This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Recent edits 'on the more common conspiracy theory' represent the leading theory, which is that the event was a (classified) training exercise modeled on 'full spectrum' or 'capstone' training exercises, most notably the canceled Operation Closed Campus. In the book co-authored by Fetzer and Tracy, who are the leading Sandy Hook theorists, the operation is discussed at length. If we cut down on the number of nouns listed that is fine, but I think it's appropriate to demonstrate what full spectrum means (especially involvement of prosecutors, medical examiners, hospitals, media, etc.), since this wouldn't be clear to most readers. Exceedingly few theorists have claimed anytime recently (anytime after December 2012/January 2013) that children were actually killed by the government in a conventional false-flag shooting, certainly no high-profile theorists. Thus, the 'more common theory' warrants separation by a new paragraph. Slatersteven, what language are you unsure of? WillieP100 (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure it is worded in a way that reflects the fact these are wholly unsubstantiated claims (and not uncovered facts). Nor do I think we need this level of details about one or two persons claims without third-party analysis of said claims (especially as this is a BLP about allegations of wrongdoing).Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is unsubstantiated? Fetzer and Tracy's book, which claims the shooting was modeled on Operation Closed Campus, was cited. The details of the operation (agencies/personnel involved, that it was canceled and why) are linked via three reliable sources. We could just say 'full-spectrum,' but most people aren't aware of what that means, and it only takes up 1-1.5 lines to explain. EDIT: I'm assuming you're BLP concerns are referring to Fetzer claims about the parents. I'll remove those for now and restore what is in the lede, but they do accurately summate what is claimed in Fetzer's book, without stating they are factually true. WillieP100 (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well for a start the claim it was "the shooting was modeled on Operation Closed Campus" has not been. As has the claim about house purchases, and people moving away from a place where their kids got shot...well that is odd. We need third party analysis of these claims, not just repeating them as if they are facts.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was modeled on it, I said Fetzer and Tracy, who are the most well known theorists, stated that it was modeled on it in the book that they published and I cited. Just read the source cited and you will see that I'm correct. I agree that it's odd, whether or not it's indicative of anything untoward is another matter. I did remove the sections about the home sales pending this discussion (though I described it as the claim of Fetzer, who lost a lawsuit which may cast doubt on his credibility). I'm not making personal claims about the event, I'm stating what Fetzer Tracy and others' theories are, since that is relevant to the article. In every edit, it says Person X claimed, stated, asserted, argues, etc. Not that it is fact.WillieP100 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its not suitable for the lede, the body maybe, but the lede if as a summary of the article, not for details that are not even in the article. And (As I said) the issue was how it was worded. We cannot use language that even implies this may be true. Please undo your addition to the lede and move it to the appropriate sections?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And "Operation Closed Campus" was canceled (after threats) [[1]], we need to say that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few minutes to make some changes. It seems to have been both threats and public outcry. Will mention both.WillieP100 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to reflect both threats and outcry. I tightened it up and think it's fairly succinct (takes up one line). OCC needs to be mentioned since it is the real-world basis for theorists' training-exercise beliefs, which otherwise would just be products of imagination/out of left field. Almost all of the CT material on the subject concentrates on attempting to draw parallels between OCC and like exercises and what they observed at Sandy Hook.WillieP100 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the body, the lede is a summary, only. And no we do not need to mention this, as it proves or demonstrates nothing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely relevant. The point is not whether it proves anything or convinces you or me or anyone else. The article is about Sandy Hook CTs. It is an exposition of the theories, an exposition of arguments against the theories, and societal context around the theories; it's supposed to be an objective look at the phenomenon, not a proving or debunking. Therefore, there can be some fundamental details given/introduced about the theories (again, it's one line) in the lede that are fleshed out more in the body, per typical style in encyclopedias and general writing.WillieP100 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detail are for the body, and much of this is not even in the body (such as the name of the operation).Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly to omit the 3-word name and say 'a canceled full-spectrum Iowa training exercise', when people have no idea what full-spectrum means. A detailed coverage of OCC as discussed in the sources would take several paragraphs, and this is one short clause that takes up 1.5 lines total. I'll see if I can tighten it up anymore.WillieP100 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No "Omit" MOVE. And yes, we give details, if we mention it we need context.