team Spirit and Reforger that were a much bigger scale but didn't have an "official logo".Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The Mission Accomplished banner ad was probably the most famous, reliably-sourceable decoration in an official American speech (or maybe Nixon's dog), but there was nothing official about it. Just symbolic. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the video of the meeting is almost undoubtedly genuine. Here is the agenda of that Big Spring City Council meeting, showing a presentation on Jade Helm by Thomas Mead as the first item under new business. Here are photos from the Austin American-Statesman of the hearing in Bastrop, including one showing the same man identified as "Thomas Mead, operations planner with the Jade Helm 15 military training exercise". Finally, here is coverage from NewsWest 9 in Midland, that includes clips from the same video with Thomas Mead identified by name.

While it's 'possible' that the PDF is fake, and spliced in to the video, I think that it's a bit unrealistic to think so. The logo might not be 'official', but it was apparently used. Revent^talk 16:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable, but is merely being used notable? If so, we should probably also describe the suit he wore. We need secondary sources talking about something to measure importance, in a Wikiway. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talking about notability here is incorrect, because notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. (BTW, it turns out that the Dylan Baddour that shared the PDF on Google Docs is a reporter for the Houston Chronicle, and there is an ABC news story that uses slides from it (though it does not show the logo itself). Revent^talk 17:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Here, actually, is where the Houston Chronicle reporter (Dylan Baddour) discusses and links to the briefing document, finally. (Search for a link named 'unclassified Army document') Somewhat amusingly, this same news story is reference #2 in the article. Revent^talk 17:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• While the notability guidelines may not apply, there is another use for the word notable. In this case it means something that isn't trivia and this logo thing is looking a lot like trivia. Someone in the video is wearing a white shirt. That isn't notable either. Including it is trivial. Again, this is operating on the premise that this is some official logo and that hasn't been established. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That was mostly what I meant by it. Why does it matter that they used this logo? Would the same logo mean more or less if someone else used it? Is the "human domain" arrows and knives with Scotch tape in the middle, or is that the way one masters it? What does anything mean here, including "Jade Helm"? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What are we even planning to do with it? Something for the infobox, or something to be described? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Jade Helm" is probably a typical meaningless operation name... two random words picked from a list by a computer. Don't think I'm arguing that the image should be included... I, tbh, don't really care, just found it interesting to establish the 'correct' basis for the debate. Like I said before, I couldn't find it used anywhere other than this one document, and in what looked rather like conspiracy blogs. Revent^talk 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It took longer to exclude the crap than I thought, but I finally found something about this human domain business that predates the crazy. At least the Internet sort. Still seems pretty crazy to me, but in the usual, boring "training more effective worldwide killers", not the diabolical "take 99% of American guns" way.

Might be useful if we're describing this bad boy. If it's just infobox art, best to leave it open to interpretation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note, per that source, the "humain domain" isn't just the physical environment within a conflict, but the cultural and social. So remain extra vigilant for Internet trolls this summer, especially on TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

See Also relevance.

Keep in mind, no matter what similarities we think we see between these theories and anything else, a source needs to make the same connection, or it's original research. I've taken something out of See Also for this reason, so if User:FreedomYeahRight wants to discuss here rather than revert war, that'd be the nicer option. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No desire for an revert war, I have the equivalent of Vietnam trying to keep the actual logo up. And FWIW, Robin Sage was mentioned in the main washington post article. So, I added it (per your suggestion) to the body. Best regards. FreedomYeahRight (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Logo and Source Documents Revisited

It's intriguing to see how much effort is being placed on removing this logo(!?). Here is the logo, presentation and audio from a 100 year old radio station in college station. And...the news story referenced predates even the USASOC press release by a month.

Green Berets are Coming to Aggie Land 02-26-2015

I will update my logo file reference and restore the logo, however; if you are going to take it down again...please make a salient point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomYeahRight (talk • contribs) 00:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, the fact that it might have been used somewhere by someone isn't in dispute. The age of the radio station has nothing to do with it. The NY Times, which is older and much bigger, has published stuff that turned out to be false. The fact is, you actually have no source that confirms it's an official logo. What you do have is a lot of conjecture. As an encyclopedia, we don't put something out there as a fact when we don't know that it is. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Niteshift36. We can confirm that it was used at a meeting and on a website; we can't confirm that it's an accurate logo. And even if we could confirm its accuracy as a logo, it doesn't add much to the article. Dyrnych (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You guys are a riot. I am going to email Barack Obama and get him to send an engraved marble tablet documenting the authenticity of the logo. Its going to take me a couple days, but I will be back.FreedomYeahRight (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• You could try that. Or you could do legitimate research. Or.... you could ask yourself why the majority of military exercises don't have an official logo, but somehow this boogeyman does? That should really make you wonder. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Or you could find an instance of the Army actually referencing the image or the document. Honestly, I don't know why it's useful or helpful to include the image in the first place.