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the entire basis of the main CT material is a COMPARISON of Sandy Hook and the OCC template, it's silly and inappropriate to exclude a few explanatory words from the lede (now half a line) on the grounds that it's unwieldy.WillieP100 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOt unwieldy, not policy compliant, the lede is a summary, not a newspaper style leader. This is my last word on the subject, read the policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is an absolutely relevant, core fact about the CTs that takes up half a line. It is just as relevant as the fact that they believe it was a training exercise, since it directly inspired/caused the belief. I removed all the details about what the drill involved and put them in your new paragraph.WillieP100 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What sources say the training exercise is the most common conspiracy theory?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The large majority of the sources cited deal with the theory that it never happened, which I'd estimate constitutes over 99% of the Sandy Hook CT content since early 2013. People believe the government has been involved in violent false flag operations, but rarely with respect to Sandy Hook. The overwhelming focus of counter-Sandy Hook CT organizations (e.g. HONR) mentioned is challenging the idea that it never happened (calling CTs 'hoaxers' etc).WillieP100 (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? What has this to do with the claim that the claim the training exercise is "the more common conspiracy theory" needs sourcing? And read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK then if it's really a concern should we say 'primary' or main or whatever? Do you really want to have 50 citations after that statement (which would outweigh the small number of citations dealing with theories involving violence)? I think it's fine as is. There have been a handful of theories involving violence which are mentioned beforehand in the first paragraph, but the large majority of the article deals with the never-happened theory, so it's appropriate to note its greater popularity.WillieP100 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the 'more common' phrase refers to the general idea that it was faked/didn't happen, not necessarily to the training exercise theory (though in fact that is the most common theory), which is said to be specific to 'Fetzer Tracy and others.'WillieP100 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it says that Fetzer Tracy and others most commonly believe it didn't happen, and that Fetzer and Tracy specifically believe it was a training exercise. Those two things aren't necessarily related, the way it reads.WillieP100 (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are part of the same sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it explicitly says who believes what, and what 'most common' is referring to. The training-exercise theory is a subcategory of never-happened and is not at odds with it. It's a long sentence but there is really no lack of clarity.WillieP100 (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and as far as I can tell neither of the sources even mention the training exercise.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed disseminated to adopted, to make the never-happened belief seem less tied to their actions/under their control. Much of Fetzer and Tracy's cited material goes into great detail on the exercise theory, including a 400-page book titled 'it was a FEMA drill' that was written by both of them.WillieP100 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the break you put in. To tie up this discussion, I don't really think there are any BLP concerns around the home-sales thing, since it's clear that it's Fetzer's claim and comes from his book, and is not being presented as a generally accepted fact. It's also made clear in the article that a jury disagreed with him about his overall beliefs. The home-sales parent-age/moving things are a significant part of Fetzer's theory (and are frequently cited by most other Sandy Hook theorists), so should be mentioned. If you have any concerns around that let me know.WillieP100 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing more to add to what I have said above, I do not agree its relevant or informative, and violated wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is an explanation of the theories not relevant or informative in an article about the theories? How does it violate BLP if someone believed it was true (and it was noted that a jury found it to be false)? It's already stated in no uncertain terms here that the Sandy Hook CTs are false, but they should be explained for informational purposes.WillieP100 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time for others to chip in now. I can't say more than wp:fringewp:undue and wp:rs. It does not matter what they think, what matters is what others think of their theories. Also wp:crime may come into it, as this is what these are accusations of criminal activity. We cannot include this kind of accusation without explanation or commentary. We need RS to discuss this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely ridiculous to have an article about a subject (theories), but then you can't even explain what those theories are. I'll keep out the home-sales part.WillieP100 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have consensus, so stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UNsure, I am not sure him or his views are all that relevant. But if we mention his views we should mention they have (successfully) challenged in a court of law.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