(edit) My bad, I thought we were still referencing the city council meeting from above. I think this is probably a reliable source for the document—not a great source, but a reliable one. I stand by my comment about the utility of the image, though. Dyrnych (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again, I wouldn't disbelieve that someone made up an unofficial one for a powerpoint or something, but I remember how my platoon also had a logo we used on t-shirts and painted on the wall of our platoon office.....didn't make it an official army logo that belongs in an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

All official U.S. Army (and Army.mil) logos can be downloaded here. I didn't check them, but if someone wants to, and this isn't there, that's all she wrote. At least for officiality. Still might be notable, if there's a secondary (or two) noting why. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sticking with Army.mil, this seems to be the most official related logo. Just one knife here, but apparently bigger than the "Human Domain" ones combined. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• And that's just part of the the USASOC crest. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, "Saber Strike" sounds much more ominous. Why aren't Polish people, pundits and politicians freaking out? Or are they? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And I just finally understood what the 15 part of "Jade Helm 15" means! One down, two to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Pay no attention to that logo behind the curtain!" hahahaha FreedomYeahRight (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Related conspiracy theory – comet or asteroid impact

A new section with this title was deleted with the comment "interesting, but we'd need several reliable sources connecting the two, otherwise it's Wikipedia making the connection". The following references have a title that makes the connection between the Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories and an upcoming apocalypse: The Huffington Post, Daily Express, and Daily Mirror. The section that was deleted had references that connected the two in the text of the references. Please discuss the deletion of properly referenced material on the talk page. I restored the section with these references added:

Obankston (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Interesting that most of the coverage I can find out this is from the UK or another foreign source. Apparently most of the US MSM has decided to not feed the conspiracy trolls. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And neither should we... - Cwobeel (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I, too, noticed that U.S. sources are not covering the issue. But this is the English Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia, so the issue needs to be covered. After all, this is an article on conspiracy theories. I attempted to be as NPOV as possible, by including both sides of each point with references. Obankston (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

All News PipeLine first reported on Jade Helm and embedded the original Jade Helm documents that were linked, via SCRIBD, on March 13, 2015. Under Media, you have Alex Jones reporting on March 19th. SEE- http://allnewspipeline.com/Jade_Helm_2015.php - SEE ORIGINAL REPORT FROM March 13, 2015. SEE ORIGINAL document release dated March 13, 2015.- https://www.scribd.com/doc/258605525/Jade-Helm-Martial-Law-WW3-Prep-Document-1

SEE ORIGINAL VIDEO DATED March 13, 2015 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ5yIEirNGY

Thank you for correcting the incorrect information listed info under the MEDIA category.

2001:5B0:2268:ACC0:40A9:4517:404E:7CF (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The current text is not incorrect. It does not claim Jones was the first to begin spreading the theory, just that he began spreading on the 19th. Stickee (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015

This page is intentionally biased, in the first paragraph it insults and discredits the conspiracy theory with inflammatory rhetoric. The reference to the biased remarks of the NY Times in the first paragraph should be removed. Thank you, 22MDPHD22 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The lead, while short and needing expansion, accurately reflects reliable sources in accordance with WP:FRINGE. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Jade Helm 15

I think it's time to create the actual Jade Helm 15 article about the exercise itself (and maybe merge the theories there). It started yesterday and it's notable enough. Most news articles do seem to mention the theories and concerns etc but that's not the only reason why it's notable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that there's enough information about the exercise itself to support a standalone article, go for it. I would oppose a merge into that article, though; the conspiracy theory would necessarily dominate the factual material. Dyrnych (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's probably true, actually. So I would not necessarily support a merge, but I would support the creation of a separate article for the exercise itself -- I'm not volunteering to do it myself though... :x — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Count me in for "someone else do that", too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

are you mocking me ;_; — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Just agreeing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Strong support. As a reader I expect the military rationale behind the exercise. The brief numbers and units mentioned here are not enough.--Aruck (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion

How about an actual page on what happened, some of the criticisms and if you want a small segment based on whatever this page is supposed to be about? Criticisms would include the claims of federal abuse of power and intrusion on the states, and that they are training for martial law which is obviously very controversial 97.91.188.153 (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you're interested in an article on the exercise, itself, in which case go gather some reliable sources and go for it! Regarding the 'criticisms' you reference, they, too, require reference in SECONDARY sources - i.e., sources that aren't themselves the critical 'voice.' Also understand that the notability of the exercise, in itself, is an entirly separate issue from the notability of conspiracy theories surrounding it. And consensus has long agreed upon the notability of the latter, as informed by countless reliable secondary sources. That in reality, exercise events unfolded as un-notably as they did - that is, failing to substantiate any conspiratorial fears - makes them all the more, not less, notable within a conspiratorial, rather than purely topical, framework. 71.91.30.188 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231154154/http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ to http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/

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) 09:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Caddo Lake is not a city

It’s a lake. Kar98 (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)